Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

WH: The American Jobs Act is "fully paid for"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 12:53 PM
Original message
WH: The American Jobs Act is "fully paid for"
Via Greg Sargent

<...>

The White House is circulating talking points to outside allies and surrogates that offer the most detailed look yet at how Obama will pitch his plan. Heres the key chunk:

    The American Jobs Act is:

      based on bi-partisan ideas;

      it is fully paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes and asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share; and

      it will have an impact on job and economic growth NOW just as soon as Congress acts.

      Every day, people in this country are working hard to meet their responsibilities. The question now is whether Washington will meet theirs.

      The time for obstruction and gridlock is over. Congress needs to put country ahead of politics.

      The American people know that the economic crisis and the deep recession werent created overnight and wont be solved overnight. The economic security of the American middle class has been under attack for decades.

      Thats why President Obama believes we need to do more than just recover from this economic crisis.

      The President is rebuilding the economy the American way based on balance, fairness and the same set of rules for everyone from Wall Street to Main Street where hard work and responsibility pay and gaming the system is penalized.

      Its an American economy thats built to last and creates the jobs of the future, by forcing Washington to live within its means so we can invest in small business entrepreneurs, education, and making things the world buys, not outsourcing, loopholes and reckless financial deals that put middle class security at risk.
<...>


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bigdarryl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think the White House is UNDERESTIMATING people with this bipartisan
Edited on Thu Sep-08-11 12:58 PM by bigdarryl
There getting tired of it and the White House is starting to look weak it seems to me there looking at trying to make up a jobs plan to the republicans liking and that shit ain't going to fly with the progressives
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scheming daemons Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 01:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Reread the part in bold
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. ...asking the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share...
to which they'll say "no".

At which point he says, "OK, we can squeeze it from the bottom 90%. Have a nice day."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
14. Nothing will happen if the Repubs don't come to their senses
and start thinking about our national economic future instead of trying to recoup the presidency. Support from Congress is essential if anything is going get us back on track. The president's hands will be tied if this doesn't happen. If amyone can come up with a solution without the support of Congress let's hear it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. According to Bloomberg, there will also be cuts to entitlements to help foot the bill
Is this accurate?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-06/obama-said-to-...

Obama will call on Congress to offset the cost of the short-term jobs measures by raising tax revenue in later years. This would be part of a long-term deficit reduction package, including spending and entitlement cuts as well as revenue increases, that he will present next week to the congressional panel charged with finding ways to reduce the nations debt.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. "Is this accurate?"
"Obama will call on Congress to offset the cost of the short-term jobs measures by raising tax revenue in later years. This would be part of a long-term deficit reduction package, including spending and entitlement cuts as well as revenue increases, that he will present next week to the congressional panel charged with finding ways to reduce the nations debt. "

His jobs speech isn't a deficit reduction package being presented to a Congresssional panel. Seems the piece tried to wrap everything up into one convuluted and speculative package.

The WH states where the funding for jobs will come from.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cali_Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. So it's safe to say there will be no entitlement cuts to help pay for the jobs package?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. That statement
at the bloomberg article had nothing to do with the jobs speech. Take it however you choose to.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tarheel_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
5. K&R (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 01:18 PM
Response to Original message
7. Unfortunately nothing at all will pass, but this is probably a good plan to push politically
Though for once I won't say "the details matter", since in this case they really don't at all...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
9. Who cares if it's fully paid for?
It doesn't have to please Eric Cantor, it has to put $ into the hands of middle class Americans so they can spend some and get the economy moving again.

I can't understand why they think being deficit neutral is even a consideration anymore.

Besides, Reagan taught us deficits don't matter. I know that's true because Dick Cheney said so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Hmmmm?
"Who cares if it's fully paid for?"

I guess the President.

"It doesn't have to please Eric Cantor, it has to put $ into the hands of middle class Americans so they can spend some and get the economy moving again."

It can't put "$ into the hands of middle class Americans" if it doesn't pass Congress.

It's likely that Boehner Cantor and House Republicans will vote against the package, primarily, but not solely based on how it will be funded.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tularetom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
20. You said it yourself
It does not matter what Obama proposes, Boner Cantor & co. will vote against it anyway.

So he might as well go for the gold.

Instead of some tepid, half assed proposal that neither reduces unemployment, reduces the deficit, or improves the economy, propose something bold, something of epic proportions, something that catches the attention of every pissed off American and makes them even more pissed off at the Republicans for opposing it.

It's universally acknowledged now that the original stimulus package was a middle of the road, middle sized, politically safe proposal designed not necessarily to save the faltering economy. but to piss off as few republicans as possible. It did neither.

The president is running out of time. He's going to be judged on how things are perceived instead of what gets done because nothing is going to get done. He has to draw the biggest contrast between what he is proposing and what the loonies are willing to support and point out at what neverending tax cuts are what got us into this friggin mess in the first place.

He might fail. But if you're going to fail, at least go out with a bang.

So I'll reiterate, this speech is not for the likes of Boner and Cantor, it';s a political speech aimed at the voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hosnon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #9
17. Unfortunately, it does have to please House Republicans.
At least to the degree necessary for them to vote "yes".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
11. Wake me when its over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
totodeinhere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 01:24 PM
Response to Original message
12. I only got as far as "based on bi-partisan ideas" to realize that it is a sham.
It is impossible to be bi-partisan with the crowd that controls the House.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. The infrastructure bank proposed
by Kerry is bipartisan. Still, you're right: House Republicans will oppose it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
16. The only thing I see wrong with this is:
it will have an impact on job and economic growth NOW just as soon as Congress acts.

Putting "NOW" and "as soon as Congress acts" in the same sentence is very much an oxymoron!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. Wish I could disagree :-( n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
young but wise Donating Member (760 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-08-11 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 21st 2014, 07:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC