You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Obama seeks tax rise to pay for jobs bill
2011-09-15
[Daily Nation (Kenya)] US President Barack B.O. Obama signalled yesterday he would pay for his $447 billion jobs plan by raising taxes on the rich and energy corporations and lining up a new showdown with Republicans, amid a Congressional poll in New York.
Remember, this is the new plan, not to be confused with the old plan...
The president, seeking to reset his under-pressure presidency and slice away at 9.1 per cent unemployment, sent the bill to politicians and warned Republicans not to slow it down with "political games" at a time of great national urgency.

But Mr Obama, by deciding to finance the bill by ending tax breaks for oil and gas firms and individuals earning over $200,000, set up a new row with Republican politicians -- who have already rejected such methods in the past.

The president, who has promised to fight for the bill in every corner of the country, gathered firefighters and teachers who he said would be helped by the bill on Monday in the White House Rose Garden.

"This is a bill that will put people back to work all across the country. This is a bill that will help our economy in a moment of national crisis," Mr Obama said.

"This is a bill that Congress needs to pass. No games. No politics. No delays."

The White House later unveiled Mr Obama's plans for paying for the legislation in a way that will not run up the already bloated deficit.

Meanwhile,
...back at the hoedown, Bob finally got to dance with Sally...
 voters go to the polls today in a special US congressional election for a heavily Democratic area of New York City where Republicans are hoping to score an upset and send a message to the White House.

The Ninth Congressional district in Queens and Brooklyn opened up in June when popular Democratic incumbent Anthony Weiner resigned over revelations that he was sending X-rated photos of himself to women he met online.

As if the clean-cut, married congressman's sex scandal was not embarrassing enough, Mr Obama's party now risks the humiliation of losing a seat in a district where registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans 3:1.

"Certainly the attitude and approval rating of the president is having a lot to do with this electorate and the election outcome tomorrow. I'm hopeful we win it," Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor said on Monday.

The latest numbers from Public Policy Polling show Republican businessman Bob Turner leading veteran Democratic state and city politician David Weprin by 47 to 41 per cent.
Posted by:Fred

#12  Instead of 'taxing' how about a tax holiday to that amount, leaving the money in the hands of the 'taxpayers' to decide how they'd stimulate the economy? Then again there's little room for graft or corruption in that concept.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-09-15 16:23  

#11  Just one bad idea after another, all in attempt to put all private industry out of business.
Posted by: newc   2011-09-15 15:26  

#10  And children don't cost nada.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2011-09-15 13:49  

#9   why is it that a single person is good to go at <$200k, but a couple must be <$250k?

That's easy: Because two people can live as cheaply as one. (Provided they each eat half as much.)
Posted by: Perfesser   2011-09-15 13:44  

#8  Upon reflection "one track pony".

p.s. Re jobs. Dry bones has a somewhat different outlook.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2011-09-15 13:31  

#7  Something which has bugged me from the get-go...why is it that a single person is good to go at <$200k, but a couple must be <$250k...shouldn't that be <$400k visually, maybe about <$350k or whatever the crazy scale says depending upon dependants? I mean at a glance it appears to be punishing couples.

Its a bit worse than that. Unless the government pays a business to hire an employee no amount of tax credits will offset the fact that the new employee will cost money. That money must be made up with the increased productivity of the new employee(s). A business which does not have this in their COGS is likely not doing it right, and increases the chances of over/undercharging.

But to continue that thought, year goes by and credits. What next year, any credits there? What about obamacare, are the companies on the hook for the new employees cobra-style, what responsibilities for firing these new employees if business does not pick up?
Posted by: swksvolFF   2011-09-15 12:00  

#6  Out of ideas, out of control and soon to be out of office. (we hope)
Posted by: DarthVader   2011-09-15 11:08  

#5  So he's going to fine employers to pay for employment...

Who doesn't see the problem here?!?
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2011-09-15 09:49  

#4  g(r)omguru, you, sir, are slandering ponies.

I'd say that he is pond scum but don't want to slander that either.
Posted by: AlanC   2011-09-15 09:24  

#3  One trick pony.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2011-09-15 04:39  

#2  Yes, but how do you solicit corporate campaign contributions when the tax rate is zero?
Posted by: Eohippus Phater7165   2011-09-15 01:43  

#1  .... he would pay for his $447 billion jobs plan by raising taxes on the rich and energy corporations

I see he's been watching the market. I wonder if the poor bugger even realizes businesses don't pay taxes, they just pass them on to consumers? The man is a marooon!
Posted by: Besoeker   2011-09-15 00:54  

00:00