• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nice Job Harry

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jhhnn said:
Reid knows what he's doing.
Click to expand...

That would certainly be a first.

As usual the leftist media won't hold the dimlibs to account. obummer is screaming to pass the bill, but when republicans want to put it up for a vote the dimlibs hold it up. obummer should be screaming at Reid and his fellow idiots, but the media is not reporting it.
 
PokerGuy said:
That would certainly be a first.

As usual the leftist media won't hold the dimlibs to account. obummer is screaming to pass the bill, but when republicans want to put it up for a vote the dimlibs hold it up. obummer should be screaming at Reid and his fellow idiots, but the media is not reporting it.
Click to expand...

Any version of the bill has a snowball's chance in Hell of passage in the HOR, and anybody with half a brain knows it. Spending can't increase in one area w/o cuts in another or revenue increases, and Repubs are having none of either, at least none that wouldn't just take money out of the working & middle class' left pocket to put it in the right.

Harry's just trying to clarify the issues, make Senatorial Repubs own their position. McConnell only wanted it to come up to a vote so as to fail, not to actually pass a meaningful jobs bill, at all.

The idea of raising taxes on the Wealthy is extremely popular & highly appropriate, all things considered. Harry intends to tie opposition to it around the necks of Senatorial Repubs like an anchor, and I thank him for it.
 
Jhhnn said:
Any version of the bill has a snowball's chance in Hell of passage in the HOR, and anybody with half a brain knows it. Spending can't increase in one area w/o cuts in another or revenue increases, and Repubs are having none of either, at least none that wouldn't just take money out of the working & middle class' left pocket to put it in the right.

Harry's just trying to clarify the issues, make Senatorial Repubs own their position. McConnell only wanted it to come up to a vote so as to fail, not to actually pass a meaningful jobs bill, at all.

The idea of raising taxes on the Wealthy is extremely popular & highly appropriate, all things considered. Harry intends to tie opposition to it around the necks of Senatorial Repubs like an anchor, and I thank him for it.
Click to expand...

Glad we have you to explain to us what Harry is doing. I don't think anyone on the right or left has figured it out. But somehow you seem to know his every move. Will look to you for more explanations when the time comes. /sarc
 
woolfe9999 said:
Since when has politics not come into play in any bill in Congress? By stellar I mean what bfdd was suggesting, that if a bill is good, it will pass and if it is bad, it won't. That doesn't describe the way our Congress functions for the most part.

Wasn't 1995-2000 when Congress dismantled regulation of the financial services and ditched Glass-Steagall? One of the worst pieces of legislation we've had in the last 50 years IMO.
Click to expand...
Never, but when a bill is obviously good, most politicos will support it without bribes. It's when a bill is not obviously good that Congresscritters demand bribes to vote for it, because they need the political cover for reelection. And I agree completely about Glass-Steagall.

QuantumPion said:
Let me see if I got this right.

Obama: PASS THIS JOBS BILL NOW!

Republicans: Ok, let's vote.

Democrats: No. Calling for a vote on the bill is just a political ploy. Stop playing partisan games.

Obama: SEE! REPUBLICANS WON'T PASS THE BILL! REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE JOBS! THEY'RE TOO BUSY GOING ON VACATION!

Media, to Republicans: Well? Why ARE you going on vacation instead of giving people jobs?

Republicans: le sigh.
Click to expand...
LOL Spot on.
 
Jhhnn said:
Any version of the bill has a snowball's chance in Hell of passage in the HOR, and anybody with half a brain knows it. Spending can't increase in one area w/o cuts in another or revenue increases, and Repubs are having none of either, at least none that wouldn't just take money out of the working & middle class' left pocket to put it in the right.

Harry's just trying to clarify the issues, make Senatorial Repubs own their position. McConnell only wanted it to come up to a vote so as to fail, not to actually pass a meaningful jobs bill, at all.

The idea of raising taxes on the Wealthy is extremely popular & highly appropriate, all things considered. Harry intends to tie opposition to it around the necks of Senatorial Repubs like an anchor, and I thank him for it.
Click to expand...
Or more accurately, Reid is trying to polish this turd into something he can call an anchor.
 
werepossum said:
Never, but when a bill is obviously good, most politicos will support it without bribes. It's when a bill is not obviously good that Congresscritters demand bribes to vote for it, because they need the political cover for reelection. And I agree completely about Glass-Steagall.
Click to expand...

