BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
2009 stimulus didn't work, why should Jobs Act.

Jack Rasmus. "Obama's 'Jobs Act' Proposal: Why Less Is More of the Same." Truthout. September 14th, 2011: "In February 2009, President Obama proposed $787 billion in economic stimulus. Unemployment was about 25 million. More than two years later, after the $787 billion has been spent, unemployment (measured by the Labor Department's U-6 rate) is still around 25 million. Why, therefore, should Obama's latest proposals to create jobs, consisting about half the size of the 2009 stimulus, expect to create jobs when the larger stimulus did not?"
No guarantee corps will spend tax breaks in Jobs Act.

"A man and a plan." The Economist Buttonwood Notebook. September 9th, 2011: "There is no guarantee that companies will spend the money on such things. Some might use it to pay down debt; others might spend the money on m&a or buy-backs, Richard Koo's book about the Japanese crisis, The Holy Grail of Macroeconomics, details how, despite near-zero interest rates, companies focused on repaying debt. There is good news here; the general health of the corporate sector is sound so they might be tempted to use this extra cash to expand payrolls. But by being politically canny in the way he framed this package, the President may have put his re-election hopes in the hands of the CEOs of the S&P 500."
Tax cuts didn't help in 2009, they won't help in Jobs Act.

Jack Rasmus. "Obama's 'Jobs Act' Proposal: Why Less Is More of the Same." Truthout. September 14th, 2011: "The 38 percent tax cut mix in 2009 amounted to about $300 billion in total tax reduction. That $300 billion followed a $90 billion tax cut less than nine months before in spring 2008. Another $50 billion in tax cuts was further added later in 2009-2010 in various bills and administrative actions. That's a total of $440 billion in tax cuts. There's more. Add to that $440 billion another $270 billion in Bush tax cut extensions in late 2010 for 2011, plus another $100 billion in this year's payroll tax cut. Now, add the Job Act's tax-heavy $270 additional billion. Now, we're well over $1 trillion in tax cuts in just the past two years. And what's been the result in jobs? Still 25 million unemployed today as in June 2009."
Jobs Act is class warfare; taking hard-earned money.

"Class Warfare Act." Neal Boortz Blog. September 15th, 2011: "let’s talk about this concept that you just don’t deserve to keep all of your money. If you’ll remember, during the tea party debate the other night, a young man stood up in the audience and asked how much money do these candidates believe he should be able to keep? Here’s why the prog thought process on this concept is dangerous. You wake up at 4:30am to get to your first job on time. You bust your buns to earn a paycheck. Then later that afternoon, you show up to work at your second job, because things have been kind of tight and you and your wife could use some extra cash while you save up to buy a house or take care of a sick parent, whatever. You drive home late that night, in the dark, and you wake up early the next morning to do it all over again. You are the one busting your buns to earn this money. You are trading off some of the minutes you have to spend on this earth to produce this wealth. It belongs to you. It is yours. You decide how to spend it, how to save it and how to invest it. Then along comes government. It puts a gun to your head and says, You owe us 35% of everything you worked for. Hand it over. And the man does so, because otherwise he will end up in a jail cell. In the world according to Jan Schakowsky, that money that you worked so hard to earn? You don’t really deserve it. After all; you -- or at least a portion of you -- belongs to the government. And just how much of you belongs to the government? Well, that’s up to people like Schakowsky to decide."
AJA reduces taxes, allowing small businesses to grow/hire.

Fact Sheet for the American Jobs Act. White House: "1. Tax Cuts to Help America’s Small Businesses Hire and Grow. Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold. A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases). Extending 100% expensing into 2012: This continues an effective incentive for new investment. Reforms and regulatory reductions to help entrepreneurs and small businesses access capital."
American Jobs Act will be fully paid for.

Fact Sheet for the American Jobs Act. White House: "5. Fully Paid for as Part of the President’s Long-Term Deficit Reduction Plan. To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy."
Increasing taxes on successful corps will do harm.

Motoko Rich. "Employers Say Jobs Plan Won’t Lead to Hiring Spur." New York Times. September 9th, 2011: "David Catalano, who helped found Modea, a digital advertising company in Blacksburg, Va., said that he was wary of the president’s pledge to ask the 'wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share.' His company was organized as an S Corporation, in which profits are passed through to shareholders, so it would face higher taxes under the president’s proposal, he said. He added: 'My partner and I have reinvested 100 percent of the profits that our agency has made over the last five years back into the company. If the government takes a bigger share of that from me, it directly impedes my ability to grow the agency.'"
AJA helps employ workers in modernizing America.

