Barack Obama's $447 billion American Jobs Act: 'stop the political circus' - Polidicks

I followed the republican ant-obama band wagon since he was elected. After the past few years taking US History and US Government classes I am becoming more and more moderate to the point I'm more towards the democrat side. This next election will be the first time I'll ever be able to vote. After hearing this speech and all the things proposed in it, I know who I will be voting for. And I'll proudly do it. I just hope he gets on congress like a hawk in the next term to make sure they cooperate and get progress in motion.

[QUOTE=Mr. Sun;32223282]I followed the republican ant-obama band wagon since he was elected. After the past few years taking US History and US Government classes I am becoming more and more moderate to the point I'm more towards the democrat side. This next election will be the first time I'll ever be able to vote. After hearing this speech and all the things proposed in it, I know who I will be voting for. And I'll proudly do it. I just hope he gets on congress like a hawk in the next term to make sure they cooperate and get progress in motion.[/QUOTE] Then you're exactly the kind of idiot he hopes will vote for him. He can say all the things he fucking wants to. Vote for someone based on their actions, not their words. All Obama has done so far is cave to the Republicans on every single goddamned thing. He's got no spine. The speech was just repeating all the same empty rhetoric he was talking back in 2008 when he was elected the first time. and look how much of that he's done.

Yes, Obama is a shitty president, but the Republican alternatives are much worse.

[QUOTE=Ridge;32223593]Then you're exactly the kind of idiot he hopes will vote for him. He can say all the things he fucking wants to. Vote for someone based on their actions, not their words. All Obama has done so far is cave to the Republicans on every single goddamned thing. He's got no spine. The speech was just repeating all the same empty rhetoric he was talking back in 2008 when he was elected the first time. and look how much of that he's done.[/QUOTE] Who else would he vote for?

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;32223655]Who else would he vote for?[/QUOTE] I'd say Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton would be the least flawed.

[QUOTE=Ridge;32223681]I'd say Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton would be the least flawed.[/QUOTE] Hillary Clinton isn't running, and Ron Paul is a joke.

[QUOTE=Ond kaja;32223632]Yes, Obama is a shitty president, but the Republican alternatives are much worse.[/QUOTE] This is what I was basing my current view on. And seeing him go on in his first term he seems to have gotten a little bit better with trying to get the two sides to cooperate. Its not like theres much of a choice. I'm not an idiot :/ because of that.

[QUOTE=Ridge;32223593]Then you're exactly the kind of idiot he hopes will vote for him. He can say all the things he fucking wants to. Vote for someone based on their actions, not their words. All Obama has done so far is cave to the Republicans on every single goddamned thing. He's got no spine. The speech was just repeating all the same empty rhetoric he was talking back in 2008 when he was elected the first time. and look how much of that he's done.[/QUOTE] [img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/16550652/1315678370145.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Ridge;32223593]Then you're exactly the kind of idiot he hopes will vote for him. He can say all the things he fucking wants to. Vote for someone based on their actions, not their words. All Obama has done so far is cave to the Republicans on every single goddamned thing. He's got no spine. The speech was just repeating all the same empty rhetoric he was talking back in 2008 when he was elected the first time. and look how much of that he's done.[/QUOTE] as if the president is immediately a god who can move mountains the current mountain in the way is the GOP, who really have been acting as an anti-obama party since he's been elected you can't expect obama to give everything and the GOP to give nothing, especially since they've been acting so childish(/insane) and threatening to throw a temper tantrum(/kill his dog) if their policies aren't passed. furthermore, the central problem is in the democratic party in general. leaders are supposed to lead, of course, however in a democratic system a leader is supposed to recieve input and suggestions from those which he/she leads. the democratic party doesn't have an agenda, or central message. they are, quite simply put, only defending themselves from the GOP instead of pushing back against them. don't defend funding for social programs, push forward extra funding for them etc

[QUOTE=joes33431;32224212]as if the president is immediately a god who can move mountains the current mountain in the way is the GOP, who really have been acting as an anti-obama party since he's been elected you can't expect obama to give everything and the GOP to give nothing, especially since they've been acting so childish(/insane) and threatening to throw a temper tantrum(/kill his dog) if their policies aren't passed. furthermore, the central problem is in the democratic party in general. leaders are supposed to lead, of course, however in a democratic system a leader is supposed to recieve input and suggestions from those which he/she leads. the democratic party doesn't have an agenda, or central message. they are, quite simply put, only defending themselves from the GOP instead of pushing back against them. don't defend funding for social programs, push forward extra funding for them etc[/QUOTE] This. The president doesn't have some magical ability to ram something he wants through the House or Senate, so saying you should "judge him on actions" is foolish when the most he can do is put forward ideas. The Democratic Party would catch so much shit if they tried to be anywhere near as rigid and ideological as the GOP.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32224573]This. The president doesn't have some magical ability to ram something he wants through the House or Senate, so saying you should "judge him on actions" is foolish when the most he can do is put forward ideas. The Democratic Party would catch so much shit if they tried to be anywhere near as rigid and ideological as the GOP.[/QUOTE] He had the Senate and the House for 2 years. He could have done pretty much anything he wanted and the Republicans wouldn't be able to stop him. And Democratic Party would catch hell from......Fox News.

I like how ridge keeps going constantly "he's spineless!" Like that matters considering the alternative. [editline]10th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;32224679]He had the Senate and the House for 2 years. He could have done pretty much anything he wanted and the Republicans wouldn't be able to stop him. And Democratic Party would catch hell from......Fox News.[/QUOTE] They still filibustered the fuck outta everything, which was a waste of time for everyone

[QUOTE=Ridge;32223593]Vote for someone based on their actions, not their words. All Obama has done so far is cave to the Republicans on every single goddamned thing. He's got no spine. The speech was just repeating all the same empty rhetoric he was talking back in 2008 when he was elected the first time. and look how much of that he's done.[/QUOTE] Obama demonstrated in that speech that he is willing to rail on the Republicans if need be. The fact that he set up a political minefield for Republicans to manuever through, the fact that he specifically called out Republican contradictions and aid in the Bill, that shows that he is anything but spineless. That shows that he's willing to attack his enemies when he feels he needs to. He just has never felt like he needed to as strongly as he did now. That, and the actions Obama has demonstrated are 10x more Presidential than his opponents. Obama never resorted to the petty attempts at political attacks that the Tea Party's candidates have repeatedly demonstrated. The ignorance and inability to understand the other side that composes the Tea Party is appalling. I don't see how any Tea Party candidate, which is what the GOP mostly has going for them save Romney, is a worthy opposition to Obama.

[QUOTE=Reimu;32224813]Obama demonstrated in that speech that he is willing to rail on the Republicans if need be. The fact that he set up a political minefield for Republicans to manuever through, the fact that he specifically called out Republican contradictions and aid in the Bill, that shows that he is anything but spineless. That shows that he's willing to attack his enemies when he feels he needs to. He just has never felt like he needed to as strongly as he did now. That, and the actions Obama has demonstrated are 10x more Presidential than his opponents. Obama never resorted to the petty attempts at political attacks that the Tea Party's candidates have repeatedly demonstrated. The ignorance and inability to understand the other side that composes the Tea Party is appalling. I don't see how any Tea Party candidate, which is what the GOP mostly has going for them save Romney, is a worthy opposition to Obama.[/QUOTE] Romney, Huntsman and Karger. Romney is old hat and the other two are virtual unknowns so I doubt they'll be elected anytime soon.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;32225122]Romney, Huntsman and Karger. Romney is old hat and the other two are virtual unknowns so I doubt they'll be elected anytime soon.[/QUOTE] Only Huntsman and Roehmer are respectable, and they're at less than 1%.

Roehmer? [editline]10th September 2011[/editline] Oh another candidate I missed

[QUOTE=Lambeth;32225228]Roehmer? [editline]10th September 2011[/editline] Oh another candidate I missed[/QUOTE] Yeah, he's socially Conservative, but I like him at least a little bit because he's pushing for a big "get money out of politics" proposal that limits campaign donations from any one entity to $100 or less.

[QUOTE=Ridge;32223681]I'd say Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton would be the least flawed.[/QUOTE] Why would anyone somewhat, barely, or even remotely left leaning vote for Ron Paul ever.

[QUOTE=Billiam;32225433]Why would anyone somewhat, barely, or even remotely left leaning vote for Ron Paul ever.[/QUOTE] Because they think he's all about "freedom".

I don't see the huge appeal with Ron Paul. I admire that he doesn't necessarily follow the mold. But I've watched him debate, and he beats around the bush and dodges questions like any other politician. He's still a politician at heart. And some of his ideas are just off the rocker.

I respect Ron Paul for being a little more straightforward and honest than most about his answers and beliefs, but there's not much about his actual policies and ideas that appeal to me.