Actually, the bill is being modified to raise taxes on top earners- Democratic Senators are calling for their own taxes to go up.

The Horror!
 
QuantumPion said:
Let me see if I got this right.

Obama: PASS THIS JOBS BILL NOW!

Republicans: Ok, let's vote.

Democrats: No. Calling for a vote on the bill is just a political ploy. Stop playing partisan games.

Obama: SEE! REPUBLICANS WON'T PASS THE BILL! REPUBLICANS DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE JOBS! THEY'RE TOO BUSY GOING ON VACATION!

Media, to Republicans: Well? Why ARE you going on vacation instead of giving people jobs?

Republicans: le sigh.
Click to expand...

lulz
 
Jhhnn said:
blah blah blah
<snip>

Harry's just trying to clarify the issues, make Senatorial Repubs own their position. McConnell only wanted it to come up to a vote so as to fail, not to actually pass a meaningful jobs bill, at all.
Click to expand...

That's fine and dandy, but you can't have it both ways. When the republicans say "ok, lets vote on it", and you say "oh no, not yet", you can't whine that the bill is being delayed. You're the one delaying it. If it gets voted down, then obummer can whine that his idiotic package didn't get passed.
 
Jhhnn said:
Actually, the bill is being modified to raise taxes on top earners- Democratic Senators are calling for their own taxes to go up.

The Horror!
Click to expand...
LOL Gotta hand it to Democrats. They only have two tricks, empowering government and playing the race card, but they are never shy about using them.
 
PokerGuy said:
Uh, the headline there says "senate democrats rewrite obama's jobs bill", the headline doesn't say "hypocrites attack gop for not passing the bill then hold up voting on it when the republicans want to bring it to a vote". That's what the headline should say if the media were being honest about it.
Click to expand...

Actually the article was pretty fair considering it is MSNBC.

edit-forget I said that. I must have been recalling of a different article. That MSNBC piece is absurdly partisan.
 
Last edited:
PokerGuy said:
Uh, the headline there says "senate democrats rewrite obama's jobs bill", the headline doesn't say "hypocrites attack gop for not passing the bill then hold up voting on it when the republicans want to bring it to a vote". That's what the headline should say if the media were being honest about it.
Click to expand...

No, that isn't a headline in a news section. That's what an editorialist or blogger would say. Your statement that the media isn't "reporting" this is wrong. The media when reporting news is supposed to tell people what is happening like they did in this article. People can then form their own opionions.

But you do give some insight as to the basis of the right's contention that the media has a left bias. It supposedly has a bias because its fact reporting isn't a conservatrive polemic against liberals. That polemic, those opinions, are what conservatives think of as "reality." It is an inability to distinguish facts from opinions (their own) that is the basis for the claim of bias.

- wolf
 
woolfe9999 said:
No, that isn't a headline in a news section. That's what an editorialist or blogger would say. Your statement that the media isn't "reporting" this is wrong. The media when reporting news is supposed to tell people what is happening like they did in this article. People can then form their own opionions.

But you do give some insight as to the basis of the right's contention that the media has a left bias. It supposedly has a bias because its fact reporting isn't a conservatrive polemic against liberals. That polemic, those opinions, are what conservatives think of as "reality." It is an inability to distinguish facts from opinions (their own) that is the basis for the claim of bias.

- wolf
Click to expand...

People form the opinions the author wants them to form when they write biased articles via selective fact reporting. For instance, specifically quoting the Obama line about "republicans won't pass the bill because they are going on vacation" but not reporting the fact that Obama was himself on vacation for 3 weeks prior to announcing his jobs bill while congress was in session.
 
QuantumPion said:
People form the opinions the author wants them to form when they write biased articles via selective fact reporting. For instance, specifically quoting the Obama line about "republicans won't pass the bill because they are going on vacation" but not reporting the fact that Obama was himself on vacation for 3 weeks prior to announcing his jobs bill while congress was in session.
Click to expand...

