Republicans Will Fight Against Jobs For Americans. Their Elections Depend On It.

[berni_mccoy]

Republicans are in trouble and they know it. They know that if the President's Job Bill passes and puts the Unemployment Numbers anywhere south of 9% by Election Day 2010, they will have problems. So they will fight the Jobs Bill just like the fought HCR. America, it's time to pay attention to who is really on your side. Republicans don't want you to get jobs because they value their Elections more than they do getting people back to work. The Democrats have tried to work with them on HCR and even after adopting hundreds of their amendments, no Republican would vote for it. They will attempt to do the same thing with the Jobs bill. And all for political gain. This is what Republicans have reduced themselves to. Working against America to keep desperate hold of their power.

[liberal N proud]

1. Democrats will be fools if they don't use this obstruction against them

It is pure obstructionism when they oppose anything the Democrats put forth.

[Qutzupalotl]

2. This will come back to bite them.

If they vote for the jobs bill, their base will withdraw support. If they vote against it, they'll lose a lot of independents. Our campaign ads will practically write themselves.

[hfojvt]

3. but deficit reduction is more important than jobs

Every Republican thinks so.

George W. Bush on May 6, 2003

"The unemployment number is now at 6 percent, which should serve as a clear signal to the United States Congress we need a bold economic recovery package so people can find work. (Applause.) That 6-percent number should say loud and clear to members of both political parties in the United States Congress, we need robust tax relief so our fellow citizens can find a job. (Applause.)"

Of course, his robust tax relief really meant - a big tax cut mostly for the rich. As I detail here
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/81

"On the other side, the 11,433 filers with income of $10,000,000 or more saved $25.84 billion (28.1% of the benefits going to .05% of the beneficiaries with an average savings of $2,260,124) and the 101,676 filers with income over $2,000,000 got $46.615 billion (50.9% of the benefits going to .47% of the beneficiaries with an average savings of $458,466.)"

edit: maybe I should include the other side

"Secondly I note that there were 54,585,560 filers with income below $50,000 who had no capital gains or dividends. Thus, only 10.6% of filers with incomes below $50,000 had capital gains or dividend income (at least outside of a tax sheltered 401K)."

And unlike Republicans today, Bush didn't think the deficit was a reason to block his plan - jobs came first!!


"Yes, I'm worried about the deficit. I'm worried about the deficit, but I'm more worried about the fellow looking for work. I'm worried about the deficit, but I'm more worried about the single mom who's worried about putting food on the table for her children, so she could find work. And that's where the focus of this administration is going to be." May 12, 2003

Republicans are still repeating those lies
1. tax cuts mostly for the wealthy will create jobs better than government spending
2. tax cuts will magically increase government revenue

[treestar]

4. Do they have anything at all to point to that even remotely proves

the tax cuts leads to more jobs theory?

Bush had tax cuts and look where we are now.

[hfojvt]

5. of course they do

the economy created 2.3 million jobs in 2004 and 2.4 million jobs in 2005 thanks to the Bush tax cuts (full stop)





PAY NO ATTENTION TO THOSE NUMBERS BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!!



THE GREAT AND POWERFUL OZ, er REPUBLICAN NOISE MACHINE, HAS SPOKEN!!!!



Jobs created in 1994 after the Clinton tax increases 3 million. 1995 2.4 million, 1996 3.07 million.


Republicans: Well if you wanna talk about the ancient past, what about 1983 when the Reagan tax cuts created 4.25 million jobs??


Uh, look at the bigger picture?
employment 1981 - 91,289; 1982- 89,677; 1983 - 90,280; 1984 - 94,530. The net is only 3.24 million jobs - over 3 years time. (although admittedly there was also good jobs growth in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988. That was long after ERTA passed in 1981.)

source; ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt