Which would you rather?

[Catfan73]

Bill Clinton brought up an interesting question last night when he said the Republicans in Congress purposely blocked Obama's American Jobs Act because they would rather have Romney elected than to have the jobs and see Obama reelected. (Mitch McConnell had denounced the act as "a charade that's meant to give Democrats a political edge," even though estimates said the act would have created between 1.3 and 1.9 million new jobs.)

Would you rather have the jobs if it meant Obama would get re-elected, or not have the jobs if it meant that Romney would win the election?

[dan_bgblue]

What type of jobs were they talking about? Were the new jobs going to be in the private sector, or were they teachers, policemen and women and firefighters where their paycheck would be coming from tax revenues?

Knowing the answer to my question would affect my answer to your question.

[Doc]

I look at the overall health of the country. Our health financially as a country is far better off without people who believe they are entitled to the assets a segment of the population reates so they can give it to another. These millions of jobs created by his act were not private sector jobs. They were more of take money from job producers. Like so much that comes out of liberals mouth, it's a pile but a pile that many will believe

[Catfan73]

The highlights from the White House--the act was supposed to:

* Cut payroll taxes in half (to 3.1%) for 98% of businesses. (On the first $5 million in payroll, of which 98% of businesses fall below.)
* Temporarily eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll with new hires or higher wages; capped at the first $50 million in payroll growth.
* Extend 100% expensing (allows all firms to take an immediate deduction on investments in new plants and equipment.
* Provided tax credits ranging from $5,600 to $9,600 for the hiring of unemployed veterans.
* Modernize public schools and invest in infrastructure such as roads, rails, and airports, while putting hundreds of thousands of workers back on the job.
* "Project Rebuild", designed to put people to work rehabilitating homes, businesses, and communities.
* Work-based reforms to help prevent layoffs and give states greater flexibility to use Unemployment Insurance funds to best support job seekers.
* A $4,000 tax credit for businesses that hire long-term unemployed workers.
* Prohibiting firms from discriminating against unemployed workers when hiring.
* Cut payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers (a $1,500 tax cut for the typical American family).

It was estimated that all of this was going to cost in the neighborhood of $447 billion dollars, which was to be paid for as part of Obama's long-term deficit reduction plan. The 1.9 million jobs estimate was from Moody's.

So what would have been best for America? The reason I posted this was because I think it's a very good illustration of how the partisan rancor that currently has the United States by the throat is strangling our country. Used to be, politicians mostly did what was best for the country even if it meant that their candidate's chances might be diminished. I'm not so sure that is true in today's political environment.

[cattails]

Our problems are much bigger than jobs and how long would the jobs last for that matter. Not sure how much or how fast Romney can right the ship, but I for sure believe he can take us in a much better direction. Small fix for a much bigger problem is what I see. Best thing that could happen is get all of these elected officials out of office and start over with honest patriots, forget dems and reps who are self serving and purchased before election.

[CitizenBBN]

What type of jobs were they talking about? Were the new jobs going to be in the private sector, or were they teachers, policemen and women and firefighters where their paycheck would be coming from tax revenues?

Knowing the answer to my question would affect my answer to your question.

this. "Jobs" isn't really the goal, the goal is the creation of the wealth of the nation through economic growth, which means jobs. If it's just creating more debt to give people jobs that aren't based on a real economic foundation then no, I wouldn't support their creation regardless of the election cycle. In the long run they would only hurt the people of America including those who got those jobs.

The more appropriate goal for people is "prosperity", which isn't necessarily the same as giving people jobs.

[Doc]

It's laughable that the democrats are now going to tout tax cuts as a means of job creation since they have spent 3 1/2 years blaming them for the problems!

[kencat]

this. "Jobs" isn't really the goal, the goal is the creation of the wealth of the nation through economic growth, which means jobs. If it's just creating more debt to give people jobs that aren't based on a real economic foundation then no, I wouldn't support their creation regardless of the election cycle. In the long run they would only hurt the people of America including those who got those jobs.

The more appropriate goal for people is "prosperity", which isn't necessarily the same as giving people jobs.

Exactly. Government jobs do not create wealth or grow the economy. Only the private sector can do this. Problem is, this administration and its blind supporters believe when someone prospers, they do so at the expense of someone else. That their is only so much money to go around which explains their punish the successful, class warfare montra. Plain and simple, they don't have a clue.

[Catfan73]

So it sounds like it's pretty safe to say that's 5 votes for Romney and 0 votes for a million jobs (at least these jobs)?

[BigBluePappy]

Six.

[CitizenBBN]

9. I also drive to a state with no identification requirements and vote there a few times.

It's not a "vote against jobs", even these jobs. It's a vote against the sugar high of borrowing another trillion dollars and not doing anything substantive with it to repair the nation's economic competitiveness. No doubt those who got these jobs from deficit spending will in the short run be better off, but at the cost of making the whole nation worse off and making even their lives worse in the long run, or at least the lives of their children.

Now, in partial agreement with you I do think both parties are more than happy to at least try to postpone implementation of good policy when such postponement can benefit their party at the polls. I don't think that's the case here, b/c I think there are some fundamental ideological issues with his idea of how to create jobs, but neither party is above such things.

There's a certain logic to it, just not a logic that is appealing. sometimes it's better to kill one to save many, so if you think the country will be better off by sacrificing one good policy to stop other bad ones I guess there's an argument to be made, but I think both parties are far too gone to care much more than for their own power. They both abandoned focus on policy agendas long ago.

So I don't put it past the GOP to be against legislation b/c of political machinations, but I also know the DNC does it as well. However in this case I'm glad they were against this bill b/c I disagree with this legislation fervently.

[dan_bgblue]

I could certainly be wrong in this as the transparency about where and how much the stimulus dollars went is non existent. But I think..........

It was estimated that all of this was going to cost in the neighborhood of $447 billion dollars,

that is similar to the amount spent on stimulus to date. Most of the bogus jobs included in the CBO report were jobs "saved" not created, and those jobs were in the public sector. I have nothing against public servants having jobs, but that, imo, is exactly what the President's plan, that you shared above, would have done this time.

From the Boston Globe, and if there was ever a state dyed in the wool Democratic and liberal Massachusetts is it.

The Globe’s finding is based on the federal government’s just-released accounts of stimulus spending at the end of October. It lists the nearly $4 billion in stimulus awards made to an array of Massachusetts government agencies, universities, hospitals, private businesses, and nonprofit organizations, and notes how many jobs each created or saved.

See any private sector job creation going on there?

Don't get me wrong, there were jobs created or saved in the private sector, just not very many of them.

[Catfan73]

I wasn't really trying to take either side on the act or what it proposed to do, whether it was realistic, etc. I was hoping to stir debate on the basic question, not the merits of the American Jobs Act. I should never have tried to clarify the bill because the bill itself is beside the point.

The basic question remains. . . . would you choose to do what appeared to be best for your country, even if it meant that your candidate's prospects were diminished, or would you choose to improve your candidate's odds, perhaps with a 'greater good' stance justifying your position? I think it's an important question to reflect on, but it requires stepping out of our usual us vs. them context we seem to put everything into now.

[dan_bgblue]

I wasn't really trying to take either side on the act or what it proposed to do, whether it was realistic, etc. I was hoping to stir debate on the basic question, not the merits of the American Jobs Act. I should never have tried to clarify the bill because the bill itself is beside the point.

The basic question remains. . . . would you choose to do what appeared to be best for your country, even if it meant that your candidate's prospects were diminished, or would you choose to improve your candidate's odds, perhaps with a 'greater good' stance justifying your position? I think it's an important question to reflect on, but it requires stepping out of our usual us vs. them context we seem to put everything into now.

I think that blue part of your post above is an issue that could be debated ad nauseam because we disagree that it appears to be the best for my county.

I am not a republican nor a democrat and detest party politics. It is driving the country into the dumper along with the idiotic fiscal policy from the guys in suits in DC that are more interested in saving their votes and securing their jobs than they are moving this nation forward. Congress and the President are suppose to work together for the good of the nation. That does not even happen when one party controls both congressional houses and the white house.

[Catfan73]

Dan, you sound as though you definitely would choose country over candidate. I think it's interesting though that no one here has as of yet come right out and unequivocally said that they would do so. I kind of wonder whether that is because Obama is seemingly so detested and it makes it extra hard to separate emotions from issues. I also wonder if all the responses would be as qualified if a different Democrat was in office, and if the same would be true if the situation were reversed and a Republican were in office.

[jazyd]

I will always vote for what is best for the country, but it better be the best and not some snake oil sale pitch. The jobs have to be good jobs, not just something to tide a person over versus getting unemployment checks.
The numbers out this morning show a drop in unemployment, the democrats will say that is because they have turned the corner and unforunately many will buy that and won't look at the truth. The economy only added 96,000 new jobs, the revision for July was less jobs that reported which seems the norm for this president, but 368,000 quit looking and are out of the work force. So it was easy to see a drop in unemployment with the way this administration now registers the unemployed. They don't count everyone. 1 in 6 Americans do not have a job or a job of their choosing, rather taking something just to have an income of some type. there has been a huge increase in the number getting welfare checks. We are becoming a welfare country, which seems to be what the democrats want, more votes.

So are just any jobs what is best for this country, I dont' think they are. So is it good for the country if a chemical engineer is waiting tables?

[BigBlueBrock]

I'll take the jobs. Whatever keeps Romney and Ryan out of the Oval Office.

[CatinIL]

Six.

Make that 7

[DanISSELisdaman]

Eight!

[jazyd]

you hit a big nail on the head.

While they talk about being for the military...which they aren't and we all know it...they turn around and complain that Romney will raise the amount in the budget for defense.. Excuse me? They lie so much that those on the left totally buy it plus the ones that are on the government dole getting everything free, the gay community, the hispanics and the illegals. Big voting bloch when you throw in the black vote, hard to defeat which is why this is even close at this time.

Nine!

I find it odd that this is such a big issue for the Dems though. I work in the public sector and I have screamed until I am blue in the face about cuts to public sector jobs and funding.

The current administration has cut raises to the cost of living for gov employees. I can see that for the most part as long as the public salary doesn't fall behind inflation to the point that the public servants are behind the economy's growth. But why tout a boost to the public sector jobs when the other hand is doing all it can to limit funding to the same group?

The other thing that pisses me off is the proposed cuts to defense manning and reservist pay. At a time where we can barely afford to show weakness to the international community the dems want to make cuts that would decrease our ability to succeed in a conflict. Personally if the cut my pay in half, I will take my chances in the private sector. That and pray that china never decides to go "Red Dawn" on us. Once again, why promote a boost to the public sector when you are trying to limit one facet of it?

[Catfan73]

Jazy, . You've managed to slur welfare recipients, gays, Hispanics, illegal aliens, and African Americans all in one post. The illegals can't vote, but are you saying America would be better off if the others couldn't vote either?

[dan_bgblue]

Jazy, . You've managed to slur welfare recipients, gays, Hispanics, illegal aliens, and African Americans all in one post. The illegals can't vote, but are you saying America would be better off if the others couldn't vote either?

Are you confident in that statement?

Under the data provided in January, Hispanics make up only 21.8% of all registered voters, but fully 38.2% of the registered voters who lack these forms of identification. Thus, we conclude that the total number of registered voters who lack a driver's license or personal identification card issued by (the state Department of Public Safety) could range from 603,892 to 795,955," Perez said in the letter, addressed to the director of elections for the Texas secretary of state.

"Even using the data most favorable to the state, Hispanics disproportionately lack either a driver's license or a personal identification card ... and that disparity is statistically significant," Perez said.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/12/politi...tml?hpt=hp_bn3