Look, he said the media isn't reporting on this. They are. He then shifted the goal posts once by implicitly admitting that they are reporting it, but claimed they are reporting it in a biased manner because their headline wasn't "hypocrites attack gop for not passing the bill then hold up voting on it when the republicans want to bring it to a vote." Really now? Is that how a headline in a non-editorial news article should read? Now you're trying to salvage as much of this as you can by claiming some kind of selection bias in the details of the article.

On that point, I fail to see the bias you claim to see here. What does Obama being on vacation have to do with Congress passing or not passing a bill because they're on vacation? It's Congress's responsibility to pass a bill. I don't see a bias in the article in its totality. I see that the article concludes thusly:

In political terms, Democrats appear to be hoping that Republicans will oppose both the higher taxes on million-dollar earners and the president's call for new spending aimed at reducing joblessness, thus leaving themselves open to a charge of protecting the wealthy at the expense of the unemployed.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the article is saying that the jobs bill is a political stunt to make republicans look bad, according to the author. Doesn't exactly reflect all that well on the dems.

I guess people see whatever it is they expect to see.

- wolf
 
woolfe9999 said:
Look, he said the media isn't reporting on this. They are. He then shifted the goal posts once by implicitly admitting that they are reporting it, but claimed they are reporting it in a biased manner because their headline wasn't "hypocrites attack gop for not passing the bill then hold up voting on it when the republicans want to bring it to a vote." Really now? Is that how a headline in a non-editorial news article should read? Now you're trying to salvage as much of this as you can by claiming some kind of selection bias in the details of the article.

On that point, I fail to see the bias you claim to see here. What does Obama being on vacation have to do with Congress passing or not passing a bill because they're on vacation? It's Congress's responsibility to pass a bill. I don't see a bias in the article in its totality. I see that the article concludes thusly:



Sounds like the article is saying that the jobs bill is a political stunt to make republicans look bad, according to the author. Doesn't exactly reflect all that well on the dems.

I guess people see whatever it is they expect to see.

- wolf
Click to expand...
Obama's being on vacation is very much germane. Had he introduced it before he went on vacation, and had Reid lined up his votes before Congress went on vacation, the bill might well have made it through the Senate before this break. Can't make a strong case that the Pubbies are holding up "progress" by doing the exact thing the Democrats just did - treating this bill as something without any great priority.

Personally I think Reid and Boehnor should get together and ask the country to just pretend for political purposes that the Democrats passed another punish-the-rich bill in the Senate and the Republicans passed another punish-the-poor bill in the House, as the net effect of pretending is going to be exactly the same as if they actually do so. Then maybe instead of going through the wasted motions Congress can get on with important business like holding another hearing on steroid abuse in baseball or renaming some more federal buildings.
 
werepossum said:
Obama's being on vacation is very much germane. Had he introduced it before he went on vacation, and had Reid lined up his votes before Congress went on vacation, the bill might well have made it through the Senate before this break. Can't make a strong case that the Pubbies are holding up "progress" by doing the exact thing the Democrats just did - treating this bill as something without any great priority.

Personally I think Reid and Boehnor should get together and ask the country to just pretend for political purposes that the Democrats passed another punish-the-rich bill in the Senate and the Republicans passed another punish-the-poor bill in the House, as the net effect of pretending is going to be exactly the same as if they actually do so. Then maybe instead of going through the wasted motions Congress can get on with important business like holding another hearing on steroid abuse in baseball or renaming some more federal buildings.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. However, quibbling about whether an article should mention that detail, when in fact the article is suggesting that the whole bill is a political stunt, is rather nitpicky, particularly when the original assertion was that the entire issue of Reid's blocking of the bill wasn't being reported.

I don't mind changing the topic from "the issue is not reported" to "there is selection bias in the article" but I'm not going to do that without first getting an acknowledgement that the original point was debunked. All too often on this board points made are debunked one after the other and there is a constant shifting as if the debunked points were never made.

- wolf
 
woolfe9999 said:
Sounds like the article is saying that the jobs bill is a political stunt to make republicans look bad, according to the author. Doesn't exactly reflect all that well on the dems.
Click to expand...

Heh. McConnell demanding a vote on an unfinished bill is the political stunt. The gyrations of our resident righties defending McConnell prove the point entirely.

