Thread Rating:
10-11-2011, 11:33 PM
WASHINGTON - United against Barack Obama, Senate Republicans voted Tuesday night to kill the jobs package the president had spent weeks campaigning for across the country, a stinging loss at the hands of lawmakers opposed to stimulus-style spending and a tax increase on the very wealthy.
Forty-six Republicans joined with two Democrats to filibuster the $447 billion plan. Fifty Democrats had voted for it, but the vote was not final. The roll call was kept open to allow Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. to vote. The likely 51-48 eventual tally would be far short of the 60 votes needed to keep the bill alive in the 100-member Senate.
The demise of Obama's $447 billion jobs package was expected, despite his campaign-style efforts to swing the public behind it. The White House and leaders in Congress were already moving on to alternative ways to address the nation's painful 9.1 percent unemployment, including breaking the legislation into smaller, more digestible pieces and approving long-stalled trade bills.
The White House appears most confident that it will be able to continue a 2-percentage-point Social Security payroll tax cut through 2012 and to extend emergency unemployment benefits to millions of people â if only because, in the White House view, Republicans won't want to accept the political harm of letting those provisions expire.
White House officials are also hopeful of ultimately garnering votes for the approval of infrastructure spending and tax credits for businesses that hire unemployed veterans.
Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana â both up for re-election next year in states where Obama figures to lose â broke with their party on Tuesday night's vote. Every Republican present opposed the plan.
Earlier in the day, Obama capped his weekslong campaign for the measure in an appearance typical of the effort â a tough-talking speech in a swing state crucial to his re-election. In fact, it seemed aimed more at rallying his core political supporters heading into the election than changing minds on Capitol Hill.
"Any senator who votes no should have to look you in the eye and tell you what exactly they're opposed to," Obama said to a union audience in Pittsburgh. "I think they'll have a hard time explaining why they voted no on this bill â other than the fact that I proposed it."
Democrats were not wholly united behind the measure. In addition to Nelson and Tester, Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who aligns with Democrats, said they oppose the underlying measure despite voting to choke off the filibuster.
Obama's plan would combine Social Security payroll tax cuts for workers and businesses and other tax relief totaling about $270 billion with $175 billion in new spending on roads, school repairs and other infrastructure, as well as unemployment assistance and help to local governments to avoid layoffs of teachers, firefighters and police officers.
Obama said that the plan â more than half the size of his 2009 economic stimulus measure â would be an insurance policy against a double-dip recession and that continued economic intervention was essential given slower-than-hoped job growth.
"Right now, our economy needs a jolt," Obama said. "Right now."
Unlike the 2009 legislation, the current plan would be paid for with a 5.6 percent surcharge on income exceeding $1 million. That would be expected to raise about $450 billion over the coming decade.
"Democrats' sole proposal is to keep doing what hasn't worked â along with a massive tax hike that we know won't create jobs," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday, saying there are 1.5 million fewer jobs than when Obama's 2009 economic package became law. "Why on earth would you support an approach that we already know won't work?" McConnell said.
The White House and Democratic leaders, however, were pleased that the great majority of Democrats voted for the plan. Support among Democrats was shored up by replacing Obama's tax increases â particularly a proposal to limit the value of itemized deductions for families making more than $250,000 â with the surcharge on millionaires.
That millionaires proposal would hit about 392,000 households, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. In 2013, the first year the tax would take effect, those wealthy households would see their taxes increase by an average of $110,500, according to the analysis.
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20111...|FRONTPAGE
Forty-six Republicans joined with two Democrats to filibuster the $447 billion plan. Fifty Democrats had voted for it, but the vote was not final. The roll call was kept open to allow Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. to vote. The likely 51-48 eventual tally would be far short of the 60 votes needed to keep the bill alive in the 100-member Senate.
The demise of Obama's $447 billion jobs package was expected, despite his campaign-style efforts to swing the public behind it. The White House and leaders in Congress were already moving on to alternative ways to address the nation's painful 9.1 percent unemployment, including breaking the legislation into smaller, more digestible pieces and approving long-stalled trade bills.
The White House appears most confident that it will be able to continue a 2-percentage-point Social Security payroll tax cut through 2012 and to extend emergency unemployment benefits to millions of people â if only because, in the White House view, Republicans won't want to accept the political harm of letting those provisions expire.
White House officials are also hopeful of ultimately garnering votes for the approval of infrastructure spending and tax credits for businesses that hire unemployed veterans.
Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana â both up for re-election next year in states where Obama figures to lose â broke with their party on Tuesday night's vote. Every Republican present opposed the plan.
Earlier in the day, Obama capped his weekslong campaign for the measure in an appearance typical of the effort â a tough-talking speech in a swing state crucial to his re-election. In fact, it seemed aimed more at rallying his core political supporters heading into the election than changing minds on Capitol Hill.
"Any senator who votes no should have to look you in the eye and tell you what exactly they're opposed to," Obama said to a union audience in Pittsburgh. "I think they'll have a hard time explaining why they voted no on this bill â other than the fact that I proposed it."