[QUOTE=Ridge;32223681]I'd say Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton would be the least flawed.[/QUOTE] Ron Paul will turn things into state level chaos. [editline]10th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Ridge;32224679]He had the Senate and the House for 2 years. He could have done pretty much anything he wanted and the Republicans wouldn't be able to stop him. And Democratic Party would catch hell from......Fox News.[/QUOTE] You repeat this EVERY. FUCKING. THREAD. But you have no memory of what you were saying when those events were occuring do you? I don't need to go through your post history, but you were supporting the filibusters. Those filibusters that happened and were the reason no bipartisanship existed. Republican malice and maneuvering damaged whatever bills Obama did get through. After. Respecting. Republicans. Uselessly. His ideas may not have been perfect, but republicans fucked them up for the sake of their own ego's and you still want to defend them? And yes, it was malice that is behind a lot of this. The last few years of the GOP they've become a lot more aggressive and forthwith for their pretty much outright hate of "liberals" and democrats, even one of the heads of the GOP even stated their goal was to make Obama a one term president. To me, someone who's meddling with things for the sake of their own ego's and elections, it would seem that they're the bad guys, and that there's far more blame to go on them. If things had worked out and Obama had pushed his bills through, you'd be sitting here now saying how bad Obama is and how fucking oppressive he is.

[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;32189585] The middle class doesn't need a tax cut to make working more attractive. And unemployed people aren't going to be like, "Finally, payroll taxes were cut, time to find a job I guess." [/QUOTE] I don't know if this point has already been countered, but the tax cut's aren't for making working more attractive, it's supposed to make [b]hiring[/b] more attractive. You seem to forget that it's the companies who control who's hired or fired, not the people.

[QUOTE=DanTehMan;32228674]I don't know if this point has already been countered, but the tax cut's aren't for making working more attractive, it's supposed to make [b]hiring[/b] more attractive. You seem to forget that it's the companies who control who's hired or fired, not the people.[/QUOTE] Income taxes don't affect company profits.

[QUOTE=Billiam;32228698]Income taxes don't affect company profits.[/QUOTE] The payroll tax cut is not a cut in income tax rates.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/0B06B.png[/IMG] lol

[QUOTE=Ridge;32224679]He had the Senate and the House for 2 years. He could have done pretty much anything he wanted and the Republicans wouldn't be able to stop him. And Democratic Party would catch hell from......Fox News.[/QUOTE] I don't buy this argument for even one second. As HumanAbyss said, you know damn well that if the Democrats just rammed things through the Congress (if even possible amidst filibuster after filibuster), you'd just call them oppressive.

The bill will certainly temporarily lower unemployment, essentially through a means of lowering the minimum wage. Though the figures may change as the specifics of the plan aren't known, as of now the average employer would be paying their employee $3.40 an hour with the government making up the rest of it. There are different plans for war vets, so this figure drops quite a lot. With disabled vets, the government actually ends up paying the employer about a $1.00 to hire the worker, and this could lead to some bad results as the employer will have no incentive to keep the worker on their payroll after the six months. Really, this would be a real loop hole, and worse, after the six months, there is no reason for the employer to keep the worker. The same goes for many of these workers here, because though a worker may be valuable at $3.40 an hour with the tax credit, are the employers likely to make up the difference six months later? In general, I don't think so. Worse, who is this cheap labor going to compete with? Mid-skilled labor. This is likely to have a negative effect on low-mid income earners who already have a job. If you're wondering how those numbers are made, it's through the average number of hours worked in six months, in junction with the tax credit. In my state, minimum wage is $7.50. The average weekly working hours are 40, and there are 26 weeks in 6 months. 7.50 * 40 * 26 = $7800 So the minimum wage worker should make $7800 in that time. If this bill passes, the employer will get a $4000 tax credit for hiring someone who had been out of work for 6 months or longer. So we subtract this number from that and do some division, we get the per hour pay. Turns out to be $3.65 an hour, which is off the number I was given, but that was probably calculated using a different minimum wage. The tax credit for a disabled vet is $9600 I believe, which results in the government paying you to hire them.

[QUOTE=Pepin;32229918]The bill will certainly temporarily lower unemployment, essentially through a means of lowering the minimum wage. Though the figures may change as the specifics of the plan aren't known, as of now the average employer would be paying their employee $3.40 an hour with the government making up the rest of it. There are different plans for war vets, so this figure drops quite a lot. With disabled vets, the government actually ends up paying the employer about a $1.00 to hire the worker, and this could lead to some bad results as the employer will have no incentive to keep the worker on their payroll after the six months. Really, this would be a real loop hole, and worse, after the six months, there is no reason for the employer to keep the worker. The same goes for many of these workers here, because though a worker may be valuable at 3.40 an hour with the tax credit, are the employers likely to make up the difference six months later? In general, I don't think so. Worse, who is this cheap labor going to compete with? Higher skilled labor. This is likely to have a negative effect on low-mid income earners who already have a job.[/QUOTE] The point is that something needs to be done to at least temporarily alleviate unemployment, and nothing that involves government or is any "bigger" than this plan is going to pass the Congress. Nearly everything I hear from you is critical and negative, so perhaps try being conciliatory for once?