Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.

Republicans in disarray!

Just because you believe it, that does not make it true.

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

You cannot shame the shameless.

Speaker Mike Johnson is a vile traitor to the House and the Constitution.

There are a lot more evil idiots than evil geniuses.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Come on, media. you have one job. start doing it.

Someone should tell Republicans that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, or possibly the first.

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

Thanks to your bullshit, we are now under siege.

New McCarthy, same old McCarthyism.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

Insiders who complain to politico: please report to the white house office of shut the fuck up.

They love authoritarianism, but only when they get to be the authoritarians.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

75% of people clapping liked the show!

Conservatism: there are people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

I’d hate to be the candidate who lost to this guy.

There are no moderate republicans – only extremists and cowards.

Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.

You are here: Home / Louie Gohmert (R-Git) is a Cheeky Bastard; Snags Name “American Jobs Act” for his Silly “No Corporate Income Tax” Bill

Louie Gohmert (R-Git) is a Cheeky Bastard; Snags Name “American Jobs Act” for his Silly “No Corporate Income Tax” Bill

by | 124 Comments

This post is in: 

Too clever by half

Because Obama’s jobs plan has not yet been introduced in the House, Louie Gohmert snagged the named “American Jobs Act of 2011” for his two-page bill which simply amends the tax code to repeal the corporate income tax.

No, seriously.

If he weren’t such an unstoppable dumbass, with his anchor baby nonsense, his batshit Islamophobia and fear of terror babies, and his virulent homophobia, and if his bill amounted to anything other than more of the Norquistian same, I’d actually congratulate Gohmert for this rather cheeky move:

President Obama exhorted Congress to pass his latest legislation, the “American Jobs Act,” “right now” last Thursday night in a joint session of Congress. Republican members were quick to point out there was, at that time, no legislation to pass.

Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-TX) has gone a step further than mere talking points, snagging the name “American Jobs Act” for his own bill in the House. Gohmert named his bill Wednesday morning, according to his office, before any Democratic representative had introduced Obama’s bill for him.

“After waiting to see what the President would actually put into legislative language, and then waiting to see if anybody would actually introduce the President’s bill in the House, today I took the initiative and introduced the ‘American Jobs Act of 2011,’” Gohmert said in a statement Wednesday afternoon.

The bill would “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the corporate income tax.”Gohmert touted his two-page bill as a simple alternative to Obama’s 155-page legislation and ends the press release cheekily, “If we really want to create jobs and grow the economy, we must pass ‘The American Jobs Act’ now.”

Here’s his full statement:

“We have heard a lot of rhetoric about job creation from President Obama over the last several days. After waiting to see what the President would actually put into legislative language, and then waiting to see if anybody would actually introduce the President’s bill in the House, today I took the initiative and introduced the “American Jobs Act of 2011.” It is a very simple bill, which will eliminate the corporate tax which serves as a tariff that our American companies pay on goods they produce here in America.

This bill will actually create jobs in America. Right now, American manufacturing jobs are shipped overseas. What is really insidious about this tax is that corporate taxes are paid by the consumer – built in to the cost of the good or service. Corporate taxes are paid for by people in the form of lower wages to American workers and less money paid out in dividends in everything from 401K retirement accounts and to those who would risk their capital in business ventures. This type of capital investment is where jobs come from.

Unlike President Obama’s bill, which clocks in at 155 pages, the ‘American Jobs Act’ is only two pages. The American people want to see jobs and economic growth and this bill guarantees that outcome. America would instantly become a safe haven for businesses resulting in an explosion in revenue increases. If we really want to create jobs and grow the economy, we must pass ‘The American Jobs Act’ now.”

Yes, because certainly joblessness in America can be cured by eliminating corporate income tax and something-something job creators.

Derp.

Where are the jobs, assclowns?

[via The Daily Caller]

[cross-posted at ABLC]

Reader Interactions

124Comments

  1. 1.

    Han's Big Snark Solo

    Step 1) Give Corporations everything they dream of
    Step 2) ??????
    Step 3) Jobs!!!

    Republicans have become the party of underwear gnomes.

  2. 2.

    Catsy

    Good grief, this kind of nonsense is more befitting grade school kids or internet trolls. “I took your name! Nyah nyah! What are you going to do about it!”

    Typical of Republicans: they confuse branding with reality.

  3. 3.

    C.S.

    This . . . this is pretty funny. File under blind squirrels & nuts, stopped clocks, etc., but I didn’t think that this assbanjo had it in him.

  5. 5.

    The Dangerman

    Let’s do some horse trading; off the top of my head, I’d cut the corporate tax to zero (they don’t pay anyway) if we taxed the living shit out of capital gains.

  6. 6.

    singfoom

    Wow. So the GOP is the party of 5 year olds. Suspected before, confirmed now.

    Yeah, let’s get rid of those pesky taxes on corporations. Why we’re at it, fuck, let’s just get rid of any restraints on corporations at all.

    I mean, if your house is in the way of a corporation, you’re stifling the economy. Why should we stop the corporation from blowing up your house with you in it?

    I mean, unless you’re a CEO, because then they’d be blowing up a house of a job creator.

    Jesus, the stupid and mean burns. BURNS.

  9. 9.

    singfoom

    @henrythefifth: Unfortunately, no amount of amazing breakdancing will save the community center at this point.

    I’m sure a private company might be interested in sponsoring the community center.

  11. 11.

    Makewi

    Obama gave his speech on the bill a week ago. During that speech he called for the Bill to passed right now. The he can’t even be bothered to put the bill before the House for a week. What a joke.

  12. 12.

    Earl Butz

    Hey, gotta give Louie Shitforbrains a lot of credit for thinking on his feet.

    Conversely, the White House should have been prepared for this kind of ratfuckery and wasn’t. That lack of preparedness has unfortunately become a hallmark of this administration. I’ll ask once again – when is Obama going to start taking these lunatics at their word? Their number one priority has and will be to see him fail, period.

    Bad move on their part and they deserve the consequences. Too bad that we don’t but that’s part of the fun of democracy.

  13. 13.

    Hungry Joe

    My favorite line from “All the President’s Men” isn’t “Follow the money.” Deep Throat actually said something else just as profound: “What you have to remember is that these are NOT SMART GUYS.” At the time it was mind-boggling, that not-smart people could have been running the country. Now it’s ho-hum that certifiable, box-o’-rocks morons like Gohmert are in positions of power.

  18. 18.

    Catsy

    @Makewi:

    Obama gave his speech on the bill a week ago. During that speech he called for the Bill to passed right now. The he can’t even be bothered to put the bill before the House for a week. What a joke.

    I must have missed the part of the Constitution that gives the President the power to introduce legislation in Congress.

    But then, pretty much everyone who’s been commenting here for any length of time is well aware that you do little else but troll in bad faith, so rock on.

  20. 20.

    Stan of the Sawgrass

    Anybody else remember Gomer(t) standing up before congress and giving a passionate defense of the “mendacity” of his Repubb colleagues, specifically praising Cantor’s and The Boner’s “mendacity.”
    Really, I’m not making this up. As the well worn phrase has it, “…that word does not mean what you think it means.”
    Hard not to agree, tho.

  21. 21.

    Makewi

    @Catsy:

    I must have missed the part of the Constitution that gives the President the power to introduce legislation in Congress.

    You could have just said Obama has no friends in the House. Rock on.

  26. 26.

    jimmiraybob

    Well, fighting fire with fire, I’d go with American Patriots Jobs Bill or Mr. Gohmert’s a Dipwad Fucktwit American Jobs Bill for Obama’s plan. I could live with either.

  29. 29.

    Davis X. Machina

    What did you expect, the ‘Jobs? Jobs? Help Us Get That Awful Negro Out Of The White House And Then We’ll Talk About Jobs Act’?

  32. 32.

    Midnight Marauder

    @Makewi:

    You could have just said Obama has no friends in the House. Rock on.

    You are easily the most worthless troll the internet has ever seen.

    Easily.

  33. 33.

    Comrade Colette Collaboratrice

    @Davis X. Machina:

    the ‘Jobs? Jobs? Help Us Get That Awful Negro Out Of The White House And Then We’ll Talk About Jobs Act’

    Sadly, reductions in USPS service make it currently unable to deliver your internets, but that doesn’t mean you don’t deserve them.

  35. 35.

    Enhanced Voting Techniques

    “amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the corporate income tax.” talk about simple solutions for simple people. But I do hope the House has enough of that special teatardness pass such a stupid bill.

