Full Text: The Obama ‘Jobs Plan’ and Tax Hike
by PubliusToday, the Obama Administration sent legislation to Congress, detailing its latest plan to spur job creation. It relies on half-a-trillion dollars in new spending with an almost equivalent amount of tax increases. Very little of the proposed spending would actually spur new investment or hiring, while most of the tax hikes would work directly against them. The man is simply out of tricks. (Full text below.)
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
69 Comments
More Goverment and Union Workers is what has brought this Nation to its knees.
What is needed is the Government having a lot less money to spend, having a Government with a lot less Employees.
Doing what has been done over the past 30 to 40 years is not going to fix the problems of the past 30 to 40 years, and that is a fact.
Errrr…
SECTION 284. ESTABLISHMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY BROADBAND CORPORATION
76(a) Establishment.—There is authorized to be established a private, nonprofit corporation,to be known as the “Public Safety Broadband Corporation”, which is neither an agency nor establishment of the United States Government or the District of Columbia Government
SECTION 285. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CORPORATION.(a)… Membership.—The management of the Corporation shall be vested in a Board of Directors (referred to in this Title as the “Board”), which shall consist of the following members:(1) FEDERAL MEMBERS.—The following individuals, or their respectivedesignees, shall serve as Federal members:
(A) The Secretary of Commerce.
(B) The Secretary of Homeland Security.
(C) The Attorney General of the United States.
(D) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget
In the words of Ben Franklin and Albert Einstein "insanity is doing the same thing but expecting different results" Looks like Obama is insane to me.
Quite simple how to spur job growth, cut taxes and ease up on government regulations and get rid of the damn unions. This bill is obviously just more Obama drivel.
155 pages? Get real.
He could create a lot more jobs with a two-word bill.
("I resign" for those who couldn't figure it out).
Everything about Obama is increasing the baseline, increasing the "bare bones" amount that the federal government must spend every year. None of his policies have anything to do with 'the economy' per se, other than to shear it as close to the skin as possible without the animal spirits bleeding to death.
Pass this bill at your own peril congress. It's time to call this two bit hacks bluff. You want to 'bring it to the American People'? We'll redefine 'bring it'. Go ahead. The American People have already spoken quite loudly about your agenda. It stinks. To high heaven.
Just started reading and they are learning, It has a severability clause upfront.
It does have the standard unoin giveaway in the starting sections as well. Prevailing wages my hindquarters.
Does anyone think that this is any kind of change over the previous stimulii? What a crock.
This thing has to be putting a real burden on the toilet paper industry. I wonder if it's single or double ply.
KILL THIS BILL…
As expected, NO-PLAN OBOZO's deficit expanding "save-my-job" proposal (which is SO UNIMPORTANT and SO UNURGENT it could wait until AFTER the VACATIONER-in-CHIEF returned from his latest taxpayer-funded luxury vacation on the Vineyard) is nothing more than a joke and a sham.
OBOZO'S bad bill does two horrific things:
1. It reduces the ONLY source of funding for the Social Security program, i.e., the federal payroll tax (FICA). SS is ALREADY in the red due to the failed policies of OBOZO and this reduction in funding will only hasten it's total bankruptcy.
2. Provide taxpayer subsidies (i.e., bailouts) to keep public-sector and other union jobs. The dues from these union jobs are the principal source of funding for d-cRAT socialists' campaigns, so they are again trying to use our tax money to fund their re-election efforts.
Congress should immediately shred OBOZO's phony "jobs" bill and replace it with measures that will actually create real jobs. They must ABOLISH the job-kill and economy-killing EPA, ABOLISH the job-killing National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and ABOLISH each and every destructive rule and regulation on business enacted by OBOZO and the d-cRAT socialists to get the boot of d-cRAT socialism off the neck of our FREE ENTERPRISE system so it can do what it has always done – create jobs and foster the prosperity of all Americans.
Sorry- stopped reading at "teacher stabilization" and "school modernization" BS. That's union grease money. Won't create any jobs. Will just cost taxpayers more money.
I see a clear violation of the 14th Amendment on the first page.
How can an administration "write" a bill about job creation when no one in the administration has ever created a job? Marxists never create anything productive. Never have.
Boehner… Be very afraid of the constituancy regarding this ongoing debacle…. If you attempt to scam the American public one more time your days as a legislator will be brought to a screeching halt. Either you are PRO-AMERICAN or you are siding with the Marxist Socialists. You choose. As will we ! !
Enough said…YAWN ! I'll have another Martini, bartender ! (watch #9 tomorrow in NYC…the special election…. A bellringing earthquake if the liberals lose the seat to Turner)
All public works projects have to comply with the Davis-Bacon Wage Act. It's called union protectionism…. Prevailing wages is code for Davis-Bacon….