Fact Sheet for the American Jobs Act. White House: "2. Putting Workers Back on the Job While Rebuilding and Modernizing America. A 'Returning Heroes' hiring tax credit for veterans: This provides tax credits from $5,600 to $9,600 to encourage the hiring of unemployed veterans. Preventing up to 280,000 teacher layoffs,while keeping cops and firefighters on the job. Modernizing at least 35,000 public schools across the country,supporting new science labs, Internet-ready classrooms and renovations at schools across the country, in rural and urban areas. Immediate investments in infrastructure and a bipartisan National Infrastructure Bank, modernizing our roads, rail, airports and waterways while putting hundreds of thousands of workers back on the job. A New “Project Rebuild”, which will put people to work rehabilitating homes, businesses and communities, leveraging private capital and scaling land banks and other public-private collaborations. Expanding access to high-speed wireless as part of a plan for freeing up the nation’s spectrum."
Job Act creates opps for the long-term unemployed

Fact Sheet for the American Jobs Act. White House: "3. Pathways Back to Work for Americans Looking for Jobs. The most innovative reform to the unemployment insurance program in 40 years: As part of an extension of unemployment insurance to prevent 5 million Americans looking for work from losing their benefits, the President’s plan includes innovative work-based reforms to prevent layoffs and give states greater flexibility to use UI funds to best support job-seekers, including: Work-Sharing: UI for workers whose employers choose work-sharing over layoffs. A new “Bridge to Work” program: The plan builds on and improves innovative state programs where those displacedtake temporary, voluntary work or pursue on-the-job training." [see more of quote on argument page.]
Cutting spending in 2011 has slowed the recovery.

Jackie Calmes. "Bigger Economic Role for Washington." New York Times. September 13th, 2011: "the new House Republican majority and Mr. Obama had spent much of the year negotiating spending cuts to reduce deficits. But economists and bond investors have grown increasingly critical of those cuts, warning of a repeat of 1937, when government austerity helped caused a double-dip recession. Moody’s Analytics has estimated that the current fiscal policy would subtract 1.7 percentage points from gross domestic product next year. State and local cuts have eliminated 259,000 jobs this year."
Markets aren't necessarily supportive of stimulus, Jobs Act.

"A man and a plan." The Economist Buttonwood Notebook. September 9th, 2011: "On the merits of stimulus, Martin Wolf had a strong column in the FT arguing that the markets were telling the US to borrow and spend. This is a point that has been made by Free Exchange in the past; with real yields negative, it is surely the ideal time to invest in infrastructure that can generate a positive return in terms of growth. One can quibble with this a bit. The markets are telling us many things; they are worried about growth and scared of Europe; the gold price shows they have worries about the stability of the dollar. Very low bond yields at the short end are also the result of deliberate Fed policy; at the long end, they may be set by Asian central banks, for whom exchange rate management may be more important than profits. Indeed, the Chinese, a very big player in the bond market, aren't calling for more stimulus. when US debt was downgraded, the news agency Xinhua said that 'The US government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of its own messes are over.'"
Jobs Act would benefit cities like NYC

Patrick McGeehan. "Obama Jobs Plan Would Boost the City, Comptroller Says." New York Times City Room. September 9th, 2011: "The president’s jobs plan, which he announced on Thursday night, called for reducing the Social Security tax on income to 3.1 percent in 2012. The rate is currently set at 6.2 percent on the first $106,800 of an employee’s pay. Because workers in New York are relatively highly paid, the effect of that cut would be greater in the city than in other parts of the country. It would save $775 for a worker earning $25,000 a year and $3,100 for one who makes $100,000. All told, the comptroller’s office estimated, the gain to New Yorkers would amount to $4.8 billion, and the spending of a portion of that total would preserve or create about 25,000 jobs in the city." [read extended argument on article].
American Jobs Act cuts payroll tax, relieves working families.

Fact Sheet for the American Jobs Act. White House: "4. Tax Relief for Every American Worker and Family. Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year: The President’s plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last year to cut workers payroll taxes in half in 2012 – providing a $1,500 tax cut to the typical American family, without negatively impacting the Social Security Trust Fund. Allowing more Americans to refinance their mortgages at today’s near 4 percent interest rates, which can put more than $2,000 a year in a family’s pocket."
Jobs Act is sketchy on how exactly to pay for itself.