Repubs will vote down any honest bill that would create jobs, either in the Senate or the HOR. And they'll vote down any honest effort to pay for it, too, like raising taxes on the wealthy. Their idea of a jobs bill works like this-

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/14/319564/gohmert-corporate-taxes/

Which is just pandering to the so-called "Job Creators"

Or this, from Herman Cain-

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/05/336649/cain-999-analysis-deficits/

No wonder Spidey & his country club pals like Cain- they're creaming their jeans at the thought of a massive shift of the tax burden downscale...

But that's just gotta create jobs, right? Right?

Repubs won't allow any real jobs bill to pass- they're committed to making the economy worse, not better. Nor will they raise taxes on those most able to pay more, not when they can convince the loyal rubes downscale to pay more, think it's less.

Harry Reid is putting it up on a national billboard, that's all. Hey, if Repubs don't like that bad enough, they can pass the bill that the Dems propose, huh?
 
I wasn't arguing those points one way or the other Jhhnn. I was discussing the so-called media bias that was alleged here.
 
woolfe9999 said:
Fair enough. However, quibbling about whether an article should mention that detail, when in fact the article is suggesting that the whole bill is a political stunt, is rather nitpicky, particularly when the original assertion was that the entire issue of Reid's blocking of the bill wasn't being reported.

I don't mind changing the topic from "the issue is not reported" to "there is selection bias in the article" but I'm not going to do that without first getting an acknowledgement that the original point was debunked. All too often on this board points made are debunked one after the other and there is a constant shifting as if the debunked points were never made.

- wolf
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with any of that. As I said with my first post in this thread, if I were Reid (and as I think he is monkey ball sweat, I'm very glad I'm not Reid) I would be doing the same thing, lining up my votes and making amendments to buy votes until I could get it passed. That's politics; the only thing different in this case is that the bill and its support are purely for making political points. No one believes this turd has a shot at passing. I imagine the House is doing the same thing, just without as much free publicity. (Which considering the tone of some of these articles might be a good thing for them.)

Although if the economy does tank, and it's increasingly looking (in the news, not from where I'm sitting) like it will, Obama stands a decent shot at getting Stimulus 2. Government can't buy prosperity, but it can slow down the descent by artificially inflating demand to keep companies from laying off out of fear it's going to get worse. Even with our skyrocketing debt, there's a case that can be made for a stimulus bill to fight a sudden drop.
 
Jhhnn said:
Heh. McConnell demanding a vote on an unfinished bill is the political stunt. The gyrations of our resident righties defending McConnell prove the point entirely.

Repubs will vote down any honest bill that would create jobs, either in the Senate or the HOR. And they'll vote down any honest effort to pay for it, too, like raising taxes on the wealthy. Their idea of a jobs bill works like this-

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/14/319564/gohmert-corporate-taxes/

Which is just pandering to the so-called "Job Creators"

Or this, from Herman Cain-

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/05/336649/cain-999-analysis-deficits/

No wonder Spidey & his country club pals like Cain- they're creaming their jeans at the thought of a massive shift of the tax burden downscale...

But that's just gotta create jobs, right? Right?

Repubs won't allow any real jobs bill to pass- they're committed to making the economy worse, not better. Nor will they raise taxes on those most able to pay more, not when they can convince the loyal rubes downscale to pay more, think it's less.

Harry Reid is putting it up on a national billboard, that's all. Hey, if Repubs don't like that bad enough, they can pass the bill that the Dems propose, huh?
Click to expand...
I'll just point out that Obama is scolding the Republicans for not immediately passing this "unfinished bill". Can't have it both ways; if the Pubbies are not obstructing a finished bill, then the President is lying about having a finished bill. And if Pubbies are obstructing a finished bill, then the Democrats are lying about not having a finished bill while they try to get enough support within their own ranks to pass it in the Senate.

This isn't a serious bill either way. Obama's lengthy vacation before introducing it proves he doesn't think it's a serious bill. Reid's failure to introduce it and vote on it as written by the President proves he doesn't think it's a serious bill. And Republicans demanding a vote actually proves they don't think it's a serious bill either, else they wouldn't be eager to vote on it and either look bad, or have to raise taxes. This is merely political theater on both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top