  37. 37.

    General Stuck

    I always feel comforted when Loueee Lou I takes point for the House Wingnuts. You can smell the stupid before it arrives. Pure genius him calling his bill the same as Obama’s. That’l show them libtards. yuk yuk yuk

  39. 39.

    Quaker in a Basement

    If the White House was playing at Gohmert’s level, the bill would be the “Louie Gohmert is a Big Goober, Nyah, Nyah, Act of 2011.”

  40. 40.

    SpotWeld

    So how goes repealing corporate taxes help anything?
    We just had a situation where airlines got a boost because an FAA bill lapsed and they didn’t have to pay a certain tax (or rather the taxes were uncollectable). The fee for that tax was still passed onto passengers.

    What happened? The airlines (for the most part) kept the money. (http://www.consumertraveler.com/today/most-airlines-pocket-uncollectable-faa-tax-money-instead-of-passing-savings-onto-passengers/)

    So what will happen to corporations if they don’t have to pay taxes anymore? Employment is high, people are scared to lose thier jobs, and tons of people are desperate to get hired. What’s going to happen? “Market forces” will continue to keep wages low, and productivity high out of current employees without increase in salary.

    Trickle down economics don’t work. That’s high school economics.

  44. 44.

    Ken

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques:

    But I do hope the House has enough of that special teatardness pass such a stupid bill.

    So do I; then I hope the Senate takes it, strips away everything but the bill number and the title, and inserts the text proposed by the White House.

  45. 45.

    JasonF

    Honestly, Gohmert is eleven different kinds of idiot, but why the fuck hasn’t the Political Party Who Couldn’t Shoot Straight introduced the damned jobs bill yet?

  48. 48.

    Gex

    @The Dangerman: I’ve often wondered how it would go if we agreed with them that “corporate tax rates are too high” and cut them in half but closed all loopholes. A hell of a lot of companies would see drastic tax increases, and the GOP would have no one else to blame since they are the ones feeding the perception that our corporations are over taxed.

  50. 50.

    Quicksand

    A great many soundalike names are still available, keeping the President’s speeches correct and relevant:

    “American Jobs – Sacked!”

    Or

    “A Mare! EEK! Handjobs! Act!”

  51. 51.

    General Stuck

    @JasonF:

    In the House, the majority party has near complete control of what legislation gets introduced for a vote. They will not introduce any bill as is from Obama. The president can only submit a bill for consideration, but has no power to do anything else except the veto power after a bill is passed by both chambers of congress.

  52. 52.

    WaterGirl

    I think Obama will ridicule them for taking the name but not doing anything about jobs for the american people. Definitely too cute by half, and I think the republicans will live to regret taking the name for a bill that has nothing to do with jobs.

  53. 53.

    agrippa

    I expected this sort of thing.
    The GOP may end up passing something silly, or nothing at all.

    If something is passed, it will never get out of the Senate.

  54. 54.

    Catsy

    @Makewi:

    You could have just said Obama has no friends in the House. Rock on.

    The fuck?

    That wasn’t even trolling, it was pure word salad. It’s like you responded to an argument about tax policy by reciting lines from Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer.

    I’m with Midnight Marauder: worst troll on the internets. I’m off to do something more productive and entertaining, like go sit in rush hour traffic.

  56. 56.

    BruinKid

    Speaking of Texans, here’s an interesting story. Did you know Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign manager died of pneumonia in June 2008, and he was uninsured because a pre-existing condition made health insurance too expensive?

    So Mr. Paul, where were those charities/churches you talk about to step in to help this man and prevent his mother from getting stuck with a whopping $400,000 hospital bill?

    I guess Paul is really true to his word, though. Doesn’t look like he lifted a finger to help his former campaign manager. He only sent out a letter online after his death praising the guy, but didn’t have to put his money where his mouth was.

  58. 58.

    OzoneR

    @JasonF:

    why the fuck hasn’t the Political Party Who Couldn’t Shoot Straight introduced the damned jobs bill yet?

    They did, but the majority decides if it gets a hearing.

  61. 61.

    fuckwit

    That’s pretty funny.

    You think I’m funny, Louie?

    How am I funny? Am I funny like a clown? DO I AMUSE YOU? You think I’m here to amuse you, Louie?

    Louie’s a big boy, he can answer for himself. You think this is fucking funny, Louie?

    You think we’re playing games here? This is all a big joke to you?

    Well, Louie, do we amuse you?

  62. 62.

    FlipYrWhig

    @The Snarxist Formerly Known As Kryptik: I just saw that linked at the new Daily Howler (dailyhowler.blogspot.com). My feeling is that people don’t so much “believe in the confidence fairy” as that they have something to picture when asked about “businesses hiring” and have no idea what “stimulating the economy” is. Do they even know that “stimulating the economy” means that the government gives out contracts to businesses to hire people? At this point, I don’t know, and despair of ever knowing.

    My guess is that a simple switch in the poll answers from this:

    Spending cuts and tax cuts will give businesses more confidence to hire
    __
    Government needs to keep spending at current level now because the job market is so weak
    __
    Government needs to spend more to stimulate the economy

    to this:

    Spending cuts and tax cuts will reduce the federal budget deficit
    __
    [same]
    __
    Government needs to spend more on projects to put people back to work

    would result in vastly different, much more liberal-friendly, responses. “Hiring” for a “business” sounds a lot better than “stimulating” an “economy.”

  63. 63.

    fuckwit

    @The Snarxist Formerly Known As Kryptik: Nope. Stupidly-worded, even leadingly-worded poll.

    Have a look at what else is in that same poll:

    whopping 71 percent favor federal aid to states to avert layoffs of teachers and cops. Fifty-one percent say the deficit “supercommittee” should focus on hiking taxes on the rich, versus only 35 percent who want the focus on entitlements cuts.

    So, why the huge disconnect? Because the way the fucking question was worded. It was multiple choice. “Having the federal and state governments directly create jobs for people now” wasn’t one of the options. It needs to be. In fact, at this point, it is the only option to actually create jobs (as opposed to putting more money into corporate profits).

  65. 65.

    Calouste

    @BruinKid:

    Paul not giving a shit about his campaign manager is one thing (you can’t say the man doesn’t live up to his ideals), but a $400,000 hospital bill for pneumonia? It’s not like people typically spend months in hospital before it kills them. Methinks pneumonia was probably just the end stage of whatever pre-existing condition he had.

  66. 66.

    FlipYrWhig

    @fuckwit: That would square with my impression that when respondents are able to picture the kind of work being done — the kind of _hiring_ that takes place — they become a lot more sympathetic to the idea that the government writes the check.

    In all honesty, I feel like “economic stimulus” / “stimulating the economy” has been demagogued into yet another euphemism for “welfare,” and there’s a critical mass among the public that has now been trained to deplore it on sight.

  67. 67.

    Enhanced Voting Techniques

    @Ken:

    So do I; then I hope the Senate takes it, strips away everything but the bill number and the title, and inserts the text proposed by the White House.

    That would be perfect LOL

  68. 68.

    Corner Stone

    @Mojotron:

    Earl Butz
    __
    I can’t tell irony from racist trolling anymore.

    Earl may have said some silly shit, but what about his post was racist?

  69. 69.

    magurakurin

    so firebagger marching orders are to hammer the president for not sending the text of the bill to the House yet. Interesting. What will it be after Monday when the bill is delivered to the House?

    It’s really sad. The GOP pulls a totally dickish move by stealing the bills name, but some people still manage to put the blame on the president because he was too slow and didn’t anticipate this cosmically dickish move. As if it even mattered that the name might change.

    it’s really fucking sad that people think this is a reasonable and somehow helpful criticism of the president.

  72. 72.

    PurpleGirl

    @Makewi: From what I can read on the White House web site and the Thomas web site, President Obama sent a message and the text of his American Jobs Act of 2011 to the House on Monday. It is not in the listing of bills on Thomas. Harry Reid has a bill with the same name listed as submitted on September 13th. So far it has no co-sponsors.

  73. 73.

    magurakurin

    @PurpleGirl:It was sent on Monday. I confused the dates and fucked the tenses in my post. It’s early morning where I am.

    It’s really sad. Monday night was too slow for the firebaggers. I suppose he should have passed out copies to everyone at the speech last week.

  76. 76.

    Sanka

    If he weren’t such an unstoppable dumbass

    That, or perhaps his administration consists of slow-witted dumbfcuks. But hey, he did something at Harvard, so it’s all good.

    And not to worry, there are plenty of alternate names for this “jobs” bill:

    –The Trust Us, Stimulus Will Work This Time Act of 2011

    –We Promise This Time We’ll Find The Shovel-Ready Jobs Act of 2011

    –We Still Won’t Tell You How Raising Taxes On Americans Will Create Jobs Act

    And on and on…

    Heckuva job moonbats…

  78. 78.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Omnes Omnibus: Oh dear no, that’s too luxe. Olde-timey printing presses should have been rolling all during the speech, like something out of one of those black-and-white movies about journalism.

  79. 79.

    Keith G

    @Corner Stone: Good call.

    More importantly, why did it take 58 comments for someone to call out this outrageous act of asshattery. Given the thread I sorta understand, but still.

    Acme has yet to deliver a replacement snarkometer so I am flying kinda blind.

    They are sending a new anvil too.

  81. 81.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Sanka: Would a tax expressly conceived to hit only billionaires constitute “raising taxes on Americans”? Anytime the fateful tax hike affects at least two people, that makes the endlessly stupid slogan close enough for Republican work?

  82. 82.

    Marc

    @Sanka:

    Well, if there is anything that unites us, it’s witless wingnuts. Get back to us on the “cutting taxes on the rich solves everything” evidence. Or the “firing people improves unemployment”; or the job building virtues of “why bother repairing schools and roads? The wrong people use them”

    Defend those tax breaks for the ultra-rich Skippy. You’re not getting paid for just sitting around!

  84. 84.

    Marc

    @Keith G:

    I couldn’t figure out who was being blamed for what in that comment; what’s to call out? (Nor did I think that trying to get a straight answer would lead to enlightenment.)

    Psst, by the way, there are actual wingers in the room here…

  85. 85.

    Dennis SGMM

    Gohmert’s bill is a joke, and I have to say a good one. Kudos to the normally brain damaged for pulling it off. The fact is that American corps are sitting on over a trillion dollars in cash. On my darkest days I suspect that the corps have given up on America. I further suspect that they feel that it’s in their best interest that our economy collapses so that they can use that hoarded cash to buy off what’s left for pennies on the dollar.

    Please disagree with me and provide examples of why I’m wrong about this. I’m an Old Guy and seeing my country tis’ of thee is this shape just makes me sad.

  86. 86.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Mnemosyne: The other day I was planning a handout for a homework assignment for my classes, which I don’t normally do, and my mind reached back and found the word… “dittos.”

    Worth a mild chuckle. Not quite “mordant” like Bob Somerby’s.

  87. 87.

    Sanka

    @Marc: Brilliant! So let’s just tax the “rich” for…say, shtis and giggles. Not that it creates jobs, or helps our economic situation. No. Just because it feels good. Satiates your neo-utopian fetishes of economic “justice”. Nah, its not redistribution, its not social engineering. It’s just…well “right”.

    And if I’m wrong, then please explain–how does raising taxes on the “rich” create jobs?

  88. 88.

    Keith G

    @Sanka: You are being unclear. What parts of the President’s proposals do you think are unworkable?

    If these proposals are inadequate, what do you suggest?

    Or are you just being snarky as I have no way to tell it seems?

  89. 89.

    SiubhanDuinne

    @Mnemosyne: I never thought of it as smelling like vanilla, although I adored the aroma. That is, if you’re talking about the purple “Ditto” pages that were always cold and just slightly damp? What an olfactory memory.

    I alwas thought the “Mimeograph” was the thing where you put in a kind of reverse carbon paper into a typewriter and each type stroke would cut away the waxy carbon stuff. Then you put the “paper” on a big round drum and turned it by hand so that ink would seep through the cut-out letters and print on the page. Hard to believe how cumbersome both methods were, but I used them quite a lot back in the day.

  90. 90.

    Maura Cavaleri

    I am a small business owner. I could give a rat’s ass about regulations or tax cuts right now, (though some reform is needed at some point). What I need is for jobs to be created, so people have money and they come and buy my products. No one on my Main Street in this small, southern town is asking for these things. We just need feet in the doors and that means jobs, jobs,jobs.

  91. 91.

    Dennis SGMM

    @Mnemosyne:

    Mimeograph. Then everyone could sniff that nice vanilla scent.

