Redskins Diehard Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Solyndra is an embarrassment for the administration and will be used relentlessly by his critics, but it also represents like 2% of the $38 billion loan program.As for more spending, it's absolutely needed. And I think 80% of mainstream economists agree with that thinking. Austerity does not work in such weak economies. Some proof from the IMF... Same advice from the CBO. You can increase spending in the short term while bringing down deficits in the medium and long term. Those two things are not contradictory. One bad loan does not change the fact that this economy needs some serious short term help. Even the jobs package -- if everything in that bill was passed -- is not big enough to fill that output gap that exists right now. It's another short term remedy, but it's worth passing if we can stay out of a double dip recession. This is not a discussion about the merits of a federal government jobs program. What percentage of the "We Must Pass This Bill NOW" program are you okay with being used to fund a photo op for the VP? Clearly 2% is fine with you. How much of it should be rushed through approval process despite concerns of the people evaluating it because an aid to the Chief of Staff wants a STATUS? Does the CBO weigh in on that? What about the IMF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 I'd say 51%... ~51% of people in this country don't pay income taxes***. Representation without Taxation. They have little skin in the game. No wonder about 48% of citizens support higher taxes. ***I'm sure the recession had something to do with that stat but you know what I mean. Ah, so 'no taxation without representation' referred to income tax? I seem to remember the British position was that that since they had such a huge debt burden brought on by war abroad, those who were paying the least amount of taxes (the colonists) should start shouldering some of the load. And since they (the colonists) weren't paying as much they didn't need a say in Parliament. Has quite a familiar ring to it ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan133 Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 My friend - I am well rounded and very much brushed up in history. you don't show it too well then.Tis really besides the point. Guys giving each other anal has nothing to do with marriage, the tradition of marriage or the whole idea of marriage going back thousands and thousands of years is that of a male and female parental unit; keep you fantasies to yourself. Hahahahaha. I'm not gay; I'm simply a human being who thinks that discriminating against others is fairly backwards and 18th century. Again, the idea of "one man one woman" as a historical narrative is ridiculous. "I think what you're insinuating is that homosexuality is unnatural or a choice"You know that's not fair and I never said a such thing. Don't attack my character unless you can back it. And there's nothing out there to back it. I know of homo bee studies and gay ass zoo penguins. Call me an ass and I'll give you that. But you insult me with your above quoted characterization of me as it is totally unfounded libel, a bit alinsky and totally diarrhea of the mouth. Be as gay as you want, I could give two ****s. Overreaction much? I never called you any of those things (although apparently you call yourself those things). Just because your world-views are under attack doesn't mean you are. 1828. Noah Webster. The word is being redefined from what was social-typical. 1828-present is not human history. Its not even half-way towards the point in the past I said "traditional" marriage started to really show up as part of culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Just another example of the failed corporate welfare policies that our leaders seem to think will work. Great intent, awful results, business as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Bro man - OUR GOVERMENT is so PLAYSKOOL that there was NEVER a JOBS BILL. Obama's American Jobs Act didn't freakin exist to pass it. Obama said pass it for me. LMAO. Schoolhouse Rocks: How a Bill Becomes a Law. Um the Constitution please. It's amateur hour.Reid said at a recent Twitter Town Hall that he won’t immediately take up Obama’s plan because the Senate must tackle other issues first. He didn’t specify which bills would receive priority over Obama’s economic solution. ^^^^^ "If John Boehner continues to block the President's jobs bill" ^^^^^ and there was NO job's bill for Boehner to block. It's funny, no Dems made a move to advance any bill and Obama didn't have one so some Repub in the House submitted an American Jobs Act a few long days later. Rubbish. Do you guys even try to research this stuff before repeating what you probably heard on Rush Limbaugh? Here is the text of Obama's American Jobs Act (along with the accompanying letter sent by Obama to Congress): http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/text-american-jobs-act-and-obama-s-letter-to-congress-20110912 In essence, you just admitted that you have no idea what you're talking about. BTW, I noticed that you have a habit of mindlessly repeating right wing cliches, as evidenced by your use of the phrase "skin in the game." And not only that, but you repeated the rubbishy claim that half of Americans don't pay income taxes (which is sheer baloney as well), without even mentioning that these same people pay other forms of taxes, e.g., payroll taxes, sales, taxes, state taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Again, the idea of "one man one woman" as a historical narrative is ridiculous. 