Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > If you had any doubt the GOP was intentionally obstructing job creation ...

View Poll Results: Is this a clear cut example of the GOP obstructing job creation?
Poll Options:
Yes 3 votes (60.00%)
No 2 votes (40.00%)
Voters: 5. You may not vote on this poll
If you had any doubt the GOP was intentionally obstructing job creation ...
Thread Tools
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2012, 02:27 PM
 
Senate Republicans on Thursday blocked the No.1 item on the president's congressional "to-do-list," refusing to allow a vote on a bill that would give tax breaks for companies that "insource" jobs to the U.S. from overseas while eliminating tax deductions for companies that move jobs abroad.

In voting against the bill, Republicans raised both substantive and procedural problems with the measure.

The bill, which needed 60 votes in order for the Senate to begin debating it, was defeated on a vote of 56-42.

With job creation the top issue this campaign season, and outsourcing being blamed as a big contributor to the high unemployment rate, Democrats saw the bill as an election-year winner. Sponsored by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, who is running for reelection, the bill made it to the top of the "to-do list" for Congress President Barack Obama unveiled earlier this year.

The Bring Jobs Home Act would provide a 20% tax break for the costs of moving jobs back to the United States and would rescind business expense deductions available to companies that are associated with the cost of moving operations overseas.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, had warned Democrats before the vote that his party would want to amend the bill -- possibly with hot-button issues like repealing the health care reform law or extending the Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, responded that those amendments were not germane to the bill and he would not allow votes on them.

In addition, Republican aides called attention to opposition by business groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, who generally support Republicans.

In a letter to senators this week, the Chamber of Commerce called the bill "misguided" and said it "would hamper American worldwide companies' competitiveness, increase complexity in the Internal Revenue Code, and threaten economic growth."

The Chamber said it would count how senators voted on this motion in their annual "How they Voted" scorecard.
GOP senators block top Obama jobs initiative - CNN.com

A simple bill. A 20% tax deduction for the business expenses related to bring jobs back to the US. And the elimination of the ability of US companies to deduct business expenses associated with moving jobs overseas. A no-brainer by any measure in a struggling economy with a high unemployment rate. So the way I see it, either ...

A) The GOP actually believes that US taxpayers should subsidize American companies shipping jobs overseas.

or

B) The GOP really doesn't believe this but they are using their inability to file amendments on unrelated issues as an excuse to thwart President Obama. Banking on the generally inattentive US electorate to blame the President for the slowdown in job creation and not GOP obstructionism in the 2012 election.

What say you?

OAW
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2012, 03:06 PM
 
This plan works 100 times better than just extending bush tax cuts.

Give a reason for business to keep jobs in the US.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2012, 04:27 PM
 
This wasn't a vote on a bill, this was a vote to fast-track a bill out of committee. The statement in the article "in voting against the bill, Republicans..." is at best meant to be unclear, and at worst is flat-out deceptive.

It's shit like this that made me not trust the voter suppression stories without doing due diligence on my part.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2012, 05:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This wasn't a vote on a bill, this was a vote to fast-track a bill out of committee. The statement in the article "in voting against the bill, Republicans..." is at best meant to be unclear, and at worst is flat-out deceptive.
It's shit like this that made me not trust the voter suppression stories without doing due diligence on my part.
You are not making any sense.

How is this unclear and deceptive?

In voting against the bill, Republicans raised both substantive and procedural problems with the measure.

The bill fell four votes short of the 60 needed to bring it to debate, with 42 voting against it. Four GOP senators -- Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Dean Heller of Nevada -- voted in favor of the bill.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
OAW  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2012, 05:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This wasn't a vote on a bill, this was a vote to fast-track a bill out of committee. The statement in the article "in voting against the bill, Republicans..." is at best meant to be unclear, and at worst is flat-out deceptive.
It's shit like this that made me not trust the voter suppression stories without doing due diligence on my part.
I daresay this is a distinction without a difference. As we all know the GOP has utilized the filibuster at UNPRECENTED levels since President Obama took office. So a procedural vote, which requires a supermajority of 60, against holding an actual vote on the legislation itself is effectively a vote to kill legislation that would otherwise pass with a simple majority of 51.

OAW
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2012, 05:14 PM
 
subego is grasping for straws and attacking the messenger because Republicans are anti-jobs and subego couldn't defend their actions.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2012, 07:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
I daresay this is a distinction without a difference.
I think it makes a shitload of difference if you purport to be an impartial purveyor of news, specifically because it's a distinction between what actually happened versus an editorial position.

I might even agree with the position, but I don't ****ing report it as news.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2012, 07:19 PM
 
After doing some digging here's my opinion.

This is all theatre.

The Democrats have realized everything they throw out will be filibustered unless they move on what the Republicans want, so the Democrats are throwing out stuff which sounds good, and can then rally the troops behind how evil the Republicans are for blocking it. This is exactly what's happening here in this thread. Mission accomplished.

If this was meant as a serious amendment to tax code, it would have went through the Finance Committee, a committee the bill's author is herself on. That's what the Finance Committee does, they write tax code.

The reason they do that is because tax code is melt your brain complicated. You can't just outlaw something in two paragraphs, which is what the bill does. It's not practical law, it basically says "we do this" without any thought given to how that would be accomplished.

Again, why bother? The bill isn't going to pass. You can promise a unicorn in every pot. The details don't matter, since it's never going to happen anyway.

Did I mention the author of the bill is up for reelection?

Like I said, theatre. Well done too. The Democrats are finally learning how the game is played.



I need to go vomit now.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2012, 09:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
After doing some digging here's my opinion.
This is all theatre.
The Democrats have realized everything they throw out will be filibustered unless they move on what the Republicans want, so the Democrats are throwing out stuff which sounds good, and can then rally the troops behind how evil the Republicans are for blocking it. This is exactly what's happening here in this thread. Mission accomplished.
If this was meant as a serious amendment to tax code, it would have went through the Finance Committee, a committee the bill's author is herself on. That's what the Finance Committee does, they write tax code.
The reason they do that is because tax code is melt your brain complicated. You can't just outlaw something in two paragraphs, which is what the bill does. It's not practical law, it basically says "we do this" without any thought given to how that would be accomplished.
Again, why bother? The bill isn't going to pass. You can promise a unicorn in every pot. The details don't matter, since it's never going to happen anyway.
Did I mention the author of the bill is up for reelection?
Like I said, theatre. Well done too. The Democrats are finally learning how the game is played.
I need to go vomit now.
Can you smell you own BS?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s3364/text

It's a simple 12 page bill that outlines how businesses can get a 20% tax deduction for the business expenses by keeping jobs here.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2012, 10:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Can you smell you own BS?
If you can't maintain a basic level of civility towards me I have nothing to say to you.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2012, 10:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If you can't maintain a basic level of civility towards me I have nothing to say to you.
Because I'm calling out your BS with facts? You have made 2 BS statements using Republican talking points.

First attacking CNN accusing them of lying or being misleading, which isn't true.
Then attacking the bill for not being a real bill, which isn't true.

Both were BS arguments on your part.


The House pass a tax cut bill in April called the Small Business Tax Cut Act, sponsor by Rep. Eric Cantor.

The Senate introduce a similar bill called the Bring Jobs Home Act, which include the requirement to keep jobs in the US.

Both bills are about giving small business a 20% tax cut, and both bill are less than 16 pages long and outlines how a small business can get a 20% tax cuts.


But instead of focusing on fact, you are just making up BS arguments like this Bring Jobs Home Act isn't really a bill and it's only 2 paragraphs.



Were you offended with the word 'BS'? Would you prefer me to use a different word or a different wording so I won't hurt your feelings?

How about:

You are lying.
You are making up stuff.
None of what you said are true.
Get your facts straight.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Because I'm calling out your BS with facts?
No, because you behave like an ass and people are sick of it. Grow up.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2012, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
No, because you behave like an ass and people are sick of it. Grow up.
Adults act like an ass all the time. Just look at this forum. I'm no the only one. Lots of right-wing asses here.

Still doesn't change the fact that subego just made up BS.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 30, 2012, 03:51 AM
 
So the Democrats in the senate (THOSE IN THE MAJORITY) couldn't get it done? Who cares? Reid has made SURE nothing gets out of the senate. How about that pipeline?


You GO, rep. Kelly!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=F1YQDjpuY_U
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:04 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,