Heh – it has 2 severability clauses. See page 134
One question; what do all y'all think the chances are of this bill passing the house?
*Should* be a no-brainer, but it isn't, that is problem #1.
This isn't a jobs bill. It's Son of Stimulus.
If Barack Obama is betting the farm on this Frankenstien amalgamation of rejected spending items to save his Presidency, the Democrats may as well just go ahead and primary him. He's finished.
Thank goodness, there for a second I thought 0bama was just a tax and spend libera….er socialist.
So, we're borrowing this money to make sure that we can protect all the public union employee jobs, and good news!! we're going to make your oil and gas grossly more expensive to pay for them.
Obama- "MY Jobs Plan will be FULLY PAID FOR………………………………………….by YOU!!!!!!!!"
"which is neither an agency nor establishment of the United States Government"
Well then what the hell is it? This cannot be constitutional.
If you are buying, I'll have one too. Should we watch Monday Night Football for a distraction???
Never will.
More Goverment and Union Workers is what has brought this Nation to its knees.
Which is the progressive's plan. See, its working great. Just a few more trillion and they'll have us where they want us, broke and broken. The huge surprise for them…when we're broke, they will be, too. There won't be a USA to send them foreign aid money that they can hijack for themselves. We'll all be broke and broken…but we'll be equal, by golly. It will all be "fair." God help us.
When in doubt the left will always double down on stupid..
"Let's Rock!!" – said by a True American
That's too true, Harry.
Frankly, I really have little hope for the GOP.
Obama being President as of this point in time is not Constitutional.
Bill needs to be retitled: The D.O.A. Bill
Einstein once said;
"Insanity is doing the same thing overr and over, expecting a different result".
i don't think this stimulus is enough.needs to be at least a trillion.we have millions of american children and millions of yet born children who are gladly willing to pay this in future taxes.we must tax our children more so we came live the high life right not.tax them tax them children to death.
this should be our chant
"The man is simply out of tricks."
Obama has always been a one-trick-pony.
This wasn't a Jobs Bill.
It is the Swahili Shuffle.
Just a different version of the Harlem Shuffle, run by the Policy Bank Operators in Harlem back in the the 30's and 40's.
It better not pass or else Boehner will sob for years to come.
WOW a Jobs Bill worthy of being printed on TOILET PAPER !
Question: Isn't the President in the Executive Branch of government?
All I saw in that 155 pages was more spending on unions, and teachers' unions, and other failed programs of the last two and a half years. Yeah, Buy American, UNLESS IT INCREASES THE COSTS BY 25%. So, we can buy American unless it drives up the cost of something that would be $100,000 to at least $125,000. If it is only $124,999, well then, waste that extra $24,999 of tax payer dollars. I'm all for buying American, but if American unions demand wages, and do-gooders in the government pass regulations that make the American product cost 25% more, I simply can't afford it on a personal basis and we as a nation can't afford it on a national basis.
Reading the bill, I keep seeing the youths lining up for the jobs at Acorn and project vote. Saw the word waiver a few times. I love how Obama expands government with board directors of his choosing. Kill the bill.
Business is hunkered down and will NOT expand as long as the socialist dems pursue this constant piling on against any form of success. 2012 can't get here soon enough.
Tricks.
The only real trick in the WH is the trick he pulled to get there.
"Spend Again"–Sarah Palin.
Are you out of your mind??? Before Obama took office the US economy was loosing 800,000 jobs a month, last month the private sector grew by 76,000 jobs while the public sector lost 80,000 jobs, mostly in Republican districts, I thought numbers like this would make you happy?
You are right about one thing, continuing down the same deregulation, tax cut, and spending practices of the last 30+ years will not solve the problem!!
Show me proof that tax cuts to the wealthiest 5% spurs growth, show me some historical fact that reducing tax on the top 5% of income earners is healthy to the economy. Are you aware that the tax rate in the US is at its lowest rate in American history, what has it gotten us??
How much is in this bill for buying and selling automatic weapons to Mexican gangsters? How much was in all of the other STIM-U-LESSES for Obama's cronies and fellow Grifters?
In related news:
Budget Figures, simplified
Why the US was downgraded…
• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000
Let's remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a household budget:
• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385
As Margret Thatcher (former Prime Minister of Great Britain) once said "Socialism is GREAT – UNTIL you run out of other people's money".
If you include all of our history, we have had far lower tax rates and the government still generated good revenue. Besides, its not just tax cuts that are needed, the government has been over regulating as well, and those in themselves are like another tax. On top of that, Obamas bill will only have temp cuts but many more new taxes after 2013. So really, this new bill will create higher unemployment much like the first Stimulus bill.
If you want real job growth and higher employment, then we need to move government out of the way period. Since the government has no idea how to save or create jobs, but only knows to pays off unions and special interests.
Penalizing the rich just because they have worked harder and smarter is completely ludicrous. A flat tax is the only fair thing, hockeynation wouldn't know about that though…shhh, don't tell anyone but hn is sort of stupid.
That's the dumbest bill I've ever read.
Kill it immediately.
Very good post.
No tax increase will make up the short fall. Even IF we increased everyone's taxes by 50% the revenue wouldn't match the current spending.
We cannot give people who mismanaged $14 tril more money.
Sure I will buy… Happy Trails, fellow concervative….
Oh No! You mean when we run Obama out in 2013, OUR President will inherit Obama's BS? Well now.
You can tell every time this clown gets up and makes a speech that he is looking tired, haggard and stressed. The God like image he wants to project is now gone and he has no clue as to how he can make anyone with a brain believe anything he says. His followers all believe he is being mistreated and that anyone who does not vote for him and believes in all of his policies is a racists.
I can only hope that once he is elected out of office that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are shut down, all of the houses that need to be foreclosed on will be taken, and banks that are being held up from closing down by the Feds will be shut down and taken over. Let the Market correct itself. It will hut but as a nation we will be better for it.
The War on Terror obvioulsy now has Democrats FOR AL QAEDA…and against WE THE PEOPLE….LIBYA is merely about arming al qaeda….JOBS FOR RADICALS!!! at our tax payer expense…Oblamma
gee, he must have forgot to read that little nugget off his teleprompter
Why not debate me? I would NEVER call anyone stupid I am WAY ABOVE that, but if you are interested in debating historical tax rates as they pertain to the economy, I am all for it, just let me know.
I'm not interested in educating the ignorance out of you.
Ahhhh, I was really hoping someone as smart as you would show me how economic disparity is healthy for society.
You are right, the Wall Street crooks who hijacked the government and crashed the economy, they shouldn't be subject to higher taxes, after all, they worked really really hard crashing the economy, and why should we ever punish anyone for hard work, right?
Do you remember when the Tea Party was created? Do you remember when it was all about Wall Street and their overreaching power into government, I remember because that was a time when I supported the TEA Party, what happened?
Did you see the debate last night? what did you think when the people in the audience shouted "let him die", when Wolf asked, "what we should do with a terminally ill patient without insurance", is this your opinion, is this the opinion of most Tea Partier s?
You're right not get involved with this one, Bash. He's not very reasonable.
Are you referring to the Wall Street exec that are a part of the Obama administration?
With regards to the people in the audience that shouted that, they were cold and wrong!! But is question is whether or not the role of the government is to provide compassion and charity to its citizens. If you truly believe such, then the government should also provide housing, cars, food, healthcare, etc for all of its citizens. Sorry to inform you, but communism was also believed to be the most "compassionate" system on the planet.
Of course I am referring to the execs in Obama, Bush JR, Clinton, Bush SR, Reagan, etc etc….. Look the government wasn't taken over in one presidential term it has been going on for 30+years, they have successfully deregulated just about every industry, or have made their regulators powerless, or in many other cases corrupted regulators through bribery. We need to reinstate regulations and toughen up on existing regulations and if we don't you may as well kiss the country goodbye, because you will have handed the country over to the Oligarchy!!
I am glad you disprove of the comment made at the debate, but do you really believe that it is the duty of charities to care for the sick and infirm?
Why in the constitution is the word WELFARE used in the same sentence as defense as it pertains to the use of public money? if they intended charities to care for the sick, why doesn't it say that in the constitution? are you saying the constitution is wrong?
"Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.
Just because you cannot answer reasonable questions, does not make me unreasonable.
"general welfare"….. to you that means that the government should provide what? Should the government give us a tissue when our nose runs?
Should the government put on bandaids when we get a cut?
That is the problem with your argument regarding the word "welfare" in the constitution. At what point does the government go too far and create a nanny state? Do you realize that the original founders did NOT have social security, did NOT provide "free healthcare", did NOT give out subsidies to companies, did NOT give tax breaks anyone with a pulse. The role of govenrment was LIMITED and personal responsibility was HIGH!!! If the constitution was truly intended as you say, why didn't the people that wrote it implement those liberal ideas immediately?
I think the biggest problem I have is that to many liberals, the government should be involved with everything. Sorry, but the constitution clearly limits the power of the federal government and gives most powers to the individual states. Now, if a state wants to be a nanny state and provide EVERYTHING for its citizens, I am fine with that. People that want to live in that kind of state can move there. But other states that believe more in personal responsibility, limited government, and want to actually follow the initial intent of the constitution, can live in states that are structured that way.
With regards to regulations, do you realize that with all of the regulations currently listed in the Federal government handbooks, one person could NEVER read them all during their entire lifetime? You say there are not enough regulations? Anyone that has worked with the federal government realizes that regulations are EVERYWHERE, most of which are completely idiotic, counter-productive, and prohitibitory!!!
We both agree that the we should not allow people to die due to the lack of insurance or for being under-insured, we also agree that nowhere in constitution does it say that charities are responsible for the uninsured or the under-insured, we both agree that the government has a right to collect taxes for defence and we both agree that in the same sentence "Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States" What we disagree with is the amount of "welfare" that should be provided for the protection of the people, do I have that right?
You want to return to a system that requires tax payers to pay for the hospitalization of people who are uninsured but are fully able to pay insurance, do I have that right?
Obama care is a rip off of aright wing plan proposed and endorsed by the Heritage Foundation some 10 years ago, yes Obama care is a right wing plan, that is why I am so against it, I believe it should be single payer, PERIOD!!
Why are you against a plan that was so heavily supported by the right? Obama's plan does not force any one to buy insurance it says that if you can afford insurance but refuse to get insurance you will pay a small tax to offset the cost of you not having insurance, you have a problem with that? I thought this would be your dream plan, as it was before it became Obama's plan.
What if a state decides to implement a single payer system, are you OK with a state determining for itself how it handles its own health care?
Vermont has passed single payer legislation to take affect in 2014, they will receive federal transfer payments equal to the amount spent on Medicare and Medicaid, this along with state taxes they will implement a system that will truly be a single payer system.
I believe that Vermont will be the beginning of a snowball that will likely engulf the entire country, once other states begin to see the number of companies that will move to the state in order to take advantage of low health care costs other states will need to get in on the action or be left out in the cold, companies that had moved to Canada to take advantage of the single payer system will return home to the US. In summary I see a boom for the economies who take advantage of this opportunity!
BTW, Tommy Douglas the creator of single payer system in Canada was voted "greatest Canadian" by the Canadian people, the plan first started in Saskatchewan {Vermont} then quickly spread throughout the country, one day the American People will vote the legislators in Vermont "greatest Americans" for their passing of single payer.
So again, are you against states deciding for themselves?
We do agree on some things, but like I said above, if the founders of this country wanted a liberal agenda such as government retirement plans, government provided healthcare, etc., then why wasn't that implemented immediately?
If you understand history and have studied the founding fathers, you have to admit that the founders believed in limited government and more PERSONAL responsibility! In fact, they fought against a bloated, intrusive, over-taxing British government in order to gain FREEDOM. Sadly, you liberals want to return to the same thing our founders fought against.
Second, the role of the federal government as outlined in the constitution is to limit its powers and give the remaining powers back to the states. The liberals have completely gone against this!!! There is no disputing this. Even my friends that are liberals and honest admit that.
Finally, if a state wants to implement a single payer system, I don't have a problem with that because a state has that right (as clearly outlined in the constitution); however, when the federal government does such, they are clearly overstepping their bounds and going against the constitution.
We will agree that it should be left to the individual states, I can live with that, I hope for your sake you live in a state that puts single payer forward, I guarantee as a person who has experienced both systems you will be very happy with the outcome, provided it is done properly, and btw, single payer is coming, it may be a few years but it is coming, I will bet my house on it!
I have been hearing pundits more and more saying how it is only a few years away, I think they are seeing what I am seeing, Obama opened the door to transfer payments, and it is only a matter of time before all the states take advantage of single payer, no state will want to be left behind.
There are obviously pros and cons to both systems.
I always find it funny when right wingers accuse Obama of been a "vacationer in chief" here are some facts!!
President Reagan, in 1981, spent all or part of 42 days away from the White House "on vacation"
President George W. Bush spent even more time away from the presidential mansion in the nation’s capital than Reagan. Of the 77 total "vacation" trips the former president made to his Texas ranch while in office, nine of them — all or part of 69 days — came during his first year as president in 2001.
Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, spent less time "on vacation" during his first year than his son, but spent more days than President Obama.
But at least two recent presidents took less "vacation" time during their first year than President Obama — Presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Well then get rid of the unnecessary regulations and ENFORCE the necessary regulations, pretty simple, right?
These are some of the regulations that need tougher enforcement, Wall Street trading, drilling, food safety, environmental, campaign finance etc…
You must be logged in to post a comment.