"A man and a plan." The Economist Buttonwood Notebook. September 9th, 2011: "This newspaper has been arguing in favour of short-term stimulus as long as it is accompanied by plans to tackle the fiscal shortfall in the short-term. On this point, the Obama plan was sketchy to say the least. It said that "To ensure that the American Jobs Act is fully paid for, the President will call on the Joint Committee to come up with additional deficit reduction necessary to pay for the Act and still meet its deficit target. The President will, in the coming days, release a detailed plan that will show how we can do that while achieving the additional deficit reduction necessary to meet the President’s broader goal of stabilizing our debt as a share of the economy." The first part of that paragraph throws the ball into the court of this super-committee which will need to work miracles; the second may be a political hostage to fortune. By detailing future tax increases (or spending cuts), the President will give the Republicans something to attack ('Obama is slashing x to pay for his bill')."
Jobs Act rebalances tax code between wealthy, middle class.

"A Good Jobs Program." The New York Times. September 13th, 2011: "When he laid out his jobs plan last week, Mr. Obama powerfully presented a series of choices — a status quo of high unemployment, deteriorating human capital and crumbling infrastructure or a renewed push for recovery and relief measures to get the economy moving again. That means choosing between a tax system that coddles the rich or reorienting the code in favor of the middle class. The tax increases Mr. Obama has recommended are a step in the direction of middle-class prosperity."
American Jobs Act is too little to jump-start economy.

Jack Rasmus. "Obama's 'Jobs Act' Proposal: Why Less Is More of the Same." Truthout. September 14th, 2011: "on the matter of the magnitude of spending in the proposal, some think it was bold. But put it in context; $447 billion just won't achieve the job creation it claims. It's once again too little for an economy the size of the US, for an economy in as deep an economic hole as it is and in an economy facing growing downward momentum at home in the context of a global economy also rapidly slipping."
Jobs Act focuses subsidies on those needing them most.

"A Good Jobs Program." The New York Times Editorial. September 13th, 2011: "It is also fair tax policy. Under current law, the largest subsidies go to people who need them least — for such things as mortgage interest and charitable giving — because the value of tax breaks rises as income and tax rates rise. Capping such breaks helps to ensure that subsidies are focused on Americans who need them most."
Jobs Act could create over 100,000 jobs per month.

Jacki Calmes and Binyamin Applebaum. "Bigger Economic Role for Washington." New York Times. September 13th, 2011: "The jobs package of tax cuts and spending initiatives could add 100,000 to 150,000 jobs a month over the next year, according to estimates from several of the country’s best-known forecasting firms; the potential Fed actions could add 15,000 more jobs a month over two years.[...] the firm projected that the plan would add roughly 1.25 percentage points to gross domestic product and create 1.3 million jobs in 2012. JPMorgan Chase estimated that the plan would increase growth by 1.9 points and add 1.5 million jobs. Most bullish is Moody’s Analytics, which forecast that the package would add 1.9 million jobs, cutting the unemployment rate by a point, and increase growth by two percentage points."
AJA gives more to risky corp tax breaks than infrastructure.

"A man and a plan." The Economist Buttonwood Notebook. September 9th, 2011: "if one thinks of the country as a business, a very cheap cost of funds ought to allow for profitable investment opportunities. And there is lots of America's infrastructure that needs mending. However, only $80 billion of the $450 billion plan is devoted to infrastructure spending, with the rest on tax breaks such as cuts in payroll taxes."
Dams can destroy marine fisheries

Dams disrupt river-borne flows of freshwater and nutrients into oceans, which destroy marine fisheries. Patrick McCully. "Big dams, big trouble". New Internationalists. March 2003 - "Sixty per cent of the length of the world's large river systems are at least moderately or severely fragmented by dams and related withdrawals of water for irrigation...This massive replumbing of the world's rivers is a major reason for the rapid loss of freshwater species. Around a third of freshwater fish species are classified as extinct, endangered or vulnerable. A significant but unknown share of shellfish, amphibians, plants and birds that depend on freshwater habitats are also extinct or at risk."
Dam reservoirs release large amounts of greenhouse gas Methane

"Pros and cons of hydropower dams". Energy consumers edge - "hydropower dams in forested areas can actually produce more greenhouse gasses than fossil fuel plants of the same output. If vegetation is left in place when the lake floods, the dead material will emit methane as it decays. This process can go on for years, indefinitely in areas that are intermittently flooded and dried. The report also states that many hydropower dams also eliminate vast forested areas that had been removing CO2 from the atmosphere."
Demolishing dams does not cause rivers to return to normal.

The silt built up behind dams will not simply wash down a river when a dam is demolished. Instead, the silt will distribute itself more slowly along the river, changing and even damaging the riparian zone ecosystem there. The article, "Tales of the Undamned", documents this problem. While this may be seen as a cost of building dams in the first place, it should also be seen to negate the main argument for demolishing dams: that it will somehow improve the environment.
Dams eliminate forests that absorb CO2 from the atmosphere.