Democrats were not wholly united behind the measure. In addition to Nelson and Tester, Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who aligns with Democrats, said they oppose the underlying measure despite voting to choke off the filibuster.
Obama's plan would combine Social Security payroll tax cuts for workers and businesses and other tax relief totaling about $270 billion with $175 billion in new spending on roads, school repairs and other infrastructure, as well as unemployment assistance and help to local governments to avoid layoffs of teachers, firefighters and police officers.
Obama said that the plan â more than half the size of his 2009 economic stimulus measure â would be an insurance policy against a double-dip recession and that continued economic intervention was essential given slower-than-hoped job growth.
"Right now, our economy needs a jolt," Obama said. "Right now."
Unlike the 2009 legislation, the current plan would be paid for with a 5.6 percent surcharge on income exceeding $1 million. That would be expected to raise about $450 billion over the coming decade.
"Democrats' sole proposal is to keep doing what hasn't worked â along with a massive tax hike that we know won't create jobs," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday, saying there are 1.5 million fewer jobs than when Obama's 2009 economic package became law. "Why on earth would you support an approach that we already know won't work?" McConnell said.
The White House and Democratic leaders, however, were pleased that the great majority of Democrats voted for the plan. Support among Democrats was shored up by replacing Obama's tax increases â particularly a proposal to limit the value of itemized deductions for families making more than $250,000 â with the surcharge on millionaires.
That millionaires proposal would hit about 392,000 households, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank. In 2013, the first year the tax would take effect, those wealthy households would see their taxes increase by an average of $110,500, according to the analysis.
http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20111...|FRONTPAGE
10-12-2011, 01:10 AM
Is this political suicide for republicans?
10-12-2011, 03:02 AM
TheRealVille Wrote:Is this political suicide for republicans?
This was nothing but a political stunt pulled by Obama to begin with.
10-12-2011, 05:29 AM
TheRealVille Wrote:Is this political suicide for republicans?Are you serious? The opposition to the jobs bill is bipartisan. Two Democrats voted to filibuster the bill and five say that they oppose it. Obama is taking his party down with him on this bill. Obama is a lame duck who must defend a terrible economy that will be worse than when he took office. He will be lucky to win California.
10-12-2011, 08:24 AM
Hoot Gibson Wrote:Are you serious? The opposition to the jobs bill is bipartisan. Two Democrats voted to filibuster the bill and five say that they oppose it. Obama is taking his party down with him on this bill. Obama is a lame duck who must defend a terrible economy that will be worse than when he took office. He will be lucky to win California.I was just asking. From everything I can gather, everything in the bill was stuff that the republicans have agreed with, except not liking the tax placed on millionaires. I haven't looked at what the bill includes, but if you look at how it's being portrayed, the republicans are to blame. It is being reported that the bill includes tax cuts for workers and small businesses, but a tax hike of 5.6% surcharge on income over a million.
On another note, the only republican that I will vote for, Romney, if republicans nominate him, is the front runner at this point, and now Christie is endorsing him. I think that is the team that Romney wants, Romney/Christie. Make it happen folks.
10-12-2011, 09:19 AM
TheRealVille Wrote:I was just asking. From everything I can gather, everything in the bill was stuff that the republicans have agreed with, except not liking the tax placed on millionaires. I haven't looked at what the bill includes, but if you look at how it's being portrayed, the republicans are to blame. It is being reported that the bill includes tax cuts for workers and small businesses, but a tax hike of 5.6% surcharge on income over a million.
On another note, the only republican that I will vote for, Romney, if republicans nominate him, is the front runner at this point, and now Christie is endorsing him. I think that is the team that Romney wants, Romney/Christie. Make it happen folks.
That just killed that ticket.:biggrin:
10-12-2011, 09:31 AM
Bob Seger Wrote:That just killed that ticket.:biggrin:Christie's endorsement killed him, or mine? :lmao: Seriously though, I think a lot of democrats would vote for Romney when they wouldn't vote for anybody else on the republican ticket.
10-12-2011, 09:43 AM
TheRealVille Wrote:Christie's endorsement killed him, or mine? :lmao:
Well, I'll just saying you brought up an option that I hadn't thought of and we'll just leave it at that.:biggrin:
Anyways, good morning RV.
10-12-2011, 09:50 AM
Bob Seger Wrote:Well, I'll just saying you brought up an option that I hadn't thought of and we'll just leave it at that.:biggrin::Thumbs:
Anyways, good morning RV.
10-12-2011, 12:50 PM
The little fellow in the White House knew the bill would fail. His purpose in proposing it was to let it lose so he can go around the country blaming Republicans. That Republicans opposed the bill should surprise no one. The fact that two Democrats voted against it is what should be seen as significant. Of course the mainstream media will merely parrot the message of the little fellow. The reelection mode is running on all cylinders.
10-12-2011, 12:59 PM
^ Agreed, Obama was pleading for it to fail!
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)