Cantor: Obama’s jobs bill ‘dead’ on arrival on House floor

What else would expect from the party committed to seeing a poor economy and high unemployment for political gains in 2012?

We need to get the obstructionists out.

 

Well you see the bottom of the chart there are dates. Sept-10, well that means September 2010. These gains were before the Repub's took congress.

Still looking to bring job growth back and Repub's without rime or reason just say no. Not even going to let the congress look it over and discuss it.
Have you read the bill yet?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/64723281/American-Jobs-Act

Come back after you have done your homework then we can talk. Till then you don't have a clue. Your just either spouting talking points or changing the subject.

 

Source Please

 

It is always dangerous to give your opponent what he wants, and President Obama WANTS the Republicans to kill the Jobs Bill so he can castigate them on the hustings. Maybe the Republicans should put a little thought into how to make their refusal of the bill more palatable to the independents who may or may not vote Republican a year from now.

 

Where do you get the figure that we need 125,000 new jobs a month to break even and account for those attempting to joint the work force?

 

OK Professor, When Obama took office we were losing 750,000 jobs a month. they pass the stimulus, and that number went down to zero. Actually they were adding about 50,000 a month. Now it has fallen back and they are losing about 40-50,000 a month. Huh, Yes I guess the stimulus done nothing to help the jobs. A complete failure? We wouldn't want to do any more of that would we? Not unless you are interested in helping the problem instead of trashing the economy to increase your chances of winning the WH in 2012.

 

I already pointed out there was a loss not a gain. The math is simple.

The Democrats said that the last time it was tried and failed. 2009 unemployment for the year over 9%, 2010 unemployment for the year over 9%, 2011 unemployment for the year over 9% so far. A real success for $840 billion dollars your kids and grand kids will have to pay back.

Please explain my post above, I'm not the clueless one here.

 

Please show some empirical evidence the stimulus did that as opposed to the economy bottoming out on it's own? 2009 unemployment for the year over 9%, 2010 unemployment for the year over 9%, 2011 unemployment for the year over 9% so far.

 

Lots of academic, nonpartisan evidence reveals the Recovery Act created or saved millions of jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, for example, just released a report finding that at its height about a year ago, the act created (taking the midrange of their estimates) around 2.5 million jobs, and shaved around 1.5 points off of the unemployment rate.

Again, that's what we expected in terms of unemployment reduction, though we clearly were too optimistic about the level of the jobless rate, in large part because we had not yet seen data on just how deep the unfolding downturn was.

One scholarly study by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi that looked at the full spate of anti-recession initiatives -- not just the Recovery Act -- found that "the effects of the fiscal stimulus alone appear very substantial, raising 2010 real GDP by about 3.4%, holding the unemployment rate about 1.5 percentage points lower, and adding almost 2.7 million jobs to U.S. payrolls."

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-08-31/...th-unemployment-rate-gdp-growth?_s=PM:OPINION

 

While there are many sources, I chose a source you should be able to believe, the AFL-CIO.

 

The key word is "OPINION" vs facts, 2009 unemployment for the year over 9%, 2010 unemployment for the year over 9%, 2011 unemployment for the year over 9% so far.

 

We see GDP growth, which was almost unprecedentedly negative -- down almost 9% in the quarter before the stimulus was passed -- immediately falling less quickly, and turning positive by mid-2009. Similarly, we see the same pattern in job growth, which also reversed course soon after passage, and broke zero -- net job growth -- in March 2010. The addition and subtraction of census workers that year distort the picture somewhat, but they're not included in the private sector data, which presents a clearer view of what happened.

The unemployment rate always lags growth by at least six months, but a few months after ARRA kicked in, it stopped growing.

The unemployment rate always lags growth by at least six months, and it continued to rise until peaking at 10.1% in October of 2009. Since then, it has come down a point, remaining far too high, but not growing.

But that's only half of what these simple graphs show. The other piece of information they yield is perhaps even more convincing. As the stimulus fades, the positive trends begin to falter: Both GDP and job growth slow significantly.

 

Sections in the bill for Education. Each/any state requesting grants for hiring or maintain teachers working. Funds for renovations of each spector of schools such as preschool. elementary, middle and high schools.
Grants given only for hiring labor and supplies in "BUY AMERICAN" act part of the bill.
Grants given must go to schools or repair, rebuild, abestos removale ....only. Funds not to be used for other purposes. Any funds not used must be returned for others can use for said purposes above.
First responders. Grants to help increase and/or maintain Fireman, police, and the equipment to help them do their jobs better. Only if "BUY IN AMERICA" applies.

Buy in america still applies.

Yep, everything a Republican would want to say no to (rolls eyes).
Education, infastruture, schools, first responders. Gee don't see any millionaires getting grants. That must be it. There is where the no comes from.
Maybe later on in further reading.
Be back momentarily.

 

Where is the direct attribution to stimulus spending? It's doesn't show in the unemployment rate. GDP went up then down as you pointed out. Unemployment did not except for less than 1% either way. You just haven't proven your case the stimulus is responsible vs regular GDP fluctuation with the economy.

 

Again, 2009 unemployment for the year over 9%, 2010 unemployment for the year over 9%, 2011 unemployment for the year over 9% so far. There is no evidence trying another "big spending" bill will improve the unemployment and more than the first one.

The bottom line on this is, Obama made a lot of economic promises while campaigning, precious few materialized. he the the Congressional Democrats will pay the price in 2012, just like they did in 2010.

 

Why would you think I would think the AFL-CIO is particularly credible on the issue?

I was wondering if there was a more substantial source showing how this figure was derived.

 

errgggg, here it comes. Grants and loan guarantees to ...errrggg... banks that loan to small business, infastructure, under strict guidelines that the money is approperated...haven't we done this before?

@PPbody,
I suppose after millions upon millions of jobs lost before Obama came to office you expect them all to be replaced in a couple of years with the economy tanking, wallstreet falling, and employers nervous.
Obama has done a great (not good) great job with what he was handed and the obstrution he has had to deal with. All in the name of Recorpicans getting the power back to heck with America.

 

As the stimulus fades, the positive trends begin to falter: Both GDP and job growth slow significantly.

the 1st stopped losses of a million jobs a month (by your math)

 

Are you saying Big Labor are liars? I gave you a source, you liberals should believe. If you don't, used google to prove it wrong.

 

Obama fails, blame Bush. Sorry that doesn't cut it 3 years later.

 

Please show the empirical evidence the stimulus did that as opposed to the economy simply bottoming out stimulus or not.

That can be attributed to Obama Care and more regulation as much as the stimulus fizzling out.

 

You made the claim. If that is the best source you have OK.

 

As the stimulus fades, the positive trends begin to falter: Both GDP and job growth slow significantly.

if it faltered, it hadnt bottomed out

 

It sure does if the previous Admin choices are still effecting the economy.
You do realize that a third of Obama's so-called trillions more in spending is interest on the trillions spent by the previous Admin don't you?

I don't blame just Bush. He did not do it all by himself. Matter of fact, the Dem congress put their stamp on the blank checks. Much of what Bush is blamed for I don't agree with. Those he hired to be around him were way worse than Bush. Then again Bush did hire them. To bad too. He might of had a better result if he had better people around him and this country would not be in the mess it is in to begin with.
I really got it in for Cheney. War monger in the highest form and excepts no responsibility what so ever. The man (if you could call him that) should be hog tied and jailed.

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...my_on_bush_s_recession_44_on_obama_s_policies

So it don't really matter if you blame one and I blame the other. It is what the public think. The voting public. You will find % like this across the board unless you only listen to the one only blaming Obama ...Fox.
I think that 44% represents the Repub party and the 49 represents the Dem party, mostly. 44 and 49 = 93 eh? Whereis the other 7%. Think it would be the Independents, the middle. So you don't have to convince me, I don't have to convince you. The ones that WILL decide the next Pres will be that 7%. They are the smartest block of voters because they don't allow themselves to be manipulated by either party. They use something many other voters don't, facts.
The fact is, you just can't clear away trillions of dollars off you debt in a few years. Anyone that don't understand that should not be the caretaker of the check book. For those who are blaming only Obama, should not be allowed any where near the check book.
Fact, every time the Repub's have check book in hand, the deficit goes waaaaaaaaay up. It takes a Dem to work at fixing it.






.
.