Cantor To Obama: Let’s Nix More Than Half Your Jobs Bill

by gettheminNOVEMBER Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:59 pm

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/cantor-to-obama-lets-nix-more-than-half-your-jobs-bill.php?ref=fpa

Its Friggen PAID FOR!

Any excuse NOT to create jobs. Thanks GOTP-BAGS! Cantor To Obama: Let’s Nix More Than Half Your Jobs Bill 681285

Cantor To Obama: Let’s Nix More Than Half Your Jobs Bill 681285

If anyone really thinks the RW cares about jobs you would have a tough time finding evidence of it. But go ahead believe what you will Rolling Eyes

by lendmeflight2 Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:08 pm

It isn't paid for yet. He instructed the super committee to find a way to pay for it. That's like you and I going to get pizza with only 10 bucks and me offering to pay for the table next to us and instructing you to find the money.

I applaud the effort on his part though.

Cantor just wants to wreck the economy so his hedge fund goes up.

by gettheminNOVEMBER Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:28 pm

lendmeflight2 wrote:It isn't paid for yet. He instructed the super committee to find a way to pay for it. That's like you and I going to get pizza with only 10 bucks and me offering to pay for the table next to us and instructing you to find the money.

I applaud the effort on his part though.

Cantor just wants to wreck the economy so his hedge fund goes up.

They wanted a jobs plan and they got it. It includes ending the tax breaks for the rich and Big Oil subsides. At a time when the rich are raking in HUGE profits I can't believe we have to convince the average person to end them. Its going to take huge political pressure and I don't think the people are together enough to pull it off.

But Obama put it out there. Lets see on how they spin it. History tells us the Tax cuts do not create jobs so why do we spend money on them?

by lendmeflight2 Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:33 pm

Because it's a tax cut. The average person would say to end the oil subsidies. I am sure of that.

The idea is put them as "do you think taxes should be lower?" Everyone assumes that their own taxes are being discussed when it's actually just corporate taxes.

It's the phrasing of the questions that keeps people in favor of it.

It's like the pro-choice/pro-life debate. These are not opposites.

I can be pro-life, as in I favor living, but still be pro-choice, as in I think people should be able to choose, it's the way these things are worded that makes the difference. This is the power of language.

If a pro-lifer asked me if I was pro-choice, they would take that as "are you in favor of abortion". I can be anti-abortion, for my life, but still believe in the right to choose.