So, what's the GOP doing about jobs?

[HomerJS]

I've been lead to believe that the GOP is focused on jobs... So what have they enacted to create more jobs?

Create a climate where we will need to hire more ultrasound technicians

 

[trenchfoot]

Very much like Harry Reed and the Dems in the Senate, table everything the house sends their way.

Hmmmm.

Fair enough. However, what the Dems are doing is in response to the bottlenecking and the purely political posturing the Repub legislation is all about. If you'd care to notice, the Repub legislation coming out of the House is aimed at scoring political points with its base and have nothing to do with creating jobs, something of which the House Repub members constantly blather on about but do absolutely nothing about it, legislatively speaking.

 

[blankslate]

Nothing but try to block anything that might increase jobs because the current administration would get a lot of credit... which they cannot stomach...

Even if had they tried some give and take co-operation that was last present in the 80's and early 90's and gotten a fair share of credit for any new jobs that also wasn't an option

this is because Mitch McConnel said his main priority and by extension that of the Senate Republicans is to make sure that President Obama has only one term...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-A09a_gHJc

That's why the GOP has really done nothing about jobs.

The ironic and in a way ugly thing about that is that they would probably endorse some of the programs that Obama has mentioned... like fixing pressing infrastructure problems, if there was a Republican in the Whitehouse.

 

[Muse]

Getting the Democrats out of the Senate and out of the White House is the best thing they could do for the country.

D: You are not being sincere, you're just fronting.

 

[Muse]

Yeah! Let's have six/eight more years of Bush/Cheney/Repub Senate & House/Supreme Court/Justice Dept. monopoly again! Wow! That really created a huge surplus in the treasury and left the country in such great economic shape before handing things over to Obama.

What a legacy! Awfully hard to top that performance, but hey, let's give the Repubs another crack at it and see if they can really and I mean REALLY screw things up worse than that!

Jobs? The Repubs don't need to do anything about jobs except leave things as they are, because if anyone has noticed, the economy is improving, the auto industry has regained its momentum and jobs are being created DESPITE the incessant and stubborn effort of the Repubs to block anything and everything Obama and the Dems try to do to push the economy even further down the road to recovery.

Face it, the Republicans are going to get their ass kicked in November, at the very least they are losing the White House again, and that's a damn good thing. Obama's speech writers will have a field day, they are already licking their chops. Hell, I could write a decent outline for a basic speech he can build on, it's that easy. Gingrich promises $2.50/gallon gas, says it's just a matter of "three signatures." The fart actually said that. Is the American public going to buy that? Are they that gullible? I do doubt it.

 

[MovingTarget]

Create a climate where we will need to hire more ultrasound technicians

...and more abortion clinics.

 

[RFE]

I was under the impression that the entirety of the GOP plan was to reduce taxes for "job creators"...

Must be worth something, eh?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TcJJie8wdI

 

[Fern]

I've been lead to believe that the GOP is focused on jobs... So what have they enacted to create more jobs?

We seem to have this thread about once a month. I think Craig234 started the last one. (Edit: The previous threads on this all contain links to bills as well of some discussion on a few specific bills.)

The House (mostly meaning Repubs) have passed quite a few bills aimed at jobs. Some of these bills have received bipartisan support in passing the House. And the Admin is actively trying to implement some of the ideas contained in those bills administratively through the SEC, for example.

However, the last time I checked (about a month ago) Reid has killed every single House bill. Not one has been brought to the floor etc.

If you want to see the bills, just google. There are several site listing the bills and most contain a link to the actual bill for more info.

Fern

 

[CallMeJoe]

Create a climate where we will need to hire more ultrasound technicians

By requiring doctors to perform the scans, they're actually putting technicians out of work.

 

[pcgeek11]

Fair enough. However, what the Dems are doing is in response to the bottlenecking and the purely political posturing the Repub legislation is all about. If you'd care to notice, the Repub legislation coming out of the House is aimed at scoring political points with its base and have nothing to do with creating jobs, something of which the House Repub members constantly blather on about but do absolutely nothing about it, legislatively speaking.

BUT BUT BUT... Its right when the Democrats do it. BS What about the Republicans trying to get the pipeline approved... Obama said no jobs for you!

 

[Wreckem]

We had a couple of years with the Democrats in control of the White House, the House and the Senate and it was worse. Just my opinion, I know yours is different.

Last I checked the Dems didnt get much done in Obamas first two years, they were mainly spent trying to pass healthcare reform around a filibustering Senate. You can say they spent a shit ton of money, but so did Bush, and alot of the budget for the first two years and the next 2-6 depending on program are Bush's mess. Seriously.

Nothing tops Bush's epic fail and epic waste when it comes Iraq and Afghanistan that will cost a total of close to $4trillion when all is said and done.

Then you have the what will be $1trillion in hands outs to Big Pharma over 10 years(end in 2018 unless renewed, which it probably will be as programs rarely die).

Lets put things into perspective. Bush's Medicare Part D program will end up around $1trillion and not the $750billion that was originally estimated over 10 years. It only covers prescription drugs for some senior citizens. Obama Care is at the high end going to cost $2trillion, at the low end $1trillion over 10 years. It will probably be somewhere in the middle. Dare I ask which is better value per $. Shit we could have had full universal healthcare and fixed social security if it wasn't for those two wars.

All Bush did was
1. Give handouts to Defense Contractors
2. Give handouts to Banks
3. Give handouts to Big Pharama

 

[monovillage]

Last I checked the Dems didnt get much done in Obamas first two years, they were mainly spent trying to pass healthcare reform around a filibustering Senate. You can say they spent a shit ton of money, but so did Bush, and alot of the budget for the first two years and the next 2-6 depending on program are Bush's mess. Seriously.

Nothing tops Bush's epic fail and epic waste when it comes Iraq and Afghanistan that will cost a total of close to $4trillion when all is said and done.

Then you have the what will be $1trillion in hands outs to Big Pharma over 10 years(end in 2018 unless renewed, which it probably will be as programs rarely die).

Lets put things into perspective. Bush's Medicare Part D program will end up around $1trillion and not the $750billion that was originally estimated over 10 years. It only covers prescription drugs for some senior citizens. Obama Care is at the high end going to cost $2trillion, at the low end $1trillion over 10 years. It will probably be somewhere in the middle. Dare I ask which is better value per $. Shit we could have had full universal healthcare and fixed social security if it wasn't for those two wars.

You mean the bipartisan vote for funding?
http://www.fpif.org/articles/the_democrats_support_for_bushs_war

The capitulation of the Democratic Party’s congressional leadership to the Bush administration’s request for nearly $100 billion of unconditional supplementary government spending, primarily to support the war in Iraq, has led to outrage throughout the country. In the Senate, 37 of 49 Democrats voted on May 24 to support the measure. In the House, while only 86 of the 231 Democratic House members voted for the supplemental funding, 216 of them voted in favor of an earlier procedural vote designed to move the funding bill forward even though it would make the funding bill’s passage inevitable (while giving most of them a chance to claim they voted against it).

But I actually agree with you about the stupidity of spending that much money on wasted hellholes like Afghanistan and Iraq. Once we'd gone in and screwed their countries over and killed their leadership, we should have left.

 

[Wreckem]

You mean the bipartisan vote for funding?
http://www.fpif.org/articles/the_democrats_support_for_bushs_war



But I actually agree with you about the stupidity of spending that much money on wasted hellholes like Afghanistan and Iraq. Once we'd gone in and screwed their countries over and killed their leadership, we should have left.

No one in the right mind is going to cut off funding when soldiers are dying in a foreign land. Bush pushed for the wars. He and his administration are solely to blame for them. Bush is also responsible for the budgeted cost of defense spending to go up over 300% over 10 years. Obama is to blame for not pulling troops out sooner/yet to pull out of Afghanistan.