Forests and plant life are important carbon sinks, sucking CO2 (a greenhouse gas and contributor to global warming) from the air in the process of photosynthesis. Forests are, therefore, important in the fight against global warming. Killing trees by cutting them down to make room for dams and their infrastructure, by flooding them upstream under a dam's reservoir, or by diminishing downstream nutrient flows all eliminates these important carbon sinks. This only contributes to the greenhouse gas effect and global warming.
The world's rivers are covered with dams; room for expansion is limited.

Sixty per cent of the length of the world's large river systems are at least moderately or severely fragmented by dams. In this context, there is not much more room for expanding hydroelectric power, particularly if we value keeping a portion of the world's rivers free of dams. This means that dam hydroelectricity cannot expand very much, and so should not be seen as a major part of new energy plans and solutions to global warming.[4]
Human rights abuses frequently accompany big dams

Patrick McCully. "Big dams, big trouble". New Internationalists. March 2003 - "Human-rights abuses regularly accompany big dams -- not just in China. In the 1980s more than 440 Guatemalans, mainly women and children, were murdered by paramilitaries because of their refusal to accept the resettlement package offered by the World Bank-funded electricity utility building the Chixoy dam."
Dams cut emissions and fight main crisis: global warming

Many environmentalists complain that hydroelectric dams have environmental costs at the local level to river ecosystems. While this is true, it is important to recognize that hydropower is essentially 100% clean when it comes to global warming. This is because it burns no fossil fuels and so emits no greenhouse gases. If we conclude that global warming is the greatest environmental crisis facing mankind, the fact that hydropower helps fight it should weigh much more heavily than the local ecosystem costs.
Steps can be taken to limit Methane emissions from dam reservoirs

A 2000 World Commission on Dams report concluded: "All large dams and natural lakes in the boreal and tropical regions that have been measured emit greenhouse gases… some values for gross emissions are extremely low, and may be ten times less than the thermal option. Yet in some cases the gross emissions can be considerable, and possibly greater than the thermal alternatives".[1] This indicates that dams can be created that emit "ten times less than the thermal option". The methods used to create these clean dams can and should be followed, can eliminte concerns regarding Methane emissions, and can preserve hydroelectric power as a global warming solution.
Hydropower is a clean alternative to coal.

Coal is the greatest source of electricity in the world. In places like the United States, it constitutes over 50% of the electric energy supply. It is also one of the greatest emitters of greenhouse gases and, therefore, contributors to global warming. Replacing coal, therefore, is one of the greatest priorities in the fight against global warming. Hydrolectric power, as a primary electricity supplier around the world, can act decisively as a substitute to coal electricity generation. Because hydroelectric emits 0 greenhouse gases, it is a highly valuable substitute for coal, and thus a major tool in the fight against global warming.
Hydropower is capable of scaling to fully replace coal.

The World Energy Council Hydropower Data shows that hydropower is presently generating about 3,000 TWh (Terrawatt hours, or millions of megawatt hours annually). If we include both high head (hydropower dams) and low head (run-of-the-river micro plants) systems using current technologies, the world can probably economically generate almost 15,000 TWh annually.[2] This means that hydropower could move from its current position of supply roughly 10% of all electricity demand globally to supplying upwards of 50%. Some argue that "we have enough economically usable river water resources to generate virtually 100% of current global electrical demand."[3] This is a very important conclusion, as it means that hydropower is a viable long-term 0-emissions alternative to coal, the biggest culprit in the global warming crisis.
Founding Fathers saw a universal right to militia and arms

George Mason, the father of the Bill Rights, considered the militia to consist of all of the people, expressing this in Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention on June 16, 1788[4] - "I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..." This expression clearly denotes the militia as something that should not be altered into an exclusive form. In other words, it must be representative of the whole people and preserved as a universal right.
In today's reality the Second Amendment cannot be applied to civilians

The difference in the technology the military now employs versus the personal guns individual civilians can have access to is exponentially greater than in the framer's time. This means that in today's reality the Second Amendment cannot apply to civilians with the purpose of preparing them to be part of the militia at any day or time.The huge technological advances and military training make it impossible for everyday citizens to be part of a defense force like the " militia".
Historically, many US citizens could not serve in the militia but required guns

It is unrealistic to believe that the framers of the constitution would, in creating the Second Amendment, limit the right to keep and bear arms to only those US citizens who were eligible for militia service. There were too many US citizens at the time that were not eligible for militia or military service - either because they were too old, too young, or because they were women - whom nevertheless needed to be able to use guns in self-defense against criminals, wildlife, or Indians and/or in order to hunt, eat, and survive.