Sticking with their game plan, the Teaparty GOP accuses the President of ‘playing politics’ with his jobs plan

President Obama has a jobs plan which he wants to fund with very targeted, specific tax cuts, such as taxing the income of investment fund managers and eliminating tax breaks for the (very profitable) oil and gas sector.

Mitch McConnell (Douche-KY) says that the President is “playing politics” with his jobs plan.

And here are the facts of where America is today — poverty on the rise:

thedailyfeed (via: reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

More Americans lived in poverty in 2010 than in any other time that records have been collected, according to US Census data released yesterday. Median household income fell, too, and a growing number of people are without health insurance.

An additional 2.6 million people became officially poor last year, raising the poverty rate from 14.3 percent in 2009 to 15.1 percent. It was the fourth year in a row that the ranks of the poor grew, and Sawhill predicts poverty rates will rise to 16 percent by 2014.

PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME how it’s patriotic to continue to subsidize the oil and gas sector with our nation’s treasury — while they rake in higher profits than ever before –  while it’s ‘socialism’ or something to attempt to get millions of our citizens working again? At this point, could a jobs plan really be seen as a political game by anyone other than the political game players of the GOP Teaparty?

And guess what helped keep another 8 million people OUT of poverty? Government benefits and programs. Via Think Progress:

The earned income tax credit and unemployment insurance kept 8.6 million people out of poverty – showing the ongoing need for these critical safety net programs. The EITC kept 3 million children alone out of poverty:

Only the Republican party could label potential solutions to the real problems millions of Americans are facing as playing politics. Especially when their own “game-plan” is to do nothing for the country until after an election that’s 14 months away.

 

Video / transcript: President Obama’s jobs speech & reactions from Krugman and O’Reilly

TRANSCRIPT of the speech here

FACT SHEET: The American Jobs Act

PAUL KRUGMAN’S comments on the jobs plan:

O.K., about the Obama plan: It calls for about $200 billion in new spending — much of it on things we need in any case, like school repair, transportation networks, and avoiding teacher layoffs — and $240 billion in tax cuts. That may sound like a lot, but it actually isn’t. The lingering effects of the housing bust and the overhang of household debt from the bubble years are creating a roughly $1 trillion per year hole in the U.S. economy, and this plan — which wouldn’t deliver all its benefits in the first year — would fill only part of that hole. And it’s unclear, in particular, how effective the tax cuts would be at boosting spending.

Still, the plan would be a lot better than nothing, and some of its measures, which are specifically aimed at providing incentives for hiring, might produce relatively a large employment bang for the buck. As I said, it’s much bolder and better than I expected. President Obama’s hair may not be on fire, but it’s definitely smoking; clearly and gratifyingly, he does grasp how desperate the jobs situation is.

But his plan isn’t likely to become law, thanks to Republican opposition. And it’s worth noting just how much that opposition has hardened over time, even as the plight of the unemployed has worsened.

[...] leading Republicans are basically against anything that might help the unemployed. Yes, Mr. Romney has issued a glossy, well-produced “jobs plan,” but it might best be described as 59 bullet points with nothing there — and certainly nothing to justify his assertion, bordering on megalomania, that he would create no fewer than 11 million jobs in four years.

The good news in all this is that by going bigger and bolder than expected, Mr. Obama may finally have set the stage for a political debate about job creation. For, in the end, nothing will be done until the American people demand action.

BILL O’REILLY’S comments on the jobs plan:

During an interview with White House press secretary Jay Carney, Bill O’Reilly criticized President Obama for using investor Warren Buffett as an example of the unfairness in the tax code. Obama, in his speech on jobs before a joint session of Congress, said that “Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary — an outrage he has asked us to fix.” O’Reilly took exception that remark, suggesting that it was an “apples to oranges” comparison because Buffett pays mostly capital gains taxes while his secretary likely pays mostly income tax.

His criticism is off base. Taxes on “capital gains” are taxes on income derived from capital, as opposed to income derived from labor. Both capital gains taxes and income taxes are taxes on income. O’Reilly is wrong to suggest Buffett and the president are being misleading or unfair.

O’Reilly and the rest of Fox “News,” and radio entertainers like Limbaugh, count on their audience to be of the “low information” variety. They even have a club: