Could this man be your next Governor :D
I was unsure what to expect from the new Rep. Senator from
Massachusetts. but if this is any indication, it's a very good start.:)
ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf reports: So much for Scott Brown the Republican savior. In his third vote as a Senator, Brown vote against Republicans, helping break a filibuster on a jobs promotion bill crafted by Democrats.
“I came to Washington to be an independent voice, to put politics aside, and to do everything in my power to help create jobs for Massachusetts families. This Senate jobs bill is not perfect. I wish the tax cuts were deeper and broader, but I voted for it because it contains measures that will help put people back to work,” said Brown in a written statement before the vote, although he criticized the “continuation of politics-as-usual in the drafting of this bill.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid praised Brown after the vote.
“I hope this is the beginning of a new day in the US Senate,” said Reid at 6:13.
“Whether that new day is because of the new Senator from Massachusetts or someone else, I don’t know,” Reid said.
Along with Brown, Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, George Voinovich of Ohio, and Kit Bond of Missouri also voted with Democrats.
A total of five Republicans voted against the filibuster. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, voted with Republicans.
The final vote – 62 to 30.
The bill, with a price tag of $15 billion, includes a bipartisan tax credits proposal for businesses hiring new workers as well as several other tax measures. Senate Majority Harry Reid dropped a more bipartisan $85 billion proposal that had been crafted by Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont, and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa. Their bill was more focused on tax measures and as part of the compromise included popular tax measures that had nothing to do with jobs creation. Reid said he felt the message had been muddled.
Reid also stripped out a planned further extensions of federal unemployment insurance and COBRA. Democrats will now have take up those matters separately (creating another chance to say they are voting to help workers) in several weeks.
The current Senate bill created the strange situation of seeing Republicans criticizing Democrats for going with a pared down bill.
Here is Democrats’ memo on their jobs bill.
It contains four main elements, as described by Democrats:
1) reduce the cost to employers who hire new employees with a tax break for any employer who hires an employee who has been out of work for at least 60 days;
2) enhance the write-off that small businesses can take for purchases of certain equipment, freeing up capital to grow and hire workers;
3) expand the Build America Bonds model by making it available to existing Tax Credit Bonds, which provides the bond holder with a federal tax credit in lieu of interest; and
4) extend the surface transportation programs (SAFETEA-LU) through the end of the year.
The bill will now have to be debated and get a final vote, perhaps later this week. If it passes, it would have to be reconciled with a more than $100 billion House jobs bill.
The headline in this vote is certainly that Scott Brown, whose election Republicans should “exalt in,” according to Mitt Romney last week, voted with Democrats to break a Republican filibuster.
In a strange Senate floor speech, Reid asked Republicans to support the bill in part because men who are out of work are abusive.
“It is remarkable that we have to hold a procedural vote on bill that will create jobs. it will be regrettable if the minority prevents us from moving forward to take that first step and giving millions of unemployed Americans the hope that tomorrow will be better than yesterday. Think what it is, Mr. President, for someone to get up in the morning and have no place to go to work -- to work. I have met with some people dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand. Why? Men don't have jobs. Women don't have jobs either -- but women aren't abusive -- most of the time. Men when they're out of work tend to become abusive. Our domestic crisis centers in Nevada are crowded,” he said.
February 22, 2010
Like I said a long time ago.... Government by Lawyers and Professors who have spent almost ZERO time in the real world.
Tell me, anyone, which of these things increases a customers willingness to buy products or services? It might make it easier to hire, but what SMART business person hires when there is no work for them to do?
Sure, the roads will get fixed up all nice and purdy. (Just like I said a year ago...) But when the roads get fixed and the bridges get fixed... And all that freshly printed money is still out there, chasing the original amount of goods and/or services... What happens?
The answer is easy... Its happened time and again during the course of history.
An essay on debt....
Is there anyone out there who doesn’t think our fiscal house is about to slide into the ocean?
Whether one accepts the government’s estimates of a national debt that nears $10 trillion, or whether one thinks the numbers provided by Richard Fisher of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, which includes all the “unfunded” parts of Medicare (A, B, and D) at another $85.6 trillion, for a total of $95.6 trillion, the United States faces a staggering level of debt.[i] And Fisher’s numbers do not include Social Security, which now, for the first time, has seen its out-flows exceed its income, and which adds another $10 trillion (at least) to the totals. The Medicare debt alone would stick each American family of four with a bill of $1.3 million, or about 25 times the average household’s income. Taken together, these levels of debt exceed the Gross National Product of probably half the nations in the world put together.
But history offers some hope. The young republic of the United States of America faced an equally daunting debt bomb in 1788, and, perhaps given the new nation’s utter lack of credit history, an even greater challenge than we face today. But the Founders dug their way out to the point of fiscal solvency fairly quickly, and within a decade the nation was viewed as a sterling credit risk. How was this possible?
It began with Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton—often a punching bag for some conservatives because of his big-government proclivities. But Hamilton knew that the only way to establish credit was to pay your bills. The situation confronting the United States, coming out of the Revolutionary War and the Articles of Confederation, was this: states had issued their own debt—some more, some less than others—and the United States, through the Continental Congress had also accumulated debts. Hamilton insisted the nation had to pay them all, and that a policy of “assumption” was the only sure way to convince foreign investors that we were an honorable Republic and not a banana republic! Despite fierce battles, he carried the day in Congress: the U.S. would pay all debts accumulated by the national and state governments. But how? Hamilton’s genius showed in his next maneuver, as he knew he needed to attract the “monied men,” as he called them. He structured a “menu” of new bond/debt options, in which longer-term debts received higher returns. Thus, if an investor had little confidence in the United States, he took short-term bonds which paid off less; and if an investor thought the nation would survive and prosper, he bought long-term bonds with their higher payoff. Throughout it all, Hamilton, contrary to popular opinion, did not wish to see the country saddled with debt. He said debt “is perhaps the NATURAL DISEASE of all governments,” and his first actions as Treasury Secretary were designed to reduce the nation’s indebtedness.[ii]
Hamilton’s restructuring of the debt on the surface may have resembled what Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger of “Koli-for-nya” did in 2004, but only on the surface. Hamilton ensured that payments on the debt went to the oldest debt first, and through a “sinking fund,” no new debt could be contracted until the old debt had been settled—in essence setting the United States up with an “American Express” version of credit instead of a Mastercard/Visa “revolving” credit line. So while the U.S. indebtedness remained at about $83 million when Thomas Jefferson became president, the payments on interest remained at a minimum.
In part, Hamilton also knew that he could count on those whom he knew well—President George Washington, plus John Adams, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson (two men quite likely to hold the office in the future)—to limit spending and to practice federal frugality. Indeed they did. They ran the government with a handful of secretaries and a few hundred public officials; they carefully watched expenditures, with the largest being the construction of four large frigates under Adams and Thomas Jefferson’s purchase of Louisiana for $15 million. Yet despite the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson still managed to slice more than one-quarter off the national debt.
All the Founders recognized that for the “monied men” to ally with the new nation, it had to honor its contracts (which it did through assumption); it had to establish a sound currency (which it did by adopting a gold standard and coining money along the Spanish system of tens and fives); and by paying its debts, which it did. By the presidency of Andrew Jackson, the nation had a surplus, but more important, it had a sterling credit record, and investment money flowed into the new nation. Hamilton, Washington, Adams, Madison, and Jefferson had all adroitly kept the “Revolutionary Debt Bomb” from exploding, and instead leveraged it for the growth of future generations. The key was confidence—confidence in the fiscal frugality and restraint of the leaders, confidence by the business sector in the government. Do either of those exist today?
While the numbers are staggering, like all numbers they matter little compared to the “animal spirits” of entrepreneurship, investment, and business growth. A sunny Ronald Reagan dug the U.S. out of deep straits just 30 years ago. The Founders, operating with even less, founded a nation on confidence and freedom, and the lessons of history tell us that such turnarounds can occur if the nation is determined to once again defuse its debt bomb.
University of Dayton
It gets the kid off the street, it gets him paying taxes, he has a career, it makes the industry more competitive.
I had apprentices......why shouldn't I give them a job ??? Someone hired me as an apprentice when I first started......it's called giving something back.
The system has been working well here for years. Way to go.;)
That is all well and good Wom.... Only, the problem right now is not a lack of trained people in the workforce. The problem is lack of work for them to do.
History shows that Kensyian Economics (Government 'Stimulus') is only ever a very short term bump.
History also tells us that the way out is to simply let the people and businesses keep more of their money to spend for themselves.
Mayor of Mississauga since 1978 :)
This is from last year, and she is still in office. Wonder if she has a twin??
Three Cheers for Hazel.:D I loved the video. I wish she lived in
the USA, she would get my vote.:)
I love to see people like that who probably just keep out of the limelight and do their job properly.
So how come across the border they vote for people like Al Gore ??? :D