1828-present is not human history. Its not even half-way towards the point in the past I said "traditional" marriage started to really show up as part of culture. This is a complete distraction from the topic at hand, but most people agree with the advent of agriculture humans became more monogamous. Now, clearly, that didn't happen universally, but there are good arguments for more monogamous relationships being favored in more sedintary societies (e.g. societies not based on hunting, gathering and moving around), but more personal ownership. Monogamy was generally (not universal amongst all tribes or universal amongst all individuals w/ in a tribe) practiced amongst the more agriculturally oriented Native American tribes. http://www.fourdir.com/chapter_3_native_american_cultures.htm This is an okay piece. I think though he understates the importance of the last 10,000 years or so of evolution for an older evolutionary selective pressure though. The comparision to being vegan is poor as there has never been much selective pressure towards being vegan, while certainly for most of those 10,000 years human societies have been subject to evolutionary selective pressure. http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/07/27/ryan.promiscuity.normal/index.html In the end, the ease at which you are monogamous is likely due to your genetic background (i.e. how much evolutionary selective pressure was there toward monogamy with respect to your ancestors), which is likely tied to the larger nature of the society that your ancestors live in (e.g. agricultural vs. hunting and gathering). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 If you give a company that was just pointed out as bad money. And you pushed it through different offices without due dilligence. Someone needs to be fired, and the people get paid back first. Doesn't matter all of your good works if your caught stealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Jon Stewart weighs in. He was not kind to Obama. Or Biden. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-september-15-2011/that-custom-tailored-obama-scandal-you-ordered-is-finally-here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossomo Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Rubbish. Do you guys even try to research this stuff before repeating what you probably heard on Rush Limbaugh... BTW, I noticed that you have a habit of mindlessly repeating right wing cliches We could go back and forth all day about who is pushing which left/right wing meme. Let's stick with what I type and the items I reference. I do research, but with anything there's going to mistakes, sometimes something slips and when it does, have at it and call me out. I guess I am being a Constitutional literalist here but neither Obama nor his party has submitted an American Jobs Act bill to Congress. Emails to your base and a press release doesn't count, that's not how a bill becomes a law. I am absolutely certain that if the bill was submitted it would listed here at govtrack.us. It's not. When you submit a bill to Congress, it get's a H.R. number. Sen Gohmert's American Jobs Act can be found here. It is what it is, eat it up. H. R. 2911: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘American Jobs Act of 2011. In essence, you just admitted that you have no idea what you're talking about. I obviously do. repeated the rubbishy claim that half of Americans don't pay income taxes (which is sheer baloney as well) Sheer baloney? I get that number from a 2009 Congressional Memorandum that can be found here. The take away from this is, "In summary, for tax year 2009, ... approximately 49% percent will have a positive income tax liability". Fact. without even mentioning that these same people pay other forms of taxes, e.g., payroll taxes, sales, taxes, state taxes. Different arguement. I purposely stayed on income taxes as I believe there is a coorelation between the 51% who pay no income tax and the 48% who want/are okay to raising taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Monogamy was invented mostly for women, so that men would know which offspring were theirs and not some other man's offspring. Modern day monogamy doesn't work much either, what with our increased life span. I can't imagine spending a lifetime with only one other person. But then, I'm pretty non-traditional in many many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossomo Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Ah, so 'no taxation without representation' referred to income tax? ... Has quite a familiar ring to it The opposite my friend. Representation without income taxation. It's easy to say raise the income tax on someone when you yourself are not affected. That's one reason I say they don't have skin in the game - it's easy to point at someone else and say tax them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 The opposite my friend. Representation without income taxation. It's easy to say raise the income tax on someone when you yourself are not affected. That's one reason I say they don't have skin in the game - it's easy to point at someone else and say tax them. Why do you hate Ronald Reagan and his invention of the earned income tax credit? It is one of the most successful (and conservative) ideas ever implemented. And you say "skin in the game" because that is the preferred talking point language used on the conservative sites where you get your information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossomo Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Again, the idea of "one man one woman" as a historical narrative is ridiculous. Is not what I said. Fallacy often? So again: Father's didn't pair their sons with other family's sons. Nor did they pair their daughters with other daughters. I never mentioned monogamy as the rule of thumb, and spoke of wife-husband & husband relations and husband-wife&wife relations. In regards to 1828, the word had meaning and there's reasonable expectation that it had the same meaning in 1428, 828, 08, 228BC. I never called you any of those things No you made a strawman which offensively presented me as a homophobe antiscience chump who was backwards thinking homosexuality was a choice we made every morning. ---------- Post added September-16th-2011 at 02:25 PM ---------- Why do you hate Ronald Reagan and his invention of the earned income tax credit? Never said or mentioned. Please rerepresent your arguement in a different context. And you say "skin in the game" because that is the preferred talking point language used on the conservative sites where you get your information. What other colloquialism could I use to describe what I'm describing. I'm open to suggestions. What did Luke say to Vader, something about hate clouding his vision. Just because I'm not on board with your utopian collectivist vision - doesn't make me conservative. See the thing is, the Democrat party has become so socialist that the party would call JFK a conservative now a days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoVaO Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 This is not a discussion about the merits of a federal government jobs program. What percentage of the "We Must Pass This Bill NOW" program are you okay with being used to fund a photo op for the VP? You said "I'm not sure if it is sad or funny that you are making an argument for another presidential spending spree to fix the economy in this thread." Why wouldn't I? When people are using this to indict all Government spending and using this as proof that the first stimulus was a failure, I felt it was necessary to push back against it. Now, I don't mind photo ops. They are an important part of selling the benefits of the program you passed. This one was a clear embarrassment for the administration. Clearly 2% is fine with you. 2% for the recovery act's loans to green companies. The original program accounted for the probability that 5% - 10% of these loans would fail. Of the total stimulus package, it was less than a fraction of 1%. How much of it should be rushed through approval process despite concerns of the people evaluating it because an aid to the Chief of Staff wants a STATUS? Does the CBO weigh in on that? What about the IMF? You'll get no argument from me that the process used for this specific loan was a poor one. The green jobs probably should have been left out of the stimulus entirely, replaced with direct spending into infrastructure. ---------- Post added September-16th-2011 at 06:36 PM ---------- What other colloquialism could I use to describe what I'm describing. I'm open to suggestions. Everybody has skin in the game. Sales taxes, payroll taxes, gas taxes, state and local taxes, etc. The poor pay a higher percentage of their income on taxes than the very richest people in America. Most don't pay FEDERAL (key distinction) income taxes because they don't make enough income, not because they don't want to. Other reasons why people have no income tax liability was the EIC instituted by Ronald Reagan as mentioned earlier and many are elderly people on Social Security. In addition, there are thousands of high income individuals who are in that group of people who don't pay federal income taxes. What did Luke say to Vader, something about hate clouding his vision. Just because I'm not on board with your utopian collectivist vision - doesn't make me conservative. See the thing is, the Democrat party has become so socialist that the party would call JFK a conservative now a days. This is laughable. From Wikipedia, but it's all sourced... Amongst the legislation passed by Congress during the Kennedy administration, ]unemployment benefits were expanded, aid was provided to cities to improve housing and transportation, funds were allocated to continue the construction of a national highway system started under Eisenhower, a water pollution control act was passed to protect the country’s rivers and streams, and an agricultural act to raise farmers’ incomes was made law.[4] A significant amount of anti-poverty legislation was passed by Congress, including increases in social security benefits and in the minimum wage, several housing bills, and aid to economically distressed areas.A few antirecession public works packages,[5] together with a number of measures designed to assist farmers,[6] were introduced. Major expansions and improvements were made in Social Security (including retirement at 62 for men), hospital construction, library services, family farm assistance and reclamation.[7] Food stamps for low-income Americans were reintroduced, food distribution to the poor was increased, and there was an expansion in school milk and school lunch distribution.[8] The most comprehensive farm legislation since 1938 was carried out, with expansions in rural electrification, soil conservation, crop insurance, farm credit, and marketing orders.[9] In September 1961, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency was established as the focal point in government for the “planning, negotiation, and execution of international disarmament and arms control agreements.”[10] Yeah, real big conservative that JFK was. And I can play that little word game with Republicans, too. The Republican party has become so plutocratic that the party would call Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon liberals and Ronald Reagan a RINO nowadays (it's one word, not three). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossomo Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 2% for the recovery act's loans to green companies. The original program accounted for the probability that 5% - 10% of these loans would fail. Of the total stimulus package, it was less than a fraction of 1%. I'll simply add that $700 million of stimulus was provided to SBA. $17B was provided by DoE for green energy projects. The green jobs probably should have been left out of the stimulus entirely Agreed Everybody has skin in the game. Sales taxes, payroll taxes, gas taxes, state and local taxes, etc. I'm very specific here and was talking income tax. It's easy for them to point at the wealth, job creators and the producers of our nation and say increase their income taxes. There is an absolute need for a disincentive for people who pay no income tax to point across the yard and say increase their income tax even though they don't pay any. Sales taxes, payroll taxes, gas taxes, state and local taxes, etc... The poor pay a higher percentage of their income on taxes than the very richest people in America. This moves to an