Our total defense spending is utterly ridiculous and is unsustainable. But you don't hear anyone other than the Dems and Ron Paul wanting to cut it. The Republicans, the supposed fiscal conservatives are fine with the inevitable crossing of $1trillion per year in total defense spending. You cut defense spending in half and the savings over five years more or less would fix social security, or would allow the US to have universal healthcare, or could cut the deficit dramatically. Instead we line the pockets of defense contractors. There are many better things the US could be spending its money on than spending an asinine amount on defense.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It seems that we're fixated on the concept of government creating jobs. In the short term it may but the fundamental problem we face are not resolved by funding. Like healthcare we ought to have a critical analysis of the state of the economy with the emphasis on establishing long term opportunities. In this government can play a role as a facilitator working with business for the benefit of our nation as a whole. Unfortunately there is neither the wit or resolve to put aside partisan considerations for a sensible and workable policy to be created and put in place. Both parties suck at that

 

[monovillage]

I'd rather see the U.S. not spending the money at all. Not on defense/military or lefty social programs.

 

[Wreckem]

I'd rather see the U.S. not spending the money at all. Not on defense/military or lefty social programs.

Thats never going happen.

Instead, the US taxpayers should be benefiting from the expenditures. Not the corporations who donate money to politicians.

Both parties are fiscally liberal. They just go about spending differently. Democrats give "handouts" mostly to the american people. Republicans give "handouts" mostly to corporations. Of the 2 I'd much prefer handouts to the american people. Social welfare trumps corporate welfare any day of the week in my book.

 

[trenchfoot]

BUT BUT BUT... Its right when the Democrats do it. BS What about the Republicans trying to get the pipeline approved... Obama said no jobs for you!

Do a quick search and you'll find an excellent thread in this forum on why the Dems are putting this pipeline on hold. There's absolutely no equivalency with the comparison you're attempting to make. None whatsoever. Pay particular attention to Nebraska's concerns over this issue.

 

[sportage]

Santorum believes if it doesn't lead to a baby, it's immoral.
Oops... I thought this was about that other kind of job.
Repubs are against those too...

 

[pcgeek11]

Do a quick search and you'll find an excellent thread in this forum on why the Dems are putting this pipeline on hold. There's absolutely no equivalency with the comparison you're attempting to make. None whatsoever. Pay particular attention to Nebraska's concerns over this issue.

Bologna. The Dems are the Party of No.

 

[gingermeggs]

That doesn't tell me the long term plan for job creation...

I would think starting a war with Iran, Pakistan and Nth Korea would create lots of jobs for the military and its supply demands, not great for economy....but just print some more money, it's all good!

 

[SNC]

No, thanks - I already have a beer - but thanks again...

You do know that is not really beer, right?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by monovillage
I'd rather see the U.S. not spending the money at all. Not on defense/military or lefty social programs.

Thats never going happen.

Instead, the US taxpayers should be benefiting from the expenditures. Not the corporations who donate money to politicians.

Both parties are fiscally liberal. They just go about spending differently. Democrats give "handouts" mostly to the american people. Republicans give "handouts" mostly to corporations. Of the 2 I'd much prefer handouts to the american people. Social welfare trumps corporate welfare any day of the week in my book.

Only partially true.

Yes Republicans "handout" money to Corporations but Democrats do as well.

If the $246 billion stimulus was "handed out" to the American people instead of bailing out the banks the country would be in great shape.

Obama and the Dems are just as much in bed with the Corporations just different ones.

 

[Jhhnn]

They only control the House, not much they can really do because of the obstructionists in the Senate and Obama in the White House.

Here you go.
http://www.gop.gov/indepth/jobs
Knock yourself out.

Just because Repubs say they're "Jobs Bills" doesn't mean they really are-

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201201240002

If Repubs say that a cow is a chicken, that doesn't mean it's really a chicken....

 

[monovillage]

Just because Repubs say they're "Jobs Bills" doesn't mean they really are-

http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/201201240002

If Repubs say that a cow is a chicken, that doesn't mean it's really a chicken....

A mediamatters site? You have to be kidding that you actually post a mediamatters site. They even lie about the name so people think it's factcheck.
You are a lying piece of shit.

 

[Jhhnn]

A mediamatters site? You have to be kidding that you actually post a mediamatters site. They even lie about the name so people think it's factcheck.
You are a lying piece of shit.

Thanks for the ad hom. It's the last refuge of the argumentatively beaten.

Media Matters? Yeh, I know you can't read that stuff- it'd pollute your precious bodily fluids, maybe even cause hysterical blindness.

Well, you seem to kinda have that, anyway...