Rolling Stone Magazine Article: Why Obama's JOBS Act Couldn't Suck Worse

[Better Believe It]

Why Obama's JOBS Act Couldn't Suck Worse
by Matt Taibbi
April 9, 2012

Boy, do I feel like an idiot. I've been out there on radio and TV in the last few months saying that I thought there was a chance Barack Obama was listening to the popular anger against Wall Street that drove the Occupy movement, that decisions like putting a for-real law enforcement guy like New York AG Eric Schneiderman in charge of a mortgage fraud task force meant he was at least willing to pay lip service to public outrage against the banks.

Then the JOBS Act happened.

The "Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act" (in addition to everything else, the Act has an annoying, redundant title) will very nearly legalize fraud in the stock market.

In the meantime, let's just say this is a dramatic step taken by Barack Obama. Nobody should have any illusions about where he stands on Wall Street corruption after this thing. Boss Tweed himself couldn't have done any worse.


Please read the full article which explains how this so-called "Jobs Act" really works against investors and new legitimate business start-ups at:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-obamas-jobs-act-couldnt-suck-worse-20120409

For more information on DU which you may not have read go to:

Obama Signs Wall Street/Corporate Backed "Jobs Act": A “Recipe for Fraud” And Job Destruction
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002522293

Presidents Clinton and Obama sign Wall Street Deregulation Bills. Two Photos That Tell It All
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=525025

[OnyxCollie]

1. K&R. nt

[Bonobo]

2. If it's criticizing the President, it will be called a "widget" no matter WHAT it says. nt

[girl gone mad]

167. and it will 'hit the shop room floor with a thud'...

Like all the rest of the 'Obama bad Obama bad Obama bad' posts that make it to the top of the greatest page.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Bullshit.

Eric Cantor authored the Act. Obama only heartily endorsed it an signed it into law.

Stop calling it Obama's.

[Karmadillo]

7. Thank you for correcting the record. The internet is just out of control these days.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. Can you believe some people refer to "Obama's free trade agreements"?

The three job-destroying "free" trade agreements completed last year were *Bushes*. Obama only heartily endorsed and signed them.

[ProSense]

12. Obama is

evil and trying to destroy us.

EPI applauds new Labor Department immigration rules that protect U.S. and foreign workers

By Ross Eisenbrey and Daniel Costa

Today the U.S. Department of Labor released a set of comprehensive regulations that will govern foreign labor certification in the H-2B guest worker program. We strongly support the new regulations and commend Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, the Department of Labor and the Obama Administration for acting to protect the interests of unemployed U.S. workers and H-2B guest workers. The rules are an important measure that will help fix a program in which instances of abuse, fraud and exploitation have been common, as revealed by government reports and investigations, as well as media coverage.

“The updated H-2B program will help put unemployed U.S. workers back to work by requiring employers to do more to recruit them before the department approves requests for foreign workers. The rules will also protect foreign H-2B workers from exploitation in the recruitment process by banning foreign labor recruiters from charging certain fees and requiring employers to pay visa and travel costs.

<...>

“In May of last year, we submitted detailed public comments to the Labor Department in support of the new rules. Hundreds of other organizations and individuals submitted public comments, and the department has carefully and meticulously reviewed them. The department’s lengthy analysis, released today in conjunction with the rule, does an excellent job of considering and addressing the concerns of employers and worker advocates. The final rule strikes a fair and appropriate balance between the concerns of all stakeholders involved in the H-2B program.”

The following are some of the most important elements of the H-2B rules:

• Employers will be required to provide U.S. workers in similar positions at least the same wages and benefits provided to H-2B workers, including transportation costs.
  
  
• An online H-2B job registry for U.S. jobseekers will be created.
  
  
• U.S. and foreign workers will be protected from retaliation for engaging in concerted activity.
  
  
• Employers will be required to guarantee workers a total number of work hours equal to at least three-fourths of the workdays in each 12-week period.
  
  
• Employers will be required to keep records documenting their recruitment of U.S. workers and to accept referrals of unemployed workers from state workforce agencies.

http://www.epi.org/publication/epi-applauds-labor-department-immigration/

Run!!!

[MannyGoldstein]

19. No, he's trying to help himself and the 1%

The 99% are collateral damage, not intentional I think.

[ProSense]

21. Yup,

"No, he's trying to help himself and the 1%

The 99% are collateral damage, not intentional I think."

...he's pure evil. People don't matter to him.

16 million: number of Americans who become eligible for Medicaid under the health care law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002531684

[MannyGoldstein]

24. How many seniors will lose health care

if the Medicare eligibility age is raised to 67 as Obama has proposed?

Sorry, this bullshit has got to stop.

[ProSense]

27. Someone

"How many seniors will lose health care if the Medicare eligibility age is raised to 67 as Obama has proposed?"

...stop him before he kills grandma.


Obama: GOP Budget ‘Will Ultimately End Medicare As We Know It’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002535075

[MannyGoldstein]

29. Obama: "I'll only wound Medicare, vote for me"

Time for old folks to eat their peas, eh?

[ProSense]

37. Romney

"Obama: 'I'll only wound Medicare, vote for me'

...vote for the other guy he saved seniors $3.2 billion in prescription drug costs, offered them free preventive care for the first time ever and strengthened Medicare.

Who ae you going to vote for?

[MannyGoldstein]

39. I'll vote for the person who

best represents the 99%.

[sabrina 1]

205. We know what Republicans will do. What does that have to do what

Democrats should do?

The reason Republicans were thrown out in 2008 was because the public had had enough of their lunatic ideas that nearly destroyed this country.

Now, you're saying that since they are that bad, Dems can move in that direction and it won't be as bad?? And that is how you are going to try to get people to vote for Democrats??

How about we move the whole thing way, way back from the evil that we all know Republicans are capable of, instead of seeing their extremism as an opportunity to move in their direction but not all the way?

I don't get this logic, maybe it's me??

[cliffordu]

50. Confusing his political "offers" with reality

is the bullshit that needs to stop.

For shame, Manny. For shame.

[MannyGoldstein]

89. Boy was Obama shocked

when his "free" trade bluff passed!

[cliffordu]

120. When challenged, change the subject!!!

[saras]

200. That's his job - if they aren't real, shut the fuck up about them.

[cliffordu]

202. Another word for 'politics' is 'bluff'

Obama just let the R's paint themselves into all of their various corners by offering just about everything, knowing they would rage against all of it.

And they have.

Every fucking time.

And who, exactly are you to tell anyone to shut the fuck up about anything??

I you're a policy wonk, send your resume to someone.

If not, well then.......

[Go Vols]

57. Evil?

He promised to stand with the Unions,claimed to even go and walk the picket line.

He promised not to fuck with states that allowed medical MJ.

Both lies.

[progressoid]

63. Thanks for pointing out that Medicaid thing.

Because this thread is all about Medicaid.

Or not.

?w=274&h=300

[WiffenPoof]

41. Always enjoy reading your posts...

You are quite effective in posting supportive documentation...of course, we can all find articles to support whatever side we are supporting at the moment. No, what I find interesting is your tone which seems to often reflect the same kind of "black and white" conclusions we often see on the Right. Two questions:

Have you ever had your mind changed on any issue?

Can I ask how old you are? You see, it is my experience that a Democrat's age is often an indicator of what kind of Democrat they are. I have found that it is many of the younger Democrats that seem to support the President regardless of the issue or his stance. They are the NEW Democrats. Some of us older Dems are capable of seeing both the positive and negative aspects of our President.

-P

[Skittles]

74. look for the words HYPERBOLE and OUTRAGE to be thrown your way!!!

you are in fact FANNING OUTRAGE, WiffenPoof!

[ProSense]

128. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002540367

[WiffenPoof]

155. Okay...I was actually being serious...

I understand that it may not go over well with some. However, my post was in good faith. I have yet to understand how some people can only see one side of an issue or person (the President). Should I have not posted my questions?

-P

[MannyGoldstein]

209. Your questions were very reasonable

Heck, I'll answer them for myself (I can't speak for your intended recipient, of course):

Have you ever had your mind changed on any issue? Big time! For example, I started out as a Republican... but evidence over time showed me that Leftist policies lead to better outcomes, so I switched, and am now regularly blasted for being too far to the left even for Democratic Underground! (I'm all about getting the best outcomes.)

Can I ask how old you are? 40s.

[ProSense]

212. .

"Have you ever had your mind changed on any issue? Big time! For example, I started out as a Republican..."

[MannyGoldstein]

213. You can make a similar choice, you know.

It's all up to you.

[ProSense]

214. .

[ellisonz]

233. Prosense was stitched together...

...out of spare body parts from the 1988 Democratic Presidential Primary at Democratic National Committee Headquarters and locked in the basement for 20 years where it was sustained by Kool-Aid and the bodies of Congressional interns. Prosense escaped from captivity in 2005 when Howard Dean went looking late one night for the kitchen to make a sandwich and got too curious. He opened the wrong door and letting out a scream was whacked over the head and watched the monster escape while writhing on the floor. For some reason, the beast has resided at Democratic Underground since; it is rumored Skinner feeds Prosense a frothy mixture made out of Freeper trolls to keep it tame and typing.

[ProSense]

234. .

[ellisonz]

236. You're welcome.

[Skittles]

15. hey Manny

what's the correct way to put something that somene didn't actually creat but actively pimps for?

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Good question.

Escapes me. Do you have a suggestion?

[Skittles]

32. I'll think about it

something to feed, you know, THOSE people

[bahrbearian]

222. Pimping.

[woo me with science]

81. ...

Oh my god, I can't stand this. I'm laughing and crying at the same time!

[Karmadillo]

255. See? Obama has tried to teach us the ways of bipartisanship, but we still try to steal credit from

our allies in the other party. I hope during the next four years we can develop the maturity to give credit where credit is due instead of trying to hog all the glory for ourselves.

[WillyT]

10. LOL !!!

You guys are cracking me up !!!

[bvar22]

127. Joining in the laughter.

Almost as funny are the very lame attempts to Attack the Messenger.
They have become a parody of themselves.
Predictable as broken clocks.

[ProSense]

129. Man, we're

screwed!

It's clear from the reactions here this is more about salivating over anti-Obama hyperbole than anything.

"Joining in the laughter."

Me too.

[bvar22]

144. It is about The POLICY,

...not the person.

When pointing out BAD POLICY gets twisted into an accusation of Attacking the President,
then we are in a WORLD of trouble, and that is not funny.

But watching the same posters twist themselves in to pretzels every day
in failed attempts to protect and promote BAD Policy
CAN become humorous after a time.
It becomes self inflicted satire.


You will know them by their WORKS.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Autumn]

162. They just can't separate the really fucked up policies from a

pretty nice guy.

[sabrina 1]

175. Yes, it is about the policies. We are supposed to discard all principles

and 'get on board' because it's an 'election season'. Nothing could be more harmful to the Democratic Party than to try to suppress people's legitimate concerns for this country. The best thing the Democratic Party can do is to listen to the people. Independents do not have any loyalty to either party, and no one can win an election without them. They have learned nothing from the 2010 election, sadly.

[Better Believe It]

25. You're right. President Obama hardly had anything to do with the "Jobs Act" at all!

I think this picture proves it!

[MannyGoldstein]

28. You should have posted the wide-angle shot

So we could see Scott Brown and Patrick McHenry.

C'est la vie.

[freshwest]

58. Oh, no. He signed it with the left (sinister) hand! Maybe that was disappearing ink, too.

This means nothing, and he's not the POTUS, either, because he wasn't sworn in correctly. I heard it, the words were out of order. Besides, Fox said so.

[Better Believe It]

103. This one?

[MannyGoldstein]

113. Yes, the smiles are nicer on that one too nt

[A Simple Game]

208. Any time Cantor is smiling, I'm scared. n/t

[Skittles]

34. well now let's look closely

it would seem that perhaps he is having trouble SEEING what he is signing

[woo me with science]

80. That can happen!

Remember when his DOJ attorney went to the strip search case at the Supreme Court and accidentally argued for the wrong side?!

[Skittles]

192. STOP IT WOO ME

YOU'RE KILLING ME!

[Zorra]

197. This author was self-deleted by its message

[sadbear]

4. Taibbi.

'Nuff said.

[Skittles]

18. no, NOT enough said

not by FAR

[banned from Kos]

96. So because someone COULD abuse the system its bad? Charities are embezzled!

Lets end all charities!

Crowdfunding bypasses Wall Street! It will hurt the big investment houses eventually.

Taibbi is a full of shit whiner - as usual.

[truebrit71]

147. Um, not just no, but HELL no...

Taibbi is, as usual, spot on...

This is a DREADFUL bill....no wonder the fucking repukes were smiling so broadly...

[girl gone mad]

169. Charities are regulated.

This shit is deregulated.

But I'm talking to someone who tries to convince people Corzine is a great guy and big banks have all our best interests at heart.

[sabrina 1]

131. Lol. He was only among the most popular

authors during the Bush years, when btw, he was saying much the same things he is still saying. That's because he focuses on ISSUES. So, when did you stop liking Taibbi? When he was bashing Bush policies during that era? That would show some consistency, which is why I asked.

[One of the 99]

201. Exactly!

http://prospect.org/article/errors-matt-taibbi

[Marr]

227. That's exactly the same thing Bushbots used to do.

Just plug their ears, and sing the loyalty song. Eventually, they even started dismissing Fox News as biased against Bush.

lol.

[Daniel537]

250. +1

Taibbi has become quite the bore.

[ProSense]

5. Merkley: Crowdfunding Exciting New Opportunity for Small Businesses and Startups

Merkley: Crowdfunding Exciting New Opportunity for Small Businesses and Startups

Merkley Crowdfunding Amendment Included in Bill Signed By President Obama Today
April 5, 2012

Washington, DC – Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley issued the following statement after President Obama signed into law the “JOBS” Act, which includes an amendment he sponsored to provide for crowdfunding. The crowdfunding amendment, cosponsored by Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Scott Brown (R-MA), allows small businesses and startups to raise capital online, while instituting strong protections for investors:

“I am very pleased that my crowdfunding amendment is now law. Crowdfunding opens up exciting new opportunities for small businesses and startups across America to raise capital from investors online. The potential is enormous. Entrepreneurs, who previously had to rely on capital from angel investors, will now be able to receive small seed investments from a larger group of investors to create new companies and jobs.

“Exciting new opportunities usually come with risks, and crowdfunding is no exception. The original House version of the bill paved a path to predatory schemes. It required no information to be presented, and if startups put forth information, there was no requirement of accuracy. The balanced approach we put forth with investor protections will provide a strong foundation for success.”

http://www.merkley.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/?id=3EDA2A41-A636-4F64-89A9-96FABF492A82

[MannyGoldstein]

13. But Merkley voted against Cantor's act

Now why would he do that?

[Poll_Blind]

6. His Boss Tweed reference...damn. nt

PB

[ProSense]

8. Major Bank CEO Slams Wall Street For Paying Big Bonuses And Fighting New Regulations

Major Bank CEO Slams Wall Street For Paying Big Bonuses And Fighting New Regulations
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002536234

Good stuff!

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Good thing Obama further deregulated Wall Street last week.

Great stuff, fabulous.

[ProSense]

14. I heard

"Good thing Obama further deregulated Wall Street last week."

...he signed the repeal of Wall Street reform. It's absolutely useless now!

Banks’ preemptive strike against Dodd-Frank

By Suzy Khimm

When Deutsche Bank reorganized its U.S. operations this week in response to new banking rules, it was the latest manifestation of what both supporters and opponents of the Dodd-Frank regulatory overhaul predicted would happen: The law has pushed big banks to reorganize — to comply with the new rules on Wall Street, as well as to avoid their impact...Deutsche Bank and London-based Barclays have moved their commercial banks from their U.S. subsidiaries into their global firms to avoid new, more stringent capital requirements — even though they don’t go into effect until July 2015.

But that doesn’t necessarily mean that Dodd-Frank has fallen short of what its authors intended. By giving up its status as a U.S. bank holding company, Deutsche Bank is forfeiting its access to the Federal Reserve’s emergency lending window. Doing so effectively cuts itself out of any future government-backed bailout in the event of a crisis. One of the overarching goals of Dodd-Frank was limiting taxpayer exposure to bailing out big firms.

“They’re saying, ‘If this is the price we have to pay, we’re going to shed that protection — we’re not too big to fail,’ ” said University of Maryland law professor Michael Greenberger, a former regulator at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Deutsche Bank was the Fed’s second-largest discount-window borrower during the 2008-2009 crisis.

<...>

The Volcker Rule, which is scheduled to take effect in July, also prohibits banks from providing more than 3 percent of capital in private-equity or hedge funds, prompting banks to spin off those operations as well. Other Dodd-Frank rules recently prompted insurance giant MetLife to sell its FDIC-insured banking unit, which would have subjected the firm to greater regulation and scrutiny by the Federal Reserve.

- more -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/banks-preemptive-strike-against-dodd-frank/2012/03/23/gIQATnUmWS_story.html

[cliffordu]

52. Don't be bringing reality into the conversation here,

It just fucks up the patients.

[paulk]

106. the "reality" is that the so called "JOBS" bill is a piece of shit

It's a GOP sponsored piece of shit legislation and questioning why Obama supported it is not reason to refer to those asking that question as "patients".

In fact, it's pretty goddamed disrespectful of you.

[cliffordu]

121. Why, bless your heart.

[paulk]

124. lame

[Marr]

228. Maybe you guys should wait for your talking points to arrive

before you start posting on this subject.

[cliffordu]

238. You guys? Really?

A post count like yours would make me believe you'd know better with the "You guys" stuff.

But you can never tell, now, can ya??

[Marr]

243. Yeah, they launched a new DU sometime back.

Maybe you heard about it. I pretty much stopped posting when they switched over to the new version, because it seemed to built around the idea of making the site friendlier to... well, "you guys".

[pscot]

16. They've legalized "pump and dump"

Just like Gramm.Leach.Clinton legalized the Derivative kiting that brought down the markets.

[MannyGoldstein]

20. Old folks will get scammed out of their life savings, just

in time for their Social Security to get cut.

Wheeee!!!

[ProSense]

35. Actually,

"Old folks will get scammed out of their life savings, just in time for their Social Security to get cut."

...investors with incomes or net worth less than $100,000 are limited to 5 percent of their income and must be provided information.

These House progressives are in on it with "Boss Tweed":

DeFazio
Ellison
Frank
Waters

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll132.xml

<...>

Of course, to make sure Americans don’t get taken advantage of, the websites where folks will go to fund all these start-ups and small businesses will be subject to rigorous oversight. The SEC is going to play an important role in implementing this bill. And I’ve directed my administration to keep a close eye as this law goes into effect and to provide me with regular updates.

It also means that, to all the members of Congress who are here today, I want to say publicly before I sign this bill, it's going to be important that we continue to make sure that the SEC is properly funded, just like all our other regulatory agencies, so that they can do the job and make sure that our investors get adequate protections.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/05/remarks-president-jobs-act-bill-signing

[MannyGoldstein]

36. How on Earth will that 5% be enforced?

Good luck with that.

[Mojorabbit]

59. The SEC will be right on top of that. Sure. nt

[ProSense]

62. Yeah,

"The SEC will be right on top of that. Sure."

...why on earth would anyone take the SEC seriously? I mean, they were only charged with enforcing the rule being amended.

This is the most hilarious part of the hyperbole and outrage over this small change that comes with enforcement: Those fanning the outrage had no confidence in existing legislation or the regulators to begin with.

[progressoid]

64. Those

"fanning the outrage had no confidence in existing legislation or the regulators to begin with. "

Now, why would that be? I wonder if something happened in recent history to make people lose faith in the legislators and regulators?

[ProSense]

65. Then the

Those

"fanning the outrage had no confidence in existing legislation or the regulators to begin with. "

Now, why would that be? I wonder if something happened in recent history to make people lose faith in the legislators and regulators?

...question becomes: What difference does it make?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002540367

[progressoid]

68. Well,

it looks like this law basically says there is no use for those pesky regulators anyway so the issue is moot. At least for the first 5 years. After that it will be the problem of another administration.

FREE MARKETS!!!11!!

[truebrit71]

146. The SEC are the geniuses that couldn't figure out what Bernie Madoff was doing...

...even AFTER he'd been investigated SIX times...

The SEC couldn't find it's ass with a map and directions..

[girl gone mad]

171. The 5% cap is per annum..

and the SEC is totally captured.

At least try to bring a modicum of honesty to the discussion lest you lose all credibility.

[TiberiusB]

141. The SEC? You can't be serious...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/sec-misled-archives-on-destroying-records-inspector-general-finds/2011/11/01/gIQAx2tKdM_story.html

[banned from Kos]

111. Bullshit. Old folks won't touch internet crowdfunding.

Hey, old folks get scammed on e-mail! Let's outlaw e-mail!

[MannyGoldstein]

115. Let's legalize personal nuclear weapons

Because people already kill each other with guns.

Got it.

[girl gone mad]

172. E-mail is regulated.

It's ILLEGAL to scam old folks on e-mail. People go to jail. Law enforcement has good tools to stop it and track down the criminals behind it.

The JOBS act legalizes and deregulates similar scams done under the guise of crowd funding. JOBS Act makes it LEGAL for scammers to con people out of money. It takes away the regulation and enforcement which currently exists.

Your analogy is a total fail.

[zappaman]

17. It must take up a lot of time

scouring the internetz all day, every day, trying to find articles that are critical of Obama, eh?

[WillyT]

22. Not Really... Go To Any Decent Liberal Website And You'll See Plenty...

[Poll_Blind]

23. Tell me about it! I mean, what IS this "Rolling Stone" magazine? Sounds like a made up name. nt

PB

[SammyWinstonJack]

99. heheheh

And very difficult to locate on the internetz, even!

Takes ALL day!

[sabrina 1]

184. Not difficult if you're a Liberal Democrat?

[Dragonfli]

138. I think "Rolling Stone" is just a rag likely printed up in Carl Rove's basement

I am beginning to learn that the only truthful source that is quotable is whitehouse.gov

Every other outlet is right wing propaganda.

[Autumn]

161. Yeah, we all know whitehouse.gov is the ONLY reliable source

Almost like Pravda.


Sorry but that's just funny.

[MannyGoldstein]

210. Bullshit.

I'm often told on DU that whitehouse.gov was WRONG when it claimed that the President said the following on July 22 2011:

"We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

[ProSense]

217. Interesting

I'm often told on DU that whitehouse.gov was WRONG when it claimed that the President said the following on July 22 2011:

"We then offered an additional $650 billion in cuts to entitlement programs -- Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=534505

This too:

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=544719

Kind of explains everything.

[MannyGoldstein]

218. I guess if you can't attack the message...

Klassy!

[ProSense]

219. Kewl!

[MannyGoldstein]

221. ProSense, I think you should call it a night and get some rest

You've had better showings.

[ProSense]

226. Forever

"You've had better showings."

...disingenuous. Sleep tight!

[MannyGoldstein]

229. See? You're tired.

You even forgot the second colon on the "I've lost the argument on the merits" smiley.

Get some rest.

[ProSense]

230. You

came back. So cute!

[Autumn]

225. Yeah but Manny it was just

a BLUFF, one of those fancy chess moves, the quadzillion dimensional one. Get with the program damn it.

[Skittles]

75. actually it is not hard at all

try ANY critcal-thinking progressive site

[paulk]

108. why don't you scour the internetz

and defend this legislation?

[frylock]

151. did it take up a lot of time to formulate this lame-ass reply?

[SidDithers]

26. ...

Sid

[Honeycombe8]

30. It applies to small businesses, not just big startups, so it's good in that sense.

Small businesses hire more employees than combined than big businesses.

I heard a criticism of Obama on TV a few mos. ago. I think it came from Scarborough, so take whatever you want from him being the source. Anyway, he said that some business friends of his complained that in a recession, when Obama wants jobs to increase, that they resented the fact that Obama had not met with business leaders even once, to talk to them just to see what would help them jumpstart their businesses and get them hiring again. Not even that he wouldn't pursue those things. It was a criticism that he hadn't even bothered to ask them why they weren't hiring.

If that's true, that made sense to me. If you want a business to increase its business and start hiring again, the first thing you'd do, I would think, is ask that business what in particular it thinks would help accomplish that.

I desperately want businesses to start hiring again, so if it does that, it's good. But I must admit that I don't know everything about the bill, and the parts mentioned in that article are pretty concerning. But I do think that investors mentioned are high level investors for the most part, since I've read that the Senate added to the bill some protection for investors that are not experts.

It sounds, offhand, like a good idea that goes too far. But that's what compromise is. Still, I don't hear any Republican criticism, so it might just be an all-out Republican bill. Compromise should mean that both sides complain.

Maybe Obama is desperate to get jobs going.

[MannyGoldstein]

33. Businesses with annual revenues less than $1 billion

No, I'm not making that up - check it out for yourself.

[ProSense]

40. Wrong.

<...>

• Allowing Small Businesses to Harness “Crowdfunding”: The Internet already has been a tool for fundraising from many thousands of donors. Subject to rulemaking by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), startups and small businesses will be allowed to raise up to $1 million annually from many small-dollar investors through web-based platforms, democratizing access to capital. Because the Senate acted on a bipartisan amendment, the bill includes key investor protections the President called for, including a requirement that all crowdfunding must occur through platforms that are registered with a self-regulatory organization and regulated by the SEC. In addition, investors’ annual combined investments in crowdfunded securities will be limited based on an income and net worth test.

• Expanding “Mini Public Offerings”: Prior to this legislation, the existing “Regulation A” exemption from certain SEC requirements for small businesses seeking to raise less than $5 million in a public offering was seldom used. The JOBS Act will raise this threshold to $50 million, streamlining the process for smaller innovative companies to raise capital consistent with investor protections.