area I really was not commenting on. Yes they pay taxes - agreed, and I'm sure they won't ask nor would like to have their taxes increased. Most don't pay FEDERAL (key distinction) income taxes because they don't make enough income, not because they don't want to. Two things here. They are not taxed because gov't has decided not to tax them. And anyone can cut a check to IRS and pay extra - that does not fly. Other reasons why people have no income tax liability was the EIC instituted by Ronald Reagan as mentioned earlier and many are elderly people on Social Security. In addition, there are thousands of high income individuals who are in that group of people who don't pay federal income taxes. I think we'd agree that the tax code needs a trimming and reform. And I can play that little word game with Republicans, too We are allowed a little fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 Never said or mentioned. Please rerepresent your arguement in a different context. The reason that the working poor and lower middle class do not pay federal income taxes is because of the operation of the earned income tax credit, a creation of the Reagan Administration designed to make sure that work remains more desirable than welfare even at the low income levels, and thus reduce the welfare burdens placed on the state. When people are complaining that half the people "don't pay federal income taxes" as though this were some sort of scam, it is clear that they have zero understanding of why the EITC exists, or of the real world effect that would happen if larger income taxes were placed on the working poor in order to make them "have skin in the game." Welfare rolls would increase drastically, which would cost the goverment much more than the tiny amount of revenue they would get by squeezing a little bit of income tax out of people with hardly any money. In other words, someone who spouts the "skin in the game" talking point tends to be someone whose political and economic discourse is excessively shaped by such shallow partisan talking points. ---------- Post added September-16th-2011 at 04:44 PM ---------- Two things here. They are not taxed because gov't has decided not to tax them. And anyone can cut a check to IRS and pay extra - that does not fly. And here is a perfect example of such spouting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 We could go back and forth all day about who is pushing which left/right wing meme. Let's stick with what I type and the items I reference. I do research, but with anything there's going to mistakes, sometimes something slips and when it does, have at it and call me out. I guess I am being a Constitutional literalist here but neither Obama nor his party has submitted an American Jobs Act bill to Congress. Emails to your base and a press release doesn't count, that's not how a bill becomes a law. I am absolutely certain that if the bill was submitted it would listed here at govtrack.us. It's not. When you submit a bill to Congress, it get's a H.R. number. Sen Gohmert's American Jobs Act can be found here. It is what it is, eat it up. H. R. 2911: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘American Jobs Act of 2011. Wow!! You actually looked at all 4585 hits and made sure that none corresponded to what Obama proposed!! That my friends is a commitment to an honest debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 The opposite my friend. Representation without income taxation. It's easy to say raise the income tax on someone when you yourself are not affected. That's one reason I say they don't have skin in the game - it's easy to point at someone else and say tax them. It's easy to cut spending for someone else when you are not affected. Its easy to vote in favor of war when it's not your kid that has to fight it. We make decisions every day that effect someone else. That doesn't automatically make them all incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 Interesting, Solyndra applied for more govt money totaling nearly a billion http://www.laobserved.com/intell/2011/09/solyndras_sec_filing_contains.php A close look by LA Observed at the company's SEC filings shows that it also was seeking additional DOE loan guarantees of $469 million for Phase II of its so-called Fab 2 solar power manufacturing facility in Fremont. And, get this, DOE - according to Solyndra's Dec. 18, 2009 application for SEC approval to sell common stock - tentatively gave this 2nd loan application its approval. Here's the story right from Solyndra's own S-1: "On September 11, 2009, we submitted Part 1 of an application for an approximately $469 million guaranteed loan to be utilized to finance the construction of Phase II. As with the financing facility for Phase I, the loan would be made by the Federal Financing Bank and guaranteed by the DOE. On November 4, 2009, we were notified by the DOE that our Part 1 application was complete and that Phase II was determined to be a Section 1703 eligible project and to have the credit subsidy cost for the project paid out of funds allocated under Section 1705. We submitted Part 2 of our loan guarantee application on November 17, 2009." It's not clear just how far along this Phase II plan got before Solyndra went into bankruptcy. An internet search shows that the Phase II funding plan is like the proverbial tree that fell in the forest - and no one heard it. And there is no doubt that the Phase II financing plan was distinct from the much-talked about $535 million loan guarantee that was approved by DOE. The following language, also excerpted from the company's S-1 SEC filing, makes that clear: more here http://dailycaller.com/2011/09/16/documents-show-solyndra-sought-second-government-loan-guarantee-for-469-million/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/obama-admin-reworked-solyndra-1182334.html Obama admin reworked Solyndra loan to favor donor By MATTHEW DALY The Associated Press WASHINGTON — The Obama administration restructured a half-billion dollar federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors — including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama — moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, government records show. FILE - In this Aug. 31, 2011, file photo, Solyndra workers leave Solyndra in Fremont, Calif. Newly released emails show that the Obama administration was worried about the financial health of a troubled solar energy company even as officials publicly declared the company in good shape. An email from a White House budget official to a co-worker discussed the likely effect of a default by Solyndra Inc. on President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma, File) More Nation & World stories » States struggle for financing to meet road needs Friends: Pilot in Reno crash was skilled airman 3 dead, more than 50 hurt in Nev. air race crash Iran lawyer for jailed Americans files bail papers Administration officials defended the loan restructuring, saying that without an infusion of cash earlier this year, solar panel maker Solyndra Inc. would likely have faced immediate bankruptcy, putting more than 1,000 people out of work. Even with the federal help, Solyndra filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection earlier this month and laid off its 1,100 employees. The Fremont, Calif.-based company was the first renewable-energy company to receive a loan guarantee under a stimulus-law program to encourage green energy and was frequently touted by the Obama administration as a model. Obama visited the company's Silicon Valley headquarters last year, and Vice President Joe Biden spoke by satellite at its groundbreaking. Since then, the implosion of the company and revelations that the administration hurried Office of Management and Budget officials to finish their review of the loan in time for the September 2009 groundbreaking has become an embarrassment for Obama as he sells his new job-creation program around the country. An Associated Press review of regulatory filings shows that Solyndra was hemorrhaging hundreds of millions of dollars for years before the Obama administration signed off on the original $535 million loan guarantee in September 2009. The company eventually got $528 million. more at link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fergasun Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 We lost $14B in the auto bailouts (at least). We lost $2.3B in the CIT Group Bankruptcy (received TARP money). Who knows how much was lost in the AIG bailout (I want to say on the magnitude of $50B). Both the AIG and auto bailouts had similar characteristics where taxpayer position was structured to be worse than private investors. Last I checked, "billion" with a B was more money than "million" with an m. Where's the scandal and outrage? And if you're upset with the use of political power; how about the Bush Administration forcing taxpayer money onto the banks (Treasury Dept.) and both Treasury and Federal Reserve forcing Bank of America to merge with Merrill Lynch. This is a BS scandal. If it was a true scandal, there would've been outrage when the Solyndra loan was made. There was none from Congress. I did see questions raised on a website called "Green Tech Media", but none of that was picked up by Congress at the time. Of course our news media doesn't do such critical thinking because to raise such questions would appear to be bias' towards the Administration. It's far better to report on manufactured GOP outrage intended to foment more outrage. Oh, and what's the ultimate take-home message from this? If China can do it for cheaper, it's not even worth trying to compete with China (seriously, folks are mad because this type of item is manufactured more cheaply in China, therefore we flushed money down the potty). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 IF the daily show is dogging President Obama, its a tough argument to make that this is not as bad as it looks. And i hope they fix the 'pushing the tax payers' to last while taking care of friends in the bankrupt structure.. i don't know it all, but it sounds bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IHOPSkins Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 .......Obama admin reworked Solyndra loan to favor donorThe Obama administration restructured a half-billion dollar federal loan to a troubled solar energy company in such a way that private investors including a fundraiser for President Barack Obama moved ahead of taxpayers for repayment in case of a default, government records show........ Crony Capitalism: .........success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism I guess the Obama administration forgot about the Success part :pfft: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted September 17, 2011 Share Posted September 17, 2011 I guess I am being a Constitutional literalist here but neither Obama nor his party has submitted an American Jobs Act bill to Congress. Emails to your base and a press release doesn't count, that's not how a bill becomes a law. I am absolutely certain that if the bill was submitted it would listed here at govtrack.us. It's not. When you submit a bill to Congress, it get's a H.R. number. Sen Gohmert's American Jobs Act can be found here. It is what it is, eat it up. H. R. 2911: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘American Jobs Act of 2011.You are looking for S. 1549, the American Jobs Act of 2011http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1549 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS. (a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `American Jobs Act of 2011'. When a bill is introduced in the House, it gets an H.R. number. When it is introduced in the Senate, it gets an S. number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossomo Posted September 19, 2011 Share Posted September 19, 2011 You are looking for S. 1549, the American Jobs Act of 2011 There it is. I can't argue that. I bet you there's tax increases hidden in this thing. Anything that must pass must have some riders attached. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.