Scott Brown breaks the fillabuster on Jobs!

Jarod said:
Current President, last president... and many others. Did he go to law school?
Click to expand...

Wikipedia: Scott Brown

.
Scott Brown
United States Senator
from Massachusetts
Incumbent Assumed office
February 4, 2010
Serving with John Kerry Preceded by Paul Kirk Member of the Massachusetts Senate
from the Norfolk, Bristol & Middlesex district
In office
March 25, 2004[1] – February 4, 2010 Preceded by Cheryl Jacques Succeeded by TBD Member of the
Massachusetts House of Representatives
from the 9th Norfolk district
In office
1998–2004 Preceded by Jo Ann Sprague Succeeded by Richard J. Ross Member of the
Wrentham, Massachusetts
Board of Selectmen
In office
1995–1998 Member of the
Wrentham, Massachusetts
Board of Assessors
In office
1987–1990 Born September 12, 1959 (1959-09-12) (age 50)
Kittery, Maine Political party Republican Spouse(s) Gail Huff Children Ayla Brown
Arianna Brown Residence Wrentham, Massachusetts Alma mater Tufts University, B.A.
Boston College Law School, J.D. Profession Politician, lawyer, soldier Religion Christian Reformed Church in North America Website ScottBrown.com Military service Service/branch United States Army's
Army National Guard[2] Years of service 1979–present Rank Lieutenant Colonel Unit Judge Advocate General's Corps[2] Commands Head defense attorney for the New England States Awards Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service in homeland security; Meritorious Service Medal Scott Philip Brown (born September 12, 1959) is the junior United States Senator from Massachusetts and a member of the Republican Party. Before his election, he served as a member of the Massachusetts General Court, first in the State House of Representatives (1998–2004) and then in the State Senate (2004–2010).[3] [4]
Brown defeated the Democratic candidate, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, in the 2010 U.S. Senate special election to serve the remainder of the term vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy. Brown became the first Republican elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts since 1972.[5] While initially trailing Coakley in polling by a large margin, Brown closed the gap in the first weeks of January 2010 before going on to win the election.[6][7][8][9] He is the first Republican from Massachusetts to serve in the U.S. Congress in any capacity since 1997.
Prior to entering the state legislature, he had experience as a town selectman and assessor. He is a practicing attorney, concentrating in real estate law[10][11][12] and serving as defense counsel in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the Massachusetts Army National Guard. Brown is a graduate of Wakefield High School (1977), Tufts University (1981), and Boston College Law School (1985).
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Wikipedia: Scott Brown

.
Scott Brown
United States Senator
from Massachusetts
Incumbent Assumed office
February 4, 2010
Serving with John Kerry Preceded by Paul Kirk Member of the Massachusetts Senate
from the Norfolk, Bristol & Middlesex district
In office
March 25, 2004[1] – February 4, 2010 Preceded by Cheryl Jacques Succeeded by TBD Member of the
Massachusetts House of Representatives
from the 9th Norfolk district
In office
1998–2004 Preceded by Jo Ann Sprague Succeeded by Richard J. Ross Member of the
Wrentham, Massachusetts
Board of Selectmen
In office
1995–1998 Member of the
Wrentham, Massachusetts
Board of Assessors
In office
1987–1990 Born September 12, 1959 (1959-09-12) (age 50)
Kittery, Maine Political party Republican Spouse(s) Gail Huff Children Ayla Brown
Arianna Brown Residence Wrentham, Massachusetts Alma mater Tufts University, B.A.
Boston College Law School, J.D. Profession Politician, lawyer, soldier Religion Christian Reformed Church in North America Website ScottBrown.com Military service Service/branch United States Army's
Army National Guard[2] Years of service 1979–present Rank Lieutenant Colonel Unit Judge Advocate General's Corps[2] Commands Head defense attorney for the New England States Awards Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service in homeland security; Meritorious Service Medal Scott Philip Brown (born September 12, 1959) is the junior United States Senator from Massachusetts and a member of the Republican Party. Before his election, he served as a member of the Massachusetts General Court, first in the State House of Representatives (1998–2004) and then in the State Senate (2004–2010).[3] [4]
Brown defeated the Democratic candidate, Commonwealth of Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, in the 2010 U.S. Senate special election to serve the remainder of the term vacated by the death of Ted Kennedy. Brown became the first Republican elected to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts since 1972.[5] While initially trailing Coakley in polling by a large margin, Brown closed the gap in the first weeks of January 2010 before going on to win the election.[6][7][8][9] He is the first Republican from Massachusetts to serve in the U.S. Congress in any capacity since 1997.
Prior to entering the state legislature, he had experience as a town selectman and assessor. He is a practicing attorney, concentrating in real estate law[10][11][12] and serving as defense counsel in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the Massachusetts Army National Guard. Brown is a graduate of Wakefield High School (1977), Tufts University (1981), and Boston College Law School (1985).
Click to expand...
So, yes. He is an attorney.
 
Does it bother anyone else that the total amount of the jobs bill, $15 billion, is the amount that simply vanished in Iraq?
 
Onceler said:
Once again - some solid, factual arguing here. You're overwhelming us with stats and actual evidence of this...
Click to expand...
Yeah, we'll be able to compare at a later date and see whether my opinion has borne out. So far my opinion of the first stimulus has. I predicted that there would be far more job losses, and that the claim of "saved" jobs would mount higher with each report while jobs continued to fall. I predicted that the spending would not stimulate much of the economy directly and was much like "trickle in" stimulus than actual direct stimulus, and predicted that they would work to pass something that would actually stimulate using tax incentives later. I even said that if the Rs were smart they'd take over that legislation and at that point would have a chance to seize the initiative. (I predicted that they would be too foolish to do it though).

All of this before the first stimulus passed. I think I'm doing rather good considering how much has borne out.
 
Damocles said:
Yeah, we'll be able to compare at a later date and see whether my opinion has borne out. So far my opinion of the first stimulus has. I predicted that there would be far more job losses, and that the claim of "saved" jobs would mount higher with each report while jobs continued to fall. I predicted that the spending would not stimulate much of the economy directly and was much like "trickle in" stimulus than actual direct stimulus, and predicted that they would work to pass something that would actually stimulate using tax incentives later. I even said that if the Rs were smart they'd take over that legislation and at that point would have a chance to seize the initiative. (I predicted that they would be too foolish to do it though).

All of this before the first stimulus passed. I think I'm doing rather good considering how much has borne out.
Click to expand...

I would have predicted far more job losses, as well. When you're losing jobs at a clip of 500,000 a month or more, it doesn't stop on a dime. You weren't going too far out on a limb with that one.

But I bet you didn't predict that we would have created up to 2.1 million news jobs by now, or that the 1st stimulus would have lowered the unemployment rate in Q4 by 2.1%.

And I bet you don't even realize that a significant portion of the 1st package was tax breaks & incentives.
 
Onceler said:
I would have predicted far more job losses, as well. When you're losing jobs at a clip of 500,000 a month or more, it doesn't stop on a dime. You weren't going too far out on a limb with that one.

But I bet you didn't predict that we would have created up to 2.1 million news jobs by now, or that the 1st stimulus would have lowered the unemployment rate in Q4 by 2.1%.

And I bet you don't even realize that a significant portion of the 1st package was tax breaks & incentives.
Click to expand...
I predicted that there would be a claim of jobs "creation" and "savings" all while jobs continued to go into the negative.
 
Damocles said:
I predicted that there would be a claim of jobs "creation" and "savings" all while jobs continued to go into the negative.
Click to expand...

Well, the CBO said 2.1 million "created."

And job losses have slowed drastically from last year.

Personally, I never argued "net" jobs. I knew for a fact that we'd be losing jobs throughout 2009 and that the net would be negative, no matter how many new jobs were being created & no matter how effective the stimulus was (and it was effective).
 
Onceler said:
Well, the CBO said 2.1 million "created."

And job losses have slowed drastically from last year.

Personally, I never argued "net" jobs. I knew for a fact that we'd be losing jobs throughout 2009 and that the net would be negative, no matter how many new jobs were being created & no matter how effective the stimulus was (and it was effective).
Click to expand...
Yes, again my prediction was borne out.

Of course, back then you were saying there was no data to back up my assertions. Of course there wasn't. It hadn't passed yet.
 
Damocles said:
Yes, again my prediction was borne out.

Of course, back then you were saying there was no data to back up my assertions. Of course there wasn't. It hadn't passed yet.
Click to expand...

Well, I think the new bill will be hard-pressed to create 2.1 million new jobs, and lower the unemployment rate by 2.1% on its own.

That's just me, I guess.
 
Onceler said:
Well, I think the new bill will be hard-pressed to create 2.1 million new jobs, and lower the unemployment rate by 2.1% on its own.

That's just me, I guess.
Click to expand...
I think that it will do better because it actually is directly aimed at creating jobs. I think that if the Rs are smart and get it looking as it should (not just for small businesses and more into tax incentives) it will do far better, actual net positives may become a reality. I fear that they will be too stupid collectively to take advantage of the obvious and thus it will be a slightly disabled bill that will come out, but still more effective than the previous stimulus.
 
So the bill passed the Senate today with 70 votes in favor, meaning there were about 6 or 8 Republican senators that thought the bill should never come up for a vote at all but then turned around a voted in favor of it. Hilarious.
 
NigelTufnel said:
So the bill passed the Senate today with 70 votes in favor, meaning there were about 6 or 8 Republican senators that thought the bill should never come up for a vote at all but then turned around a voted in favor of it. Hilarious.
Click to expand...
That is disingenuous. They could have simply wanted more discussion in the hopes of making the bill even prettier.
 
NigelTufnel said:
So the bill passed the Senate today with 70 votes in favor, meaning there were about 6 or 8 Republican senators that thought the bill should never come up for a vote at all but then turned around a voted in favor of it. Hilarious.
Click to expand...

We should attack them for voting against it before they voted for it!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top