    The trick was to be one of the nerd helpers. Conceal a medium-sized brown paper bag about your person and then cheerfully go to the mimeo cupboard to run off the latest bullshit from the PTA. Now, go to the teacher’s head (You’re a helpful nerd, remember?) and unfold the bag and stuff the bottom with toilet paper. Return to the mimeo cupboard and that machine is still churning away. Take your brown paper bag, soak the TP with mimeo fluid and then put your face in and take a deepy. I’m surprised that I’m still alive and semi coherent.

  92. 92.

    magurakurin

    @Mnemosyne: and the blue ink, it was just dreamy. And I too, can recall an entire 2nd grade class sniffing their freshly minted mimeograph handouts. But I was one of the sniffers not the maker. I’m not THAT old…

    on second thought, yeah, maybe it was Ditto sheets, that’s what the teacher called them…

  93. 93.

    Mnemosyne

    @Sanka:

    And if I’m wrong, then please explain—how does raising taxes on the “rich” create jobs?

    Because we take that tax money and spend it on infrastructure like schools, roads and bridges, all of which are still built by people who are paid to do the work, or what most of us commonly call a “job.” Hence higher taxes = more jobs.

    I swear, you guys honestly believe that tax money just gets burned up in a furnace somewhere even as you drive past the county road crews (aka The Government) filling potholes on your street. Talk about hysterical blindness — the money is being spent right in front of you and you still can’t make the association between “taxes paid” and “tax money spent.”

  94. 94.

    OzoneR

    @Sanka:

    Brilliant! So let’s just tax the “rich” for…say, shtis and giggles. Not that it creates jobs, or helps our economic situation. No. Just because it feels good. Satiates your neo-utopian fetishes of economic “justice”. Nah, its not redistribution, its not social engineering. It’s just…well “right”.

    Well that and it adds revenue which helps pay for programs to put people to work without raising that pesky deficit you’re always clamoring about.

  95. 95.

    Keith G

    @Marc:

    Psst, by the way, there are actual wingers in the room here…

    There sure are and at least a few of them seem quite dense, but to conflate their prickly disposition with racism is several bridges too far. That is what Mojotron seemed to do in this comment:

    I can’t tell irony from racist trolling anymore.

    I do not think that type of formulation is helpful and it has popped up around here a bit lately.

  97. 97.

    Belafon (formerly anonevent)

    @Sanka: A number of ways. As Mnemosyne said, the money is used to build roads and bridges, which allows for commerce to take place. Then the money goes into the hands of the workers who spend it, which, as studies I can’t find right now show, stimulates the economy way more than if it sits in someone’s bank account – something like .24c if a wealthy person holds onto it, and like 2.40 if a person spends it. It also goes towards schools, paying to build schools – once again building – and to teachers, who also spend the money, and give an education that allows the students to earn and spend more money then they would have otherwise.

  98. 98.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Mnemosyne: I’m very curious about how people would answer a poll question that went something like this:

    You’ve probably heard a lot about efforts to “stimulate the economy” or provide “economic stimulus.” What do you think governments do when they attempt to stimulate the economy?

    Leave it open-ended like that.

    I have a sinking feeling that a lot of people envision many things before, say, a road crew in orange vests.

  99. 99.

    Sanka

    @Mnemosyne:

    Because we take that tax money and spend it on infrastructure like schools, roads and bridges, all of which are still built by people who are paid to do the work, or what most of us commonly call a “job.”

    That’s fantastic.

    Unfortunately for Democrats, you spent about $1 Trillion with much fanfare I might add, trumpeting “shovel-ready” this and “green jobs” that etc. etc. And all we got to show for it is 9% unemployment, anemic GDP growth and record poverty. And now after that your asking for more because, um…this time, its er….different?

    I can see the campaign slogans now—“VOTE DEMOCRAT IN 2012! NOW WITH MORE COWBELL!”

  102. 102.

    Keith G

    @Sanka:

    Unfortunately for Democrats, you spent about $1 Trillion with much fanfare I might add, trumpeting “shovel-ready” this and “green jobs” that etc. etc

    Really? And when did we do that???

  104. 104.

    OzoneR

    @Sanka:

    you spent about $1 Trillion with much fanfare I might add, trumpeting “shovel-ready” this and “green jobs” that etc. etc.

    Actually, only about $100 billion was for that, the rest was tax incentives, tax cuts, and subsidies to cash-strapped states.