• Creating an “IPO On-Ramp”: The JOBS Act makes it easier for young, high-growth firms to go public by providing an incubator period for a new class of “Emerging Growth Companies.” During this period, qualifying companies will have time to reach compliance with certain public company disclosure and auditing requirements after their initial public offering (IPO). Any firm that goes public already has up to two years after its IPO to comply with certain Sarbanes-Oxley auditing requirements. The JOBS Act extends that period to a maximum of five years, or less if during the on-ramp period a company achieves $1 billion in gross revenue, $700 million in public float, or issues more than $1 billion in non-convertible debt in the previous three years.

Additionally, the JOBS Act changes some existing limitations on how companies can solicit private investments from “accredited investors,” tasks the SEC with ensuring that companies take reasonable steps to verify that such investors are accredited, and gives companies more flexibility to plan their access to public markets and incentivize employees.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/05/president-obama-sign-jumpstart-our-business-startups-jobs-act

[MannyGoldstein]

43. Only $1 billion over three years

My apologies.

[Skittles]

73. Manny you are cracking me up

you gonna have those folk clutching their pearls if you keep pointing out the facts!

[Honeycombe8]

215. How did you change your user name so recently after so many posts? nt

[Skittles]

220. I am and have always been SKITTLES

for ten and half years; yes INDEED

[Honeycombe8]

252. That is unbelievable! (meaning I believe it). How 'bout that! You had a premonition.

How is it Skittles is so popular? I've never cared for it. Ate it once and never again.

Beans. Jelly beans. That's my game.

[Skittles]

254. Skittles was my cat

at the time I joined DU, shortly before the 9/11 attacks, I had a solid black (!) cat I had named Skittles - yeah, he was named after the candy - I have always had a sweet tooth - and that includes jelly beans!

Skittles passed away on my fifth anniversary on DU. And yes, I agree: the meaning of my tag name has become even more poignant.

[Honeycombe8]

256. Awwww. Sorry about Skittles. But a fine tribute in your user name. nt

[Marr]

239. Oh, yeah-- that changes everything!

A billion *over three years*.



I took a little break from this site when the new DU was launched, and just started popping back in last week or so. The Defense Team has really declined in quality while I was away.

[Pisces]

38. Do you thrive on negative Obama stories?

[Summer Hathaway]

42. It's all he's got.

It's all he lives for. It's all he has to cut-and-paste about.

But he's a good liberal, Democratic progressive. Seriesly.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Can you stick to content

not personal attacks?

[Summer Hathaway]

47. Pointing out the obvious

is not a personal attack. It is merely a statement of fact.

[woo me with science]

83. Just like this article. nt

[HiPointDem]

149. Even if the poster is Satan, stating that fact doesn't refute the content of the post.

[Fumesucker]

54. You're a relative short termer so you may not know..

BBI used to post a great many articles critical of Dubya back during the Cheney regency..

Evidently it was part of some long term nefarious plan to create a deep cover for when he would be critical of Obama.

My hat's off to someone who can devise and maintain such a devious long term strategy, I'm far too ADD to ever do such a thing.

[Summer Hathaway]

55. Any links to those great many articles? n/t

Last edited Tue Apr 10, 2012, 01:59 AM - Edit history (3)

Edited to add an hour later:

I guess not.

Maybe those "great many articles" are so numerous, you're having a hard time deciding which ones to post links to.

Or maybe no such articles exist.

I'm betting on the latter.

[SidDithers]

61. BBI had only been a DUer for about 8 months prior to election 2008...

pretty much all I remember them posting during that time were articles that supported China and criticized Tibet and the "Da-Lie Lama".

Or don't you remember their posts during the protests of the 2008 Beijing Olympics? You should go back and read them. They're very enlightening (though not terribly enlightened).

Sid

[Fumesucker]

66. How's overturning single payer in Canada in favor of a private mandate coming, Sid?

[Summer Hathaway]

67. How's those links to

BBI's "great many articles critical of Dubya back during the Cheney regency" comin'?

[Mimosa]

76. I love it when Canadians tell U.S. we should be happy with ACA 2010

Fumesucker, I'm in your boat. Sick, but can't afford health care.

You're a real sweetie and I miss you when I take breaks from D.U.

[SidDithers]

90. ...

Sid

[Dragonfli]

136. ....

[nashville_brook]

134. +1

[Dragonfli]

135. He just laughs at our health care misfortunes, and refuses to answer how his campaign is going

I have asked him many times why it is so funny,
why he likes the insurance cartels over Canadian Health Care,
How the campaign to change it to the Heritage Foundation plan is going,
He only laughs because our party and our country appear funny to him.

My wife dying from insurance shenanigans is funny?
I somehow fail to get the joke.

I fail to see why he posts here rather than some Harper site somewhere, perhaps he does both.

We are just the one he posts to to laugh at Americans perhaps.

[Bobbie Jo]

104. If you don't mind, please

link to at least ONE of those posts. Considering this poster registered in '08, the time frame you're referencing just doesn't match up.

Thanks

[SidDithers]

119. Don't hold your breath...nt

Sid

[frylock]

152. perhaps you'd be more comfortable looking at happy pictures?

i understand there are several still shots and video of the easter egg roll that you might find are more your speed.

[Summer Hathaway]

180. Well, there's the kind of response

that's become quite popular here, to wit: if you don't agree with every anti-Obama article posted, you are obviously just looking for "happy pictures".

Must be an awfully boring place, that black-and-white world you inhabit, where everyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is dismissed as not being "your speed".

Probably a lonely little world, too.

[girl gone mad]

183. What was your disagreement with the article?

I only saw ad hominem criticism of BBI.

[Marr]

240. That's all you're going to see.

They've got nothing else left.

[frylock]

187. yeh, you got this place nailed down in the whole 4 months you've been here

it's such a ronery little world i inhabit. won't you be my friend?

[Summer Hathaway]

198. Ahem ...

You do realize that DU is visible to people who aren't registered as members, don't you?

Besides, I wasn't talking about the place as a whole - just a handful of posters who believe that anyone who doesn't get on board with every anti-Obama screed posted is "looking for pretty pictures".

That's because it's one or the other with said posters: either you're anti-Obama, or you're a rose-colored glasses wearing dope who's not "up to speed".

Like I said, narrow little viewpoint from the "you're with us or against us", narrow-minded world ...

[frylock]

199. you either support shit policy or you don't support shit policy..

the letter that any specific politician happens to sport on their uniform shouldn't make the least bit of difference. the OP is about this aforementioned shit policy. rather than discuss that, you decided to make it personal. now you want to pretend that you're above all that. that is fucking laughable.

[Summer Hathaway]

203. Go back and read our exchange

I commented to another poster in this thread about BBI's penchant for posting every anti-Obama article he can find. I did not engage you in conversation in any way.

You, however, engaged me in conversation and immediately stated that I was only comfortable with "pretty pictures", which would be "more my speed".

Now tell me again how I was the one who made it personal?

The record, as they say, speaks for itself. And everyone is free to read it for themselves.

[MADem]

44. I think that's a valid question. nt

[blue neen]

46. "Thrive" being the operative word.

.

[MannyGoldstein]

48. Attacking the messenger

Crafty!

[Bolo Boffin]

78. Poor old messenger. n/t

[woo me with science]

82. It's very RUDE to post what Obama is actually doing! nt

[cliffordu]

49. Nailed. It.

That train is never late.


Never ever ever.

[SidDithers]

53. Negative Obama stories? I hadn't noticed...

Sid

[sabrina 1]

70. Thanks for kicking BBI's threads. I would miss a lot of them if it weren't for you

K&R

[joshcryer]

72. All you have to do is click "sort by replies" in GD...

...and you will find most of them since they garner a lot of replies.

[inna]

145. or... one could find BBI's threads by the # of recs, at least in theory

Last edited Wed Apr 11, 2012, 01:25 AM - Edit history (1)

since they're typically are... most recommended, wha'd'ya'know!

(not as if *some* people, on the other hand, give a flying fook about democracy - but that is a separate, uh, topic)

[joshcryer]

247. You can't sort by recs.

[SidDithers]

91. I think it's important that their threads get as much exposure as possible...nt

Sid

[Autumn]

107. I agree Sid. That's why I always rec these threads.

It's good to know what the President is doing. Sunlight being a good disinfectant and all that.

[SidDithers]

110. Absolutely. Sunlight is the best disinfectant...nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

123. So do a majority of DUers.

So keep up the good work. Most of us don't have the time to keep track of other DUers and appreciate your efforts re the apparently very popular BBI

[treestar]

94. Yes. It's his life blood.

[Poll_Blind]

51. .

PB

[ProSense]

56. .

http://www.whitehouse.gov/economy/buffett-rule

[joshcryer]

69. Hey OP, do you consider crowd funding a liberal or conservative thing?

Just wondering before I even try to engage you or anyone of those in this thread who apparently are against it.

[banned from Kos]

100. since no one else will answer - its very LIBERAL and egalitarian

it removes intermediaries that add no value (brokers and book runners).

Its like buying a lotto ticket - don't do it if you want 100 chance of keeping your dollar. Fuck Taibbi - that idiot.

[sabrina 1]

137. Taibbi is one of the best writers around when it comes to this kind of reporting

One of the most respected critics of Bush policies, and still is. And of Wall Street corruption. At least by the Left. The Right hates him though.

[girl gone mad]

182. "Its like buying a lotto ticket"

Which is precisely the opposite of what investing is supposed to be. But welcome to America 2012. A banana republic without the bananas (unless you count Congress).

[girl gone mad]

177. Look at the micro-loan market as a good microcosm for what's about to happen.

When micro-lending first began, it was a neat way for struggling people in the third world who just needed a little bit of money to be able to start a sustainable business.

Then for-profit banks got wind of this new lending model and pushed for deregulation where necessary so they could get their tentacles deep into the market, just like what we see now with this JOBS act.

Next thing you know, what started out as a lovely and ingenious means of helping needy people grew into a huge racket with small farmers committing suicide after losing their land and banks sending goons to harass single mothers for their every last possession.

[joshcryer]

248. That's a simplification of a highly complex situation.

Done right crowdfunding is a very liberal process.

[Egalitarian Thug]

71. Here's how it could be worse, they could have called it;

The Plutocrats Grab All You Can as Fast as You Can Before the Next Collapse Act. But then PGAYCFTCBNCA is hard to pronounce and has too many letters for the suckers to remember.

[woo me with science]

85. Bwah!

I think they also considered calling it Plutocrats In League to Loot Absolutely Goddamned Everyone (PILLAGE).

[Egalitarian Thug]

88. Oh my, there it is! (I'd make it Everything, but...)

Brilliant work there.

[Luminous Animal]

173. Excellent!

[Bolo Boffin]

77. Another Obama-dissing article from Better Believe It.

[trumad]

79. Actaully it's from Matt Taibbi

one of the best writers out there.

[Bolo Boffin]

86. Matt Taibbi posted it here? n/t

[trumad]

92. No--- but if I read it ---I certainly would have posted it here...

You going to imply that I'm an Obama hater?

[SidDithers]

97. Do you post almost nothing but articles "critical" of Obama and Democrats...

from sources that sometimes include far-right wingers?

The pattern is more telling than the single article.

Sid

[sabrina 1]

132. So would most of us. Taibbi is always worth reading, or at least he used to be

when he was saying the same things about Bush's policies.

[trumad]

133. The Jobs bill is really not a good bill.

[Better Believe It]

140. But the "Jobs Act" will create jobs for "con-men, fraudsters, boiler room operators, banksters ...."

"The JOBS Act is aptly named because it will certainly generate tons of work for con-men, fraudsters, boiler room operators, pandering accountants, analysts and banksters, regulators, lawyers, and eventually prison guards," said Gilani. (Money Morning Capital Waves Strategist Shah Gilani.)

[sabrina 1]

186. I know. What I don't know is why

any Democrat would try to pretend that it is.

[A Simple Game]

216. Not all Democrats on this board are to the left of center.

Not many of the most vocal supporters of President Obama are left of center. Some aren't even close.

[Bolo Boffin]

159. Then you would have posted a dupe thread...

...since any article critical of Obama is posted here by Better Believe It as fast as s/he possibly can.

[trumad]

163. Well if I posted it would it have been better?

Can't accuse me of being a Obama basher.....

[Bolo Boffin]

165. Exactly. n/t

[frylock]

153. booyah!

your retort takes me back to junior high. good times.

[Bolo Boffin]

158. I get junior high comments, I give them right back.

Yes, that's calling trumad's nitpicking a "junior high" comment. Didn't want that sailing over your head.

[FSogol]

84. Who could have seen that coming?

[Bolo Boffin]

87. Yeah, I know.

I'm looking forward to general election season here at DU, too.

[trumad]

93. Did you guys even read the Taibbi piece?

I doubt you did.

Do you think the 5 year exemption is a good thing?

[SammyWinstonJack]

102. ...

*crickets*

[trumad]

105. 5 years...

It's stunning that they will allow this shit.

[Dragonfli]

143. There is money that must be raised from wall streaters and bankers, it is for the greater good.

He can't be competitive without their cash, he can't get their cash without signing laws that will enrich them more, therefore he must do their bidding in order to not do their bidding....or something.

I have trouble following it, luckily a Pro with a lot of Sense has been sent here to explain the great goodness of it all.
Republican bills are good for Democrats because it is how New Democrats win elections and that is really all that is important.

[Autumn]

166. New democrats, old fucking republicans

I just keep trying to figure out the difference. Very little that I see.

[Dragonfli]

170. If I were cynical, I would say they are exactly the same, but

they are slightly different on wedge issues, the only issues left we are allowed to vote for in most cases.

New Democrats agree with every single recommendation the US Chamber of Commerce has made regarding "Job Creation"
http://www.friendsoftheuschamber.com/images/110905_jobs_letter.pdf

They also agree with them on deregulation and lowering corporate tax rates.
They have adopted the Heritage Foundation approach to Insurance Reform via an individual mandate to enrich the vultures of the health care system rather than address access directly.

There are other commonalities between new Democrats and old Republicans of course, but I am sure you are already aware.

They are slightly more pro-woman and pro-reproductive rights than their old Republican counterparts were, so there is that I guess....

[Autumn]

174. True. The more pro-woman and pro-reproductive rights are

meaning less and less to me as I grow older. I'm becoming more concerned about human rights, and constitutional rights and I am not fucking liking what I am seeing.

[Dragonfli]

176. Unfortunately, I see they have adopted the same views re human and constitutional rights

as their counterparts across the aisle.

We will get no help on those issues no matter how we vote unless paleo-Democrats regain control of our party, unlikely, as the New Democratic coalition (once called DLC or third way) have taken firm control of the party leadership since at least Clinton.

The only hope for human rights and the restoration of constitutional rights appears to rest entirely in the hands of citizens occupying.

[Autumn]

178. Very troubling isn't it?

And I am not too sure we can expect all that much from citizens occupying.

[Dragonfli]

179. Very troubling, and the state has likely grown strong enough to crush dissent

While charging occupiers with crimes from new laws and laws in the works that would make George Orwell pull his hair out.

It is a hail Mary pass, it has to be tried.

Still, I too am not sure we can expect too much, it will likely just become an exercise for the state to flex it's new muscles and jail dissenters.

[truebrit71]

148. Who would invest in a company that didn't have to bother with an accountant for 5 years?

..."Just trust us, we are flush with cash and have $4 Billion in revenues, and sales are up 200%"....

Yeah, what could POSSIBLY go wrong there?

[dana_b]

156. as Taibbi said the problem is that the honest

companies, who do the accounting, will have to compete with the others who won't. Who do we think will win out there? Some people who invest don't ask enough questions or even know which questions to ask.

[joshcryer]

251. Have you read the entire act? Including the CROWDFUND Act?

[Marr]

241. If you can't counter the article's subject matter, then

you're just saying these are facts that should be ignored. All I'm seeing from Obama supporters here are personal attacks on critics and a sort of supportive circle-jerk.

[Bolo Boffin]

244. Did I say these are facts that should be ignored?

By pointing out that Better Believe It continually posts derogatory article after derogatory article about Obama, something sure to depress enthusiasm about him in the general election, I'm saying topics shouldn't be discussed?

Perhaps you should take a good long look at the Terms of Service you agreed to when you signed up here at DU3 and think about it.

[Marr]

245. I'm familiar with the rules. I believe they say something

about calling out individual DUers, don't they?

You're attacking the person who posted the info instead of discussing the info. That's all that's being done-- no real counter-arguments at all.

[Bolo Boffin]

246. They also say something about supporting Democratic candidates in the general election.

And the OP is incessantly attacking President Obama, the clear Democratic presidential candidate in a race in which the Republican candidate is ALSO clear.

That IS the issue here.

[treestar]

95. Who'd a thunk it?

[WI_DEM]

98. the day you find an article favorable to Obama I will believe that pigs can fly.

[Better Believe It]

101. So this morning you learned that pigs can fly! Maybe you can catch a ride on one!

Posted by Better Believe It
Obama Administration Protects Birth Control Access for Women

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1002192095

[MannyGoldstein]

112. Congratulations, BBI, on the apology you're about to receive!

Any minute now...

[ProSense]

114. Vote

"Boss Tweed" 2012!

[Bobbie Jo]

116. LOL

That ONE probably wasn't too hard to find. He's referenced this token post more than once as if to create some kind of gotcha moment. No doubt it's bookmarked for just such an occasion.

[SidDithers]

117. "token post"...

Sid

[Better Believe It]

126. I can give him more examples if he wants. But, I won't hold my breath waiting for an apology.

Well, perhaps he outside looking for a flying pig he can catch a ride with!

[ProSense]

130. Oh

everyone knows you're going to hold your nose and vote for Obama.

Thanks in advance for helping to re-elect "Boss Tweed."

[Bolo Boffin]

160. Pigs flew! On January 20, 2012...

You had to go back three months to find a positive article on Obama you posted here. And you post new articles here how often? At least once a day, right?

[one_voice]

164. Very good article thank you for posting...

though I must say, I find it quite odd that the usual suspects are slobbering all over and rec'ing this thread to death--a negative article--but almost nothing from them on the positive article on Obama.

Strange indeed.

[girl gone mad]

211. Obama is supposed to be a Democrat.

I expect him to do the right thing by default. It shouldn't be big news every time a Democrat does something positive, should it?

When the person I voted for enacts shitty Republicanesque policy, that's a big fucking deal to me.

[Marr]

242. That was just part of your insidious plot to pass as a Democrat!!!

You Never Loved Him©!!!!

[frylock]

154. is there a quota of positive obama articles that need to be posted..

before one can level legit criticism of shit policy?

[KG]

109. tut-tut Matt.

can't see you this is wonderful legislation, simply by virtue the pres. signing it?

and what a hatah you are for even suggesting otherwise..

[xiamiam]

118. lots of attacking the messenger on this thread

tsk tsk..not his fault or matt taibbi's that disappointment in what obama does continues. It is not personal because he seems like a really nice man, with a great family and beautiful smile and is a great orator. I like all of that but its just not enough.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

122. Cause we all know how well --

loosening regulations works when it comes to money/WS.

[bvar22]

125. DURec.

Thanks, Taibbi & Rolling Stone,
and BBI for posting.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their Campaign Hype.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[inna]

139. ditto

K&R

:kick:

[ihavenobias]

189. K & R n/t

[KG]

142. damn near forgot to rec.

[ProSense]

150. In praise of crowdfunding

In praise of crowdfunding
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002542241

Good stuff!

[rudycantfail]

157. Thanks BBI.

The truth does not upset me.

[Autumn]

168. It could suck worse. It could be a republican bill

Oops, never mind. Thanks BBI. Love Matt, he tells the truth.

[AdHocSolver]

181. This law will do NOTHING to increase US jobs. The money will be invested in China.

Just as most electronics is manufactured overseas (remember Foxconn?), any jobs created in the US will soon be outsourced to China and other low-wage countries.

This isn't a "jobs" bill so much as a "get out of jail free" card.

This is the law that the executives of Enron would have wished for had they had the ability to get it passed.

If the middle class has learned anything in the past few years, it should be NOT to invest in any of these start up companies, and insure that any money that they have in 401(k) accounts must NOT be used to buy shares in any stock issued under the "jobs act".

If President Obama wants to write a REAL jobs act, there are two steps he can take that would actually produce such a result.

1. Rewrite the tax code to ensure that profits realized from importing goods rather than manufacturing goods in the U.S. are taxed fairly.

2. Get rid of trade agreements such as NAFTA and the WTO that make it super profitable to outsource jobs to low wage countries and that make it difficult for American manufacturers who do employ American workers to compete with the importers.

Furthermore, it is a fraudulent claim that the US can produce enough jobs to counterbalance the flood of imports enabled by NAFTA and its ilk.

[RiffRandell]

185. Love your posts!

I've read Rolling Stone since the eighties and love Matt Taiibi.

FYI though: I think you really need to get laid.

[MrSlayer]

188. Why so much denial around here?

President Obama is as much a corporate tool as anyone in Washington D.C., that's the way it is and apparently that's the way it will always be from now on. You have two choices in politics, slow death with the Democrats or quick decapitation with the Republicans. The social issues are the things that make the Democrats more palatable to us and they're right on those issues. And the Democrats are good with the rhetoric about economic policies, things we agree with, but the actions are the same as the Republicans. And that is because they are all owned by the same people. Why do some of us continue to lie to ourselves about these facts? The system is broken, the game is rigged, they all sold us out a long time ago and it's never going to get much better than it is now. They call it the "new normal" and they're right. We're never going to have full employment again, they're going to get our SS money, they're going to end Medicare and the Post Office is gone. And it will all because we have to compromise with the fascists, we have to be bipartisan, we didn't have the votes or we're keeping our powder dry. This country is fucked, the bad guys won and we as a nation let it happen.

[ProSense]

190. That's

"Why so much denial around here?"

...a good question.

SEC Begins Big Dig Into Hedge Fund Data
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/1002543512

[WillyT]

191. Quit Trying To Cheer Me Up, Will Ya !!!

Sigh...

Constitutional Convention is the only way...

Let's see if anybody gives a damn.

[AdHocSolver]

193. What is really annoying is when a thread is taken over by the "pro" versus "anti" Obama crowd.

The so-called "Jobs Act" is a bad law no matter who supports it or opposes it.

The so-called "Jobs Act" will not generate enough jobs (at least, not in the U.S.) to help the U.S. economy.

The "Jobs Act" is more "smoke and mirrors" from the politicians to encourage the public to believe that the politicians are doing something to help the economy. They are NOT.

The law should be discussed and judged on its own merits irrespective of who supports or opposes it.

Many threads on DU become battlegrounds about irrelevancies that distract from the significant issues.

[Better Believe It]

194. There really isn't an "anti-Obama" crowd on DU. You have progressives who oppose certain policies.

It's not at all personal.

[ProSense]

196. .

"Boss Tweed" 2012!

[sabrina 1]

231. You're right, there is no Anti-Obama crowd here. There is an anti-bad-policies

crowd here as there always was. Frankly I don't think even the most progressive president in the world, could do much about the current powers who control this government. So in a sense, politicians are a side issue.

But there are those who want to make it personal to distract from the real problems, the bad policies pushed by Corporate America and the money that has corrupted the whole system.

[ProSense]

195. The only

The so-called "Jobs Act" is a bad law no matter who supports it or opposes it.

The so-called "Jobs Act" will not generate enough jobs (at least, not in the U.S.) to help the U.S. economy.

The "Jobs Act" is more "smoke and mirrors" from the politicians to encourage the public to believe that the politicians are doing something to help the economy. They are NOT.

The law should be discussed and judged on its own merits irrespective of who supports or opposes it.

Many threads on DU become battlegrounds about irrelevancies that distract from the significant issues.

...people pushing this as job-creating are Republicans. They came up with the name. The bill is about financing entrepreneurs and small businesses.

http://upload.democraticunderground.com/1002542241

[Bobbie Jo]

224. Clue

Last edited Tue Apr 10, 2012, 11:17 PM - Edit history (1)

In this case, it's the messenger.

[joshcryer]

249. Yes, no one is cactually discussing the law, they're just saying Tabbi is wrong or right...

...or the OP has an agenda.

I'm getting over a really bad stomach issue (food poisoning) but from what I could tell it looks like decent legislation and I think people are freaking out over nothing. It seems at least to me that Tabbi didn't actually read the legislation.

[cyglet]

204. K&R

A bad bill is a bad bill, no matter who signs it..

[Taverner]

206. The strategy COULD be to improve upon this

When he gets a Democratic Congress again....

Not sure - I may be waaaaay off...

But things are looking good for us

[bvar22]

207. The old "We'll Fix It Later!"

When have "they" actually gone back and Fixed Bad Policy Later?

I'm still waiting for The Democrats to "fix" NAFTA like they promised so that Ross Perot's predictions of jobs leaving the USA won't come true.

...and The patriot Act. They were going to "fix" that one "later" too.

"Fixing it LATER" is an open admission that "they" are supporting BAD policy,
and voting FOR BAD Policy,
with the full knowledge that it IS Bad Policy.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Taverner]

223. Medicare. Social Security.

Granted, I will give you that those are the only ones...

[Zax2me]

235. Good. Puff pieces are boring.

Better to point out and identify fuck ups, especially obvious ones, instead of sugar coating shit.
It will better serve us and Obama in his second term.

[rudycantfail]

237. rofl smileys are on the rise

as the intent of this administration becomes less defensible. It's a serious time to be so smug.

[Poll_Blind]

253. 88 recs!

PB