OK, I think it's just silly to try to suggest that there's anything wrong with using the phrase "job-killing," as Greg Sargent seems to do here. As various people pointed out last week, military and/or violent metaphorical language is deeply embedded in the way we talk, in politics and elsewhere, and it seems to me that there's neither anything that could be done about it or any real harm in it. In my opinion? Nothing wrong with using that phrase.
Worse, though not the worst, is calling a bill "job-killing" because your polling and focus groups tell you that your targeted audiences love hearing about jobs, even if what you're working on doesn't happen to be about jobs. Yeah, it's possible that Republicans believe that ACA will cost jobs, but presumably that's not what they mainly dislike about it (or at least, it wasn't last year during the debate). This goes to Conor Friedersdorf's point that substance, and not tone, is important in political rhetoric; what we want to avoid is using exaggerated rhetoric that we ourselves don't believe, just because it will stand out from the crowd or fire up our supporters (the link should be correct, but alas the site has been down this weekend).
But the worst thing about calling a bill "The Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" is that it's an insult to everyone's intelligence to employ transparently foolish propaganda like that. I mean, I recently gave "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" a four on the propaganda scale, with "ACA" getting a 2. "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" has got to be a 9, and then it still needs to be penalized for aesthetic reasons on top of that. C'mon -- why not just go whole hog and call it the "Barack Obama Has Destroyed America and We're Going To Save It Act"?
Free suggestion to Republicans: "Restoring American Health Care Act" would have got the job done, and I'd probably go with a 4 on the propaganda scale. And it would be a bit easier for intelligent people to take you seriously.