  105. 105.

    FlipYrWhig

    @Sanka: “When that sinkhole opened up, you said you could fill it with dirt. But there’s still space between the ground and the dirt! You only built it up a little bit, not all the way! How come it didn’t fill it like you said, huh, huh, how come? And I don’t want to hear you go on about the nearby leaky pipe I refuse to let you fix, either. That’s totally a coincidence.”

  108. 108.

    Keith G

    @Sanka: Sanka, dear, since you are batting 0 for 3, I was wondering if there was anybody older there at home who could ,like, help you out? Anyone?

  112. 112.

    Martin

    Ok, here’s my idea. Change the corporate tax structure so that payroll does not serve as a deduction against earnings. That is, the corporation needs to pay taxes against profits as is now calculated but with payroll and contractor wages added in. Corporations instead get a tax credit against a baseline value which reflects what an average worker at that wage would pay in taxes (including payroll). Employers that pay low wages would earn very little in the way of tax credits and face a much higher corporate tax rate, presumably for the government to provide social services. Corporations would therefore incur higher tax liabilities if they get rid of employees, and lower liabilities if they hire. Additionally, higher top marginal rates would help lower corporate liabilities.

    Basically, it would serve as a negative feedback loop between corporations and employees. The more taxes the employees pay, the less the corporation needs to, but the net tax liability for employee + corporation would remain roughly constant.

  113. 113.

    PurpleGirl

    @Sanka: Granted there were Democrats who enabled the Republicans but they began two conducting two — TWO — wars on the national credit card. Neither war was in the budget. But that’s where most of the deficit comes from.

    Also, when corporate taxes were actually higher and there weren’t so many loopholes so companies could get away with paying no taxes, they could deduct salaries. Having employees meant they saved money. They don’t need to do that anymore, do they? And so people don’t have money to spend or to pay taxes on.

  115. 115.

    PurpleGirl

    @Sanka: You need to get your facts straight. The stimulus was no where near a trillion dollars. A few hundred billion and it was mostly tax cuts.

  116. 116.

    a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)

    @Calouste:

    a $400,000 hospital bill for pneumonia? It’s not like people typically spend months in hospital before it kills them. Methinks pneumonia was probably just the end stage of whatever pre-existing condition he had.

    Depends. I have a friend who had pneumonia that went bad so quickly, then he got septic, crashed and spent 33 days in ICU. Considerably larger bill than 400K; they used an new, expensive $20K per dose antibiotic. He lived and is fine today. So it can happen, just from pneumonia. It’s rare, no doubt, but I saw it happen.

  117. 117.

    Yog-Sothoth

    OK, let’s drop the whole arguing bit and cut to the chase. The Republicans and their media allies are way behind the OODA loop.

    Look at Drudge as an example. Every day the bloggers go over everything that comes out about the president or the democrats and works on a spin to make it look bad. They’ve been doing it for years now and it really doesn’t take more than a few minutes at this point.

    Obama going golfing => Golfing while the people starve.
    Obama staying in => Secluding himself in the White House.
    First lady eating fast food => 1000 calories in one sandwich.
    First lady eating at state dinner => Let them eat cake!

    Obama gives a speech and gets raves for taking it to the Republicans, but he’s just made it to cycle 2 of of the loop and the right wingers are already in cycle 15.

    Should the crazies win big in 2012 then we are in for the blitz. Remember when people were talking about changing the Senate rules at the beginning of this Congress to cut back the filibuster? The Dems didn’t have the balls to do it, but the GOP just might. One hundred days of ramming things through Wisconsin style and we can forget about Social Security, Medicare, or anything but “the beatings will continue until morale improves”. Even if they were to lose in 2014 all the goodies would have been looted by then and the locusts will simply move off to other countries.

  119. 119.

    Kyle

    @BruinKid:

    I guess Paul is really true to his word, though. Doesn’t look like he lifted a finger to help his former campaign manager.

    It’s the glibertarian way. You’re just an employee contracted to do a job, nothing more. Your boss owes you nothing beyond your contract terms.

  120. 120.

    Odie Hugh Manatee

    Obama should go with Republicans Are Better At Governing Than Democrats Act of 2011 as the bill title.

    Let them vote that one down.

Comments are closed.

Trackbacks