DC Democrats kill bipartisan jobs bill

[mogrovejo]

Members of the Senate Finance Committee unveiled a long-awaited bipartisan jobs bill Thursday morning — only to have it scrapped within hours by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32850.html#ixzz0fHcgnmeu

[mogrovejo]

They need to make up their mind. Either the dems are serious about bipartisanship and passing legislation with broad support or they are merely there to obstruct and say no to anything republicans may accept.

[ElNono]

Well, I think this was an alternative bill from the one that was being worked on, which I believe also had bipartisan provisions. Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if nothing gets done under Reid/Pelosi. Worst Congress in a long, long time.

[coyotes_geek]

Nono's right. There were a couple of different bills floating out there.

[boutons_deux]

If you're keeping score, the asshole Repugs have up the score in the bloody-minded contrariness game.

Rachel Maddow Exposes GOP Welfare Queens Who Attacked Obama's Stimulus, Yet Enjoyed Billions in Benefits

By , AlterNet
Posted on February 11, 2010, Printed on February 11, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/145629/


Editor's note: The following is a transcript from the Rachel Maddow Show. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35331019/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/)

At the top of the show today, we talked about the myth of bipartisanship, the futility of Democrats, including the president, wasting time trying to persuade Republicans to go along with them on policies that are good for the country.

It totally makes sense in the abstract if people can agree on what needs to be done to solve the country‘s problems than those policies, even if they‘re big policies, should get votes from everyone who‘s in agreement.

In the abstract that‘s how it works. In Washington, that is not at all how it works. Republicans proposed a deficit commission. President Obama endorsed the idea so then Republicans decided they‘re against it.

Republicans proposed pay-as-you-go rules for budgeting. President Obama endorsed the idea. Then Republicans decided they were against it too.

Republicans who voted for the bank bailout are now criticizing President Obama for that same bank bailout.

Republicans supported President Bush‘s policy of trying terrorism suspects in U.S. courts. Now that President Obama is implementing that same policy, they decided they‘re against that now, too.

Republicans supported a cap-and-trade policy against global warming. Now that President Obama is trying to pass that same policy, Republicans have decided - say it with me now - they‘re against that, too.

See the pattern here? What Republicans are doing on policy is no longer interesting. It is so thoroughly unrelentingly, consistently predictable that anyone who thinks it‘s an open question as to what Republicans are going to do about the next legislation that‘s proposed just is not paying attention.
Let me be emphatic here. Let me be emphatic about one particular example, the stimulus. The stimulus passed despite every single Republican in the House voting no on it - everyone.

Since then, the consensus among economists is that stimulus has worked, even though it‘s maybe been too small. The consensus among Republicans is that it‘s been a horrible giant thing that hasn‘t done anything good at all.

MADDOW: If there‘s one thing that Republicans agree on now, it is that the stimulus is a bad, bad policy. It‘s a bad idea that does bad things. It‘s a bad president‘s bad way of making a bad economy more bad because he‘s bad. Stimulus bad.

Also? Stimulus good. What you‘re looking at here are pictures of the same Republicans who have trashed the stimulus as a bad, bad thing in their home districts taking credit for all the good things the stimulus has done.

That‘s Bobby Jindal there, governor of Louisiana who has railed against the stimulus, then gone around the state handing out big fake checks with his own name on them as if the money came from him instead of from the stimulus that he‘s been railing against.

Then, there‘s Congressman Phil Gingrey of Georgia. That‘s him getting all Publisher‘s Clearinghouse with a giant check for funds that he voted against and criticized as worst than worthless. He called the money and that check he‘s holding a boondoggle and a dismal failure.

And it‘s not just a couple of these guys who have been caught like this either. Republican John Mica of Florida trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district as “helping improve one of our key economic generators.”

Republican Frank Wolf of Virginia trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying, “We could use that money desperately. There are a lot of things up here that that money could be used for.”

Republican Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home state by attending the groundbreaking of a sewage treatment plant that it funded and praising the jobs that it would create in his district.

Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas trashed the stimulus, voted no, and praised its effect in her home state by saying this funding will spur growth in Texas communities.

Republican Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district as a great thing for this county. We‘re not accustomed to federal dollars in that magnitude finding their way to North Carolina.

Republican Senator Kit Bond of Missouri trashed the stimulus, voted no and then praised its effect in his home district by saying it would create jobs and ultimately spur economic opportunities.

Republican Joe Wilson of South Carolina, remember him? The “you lie” guy? He trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying it would provide jobs and investment in one of the poorer sections of that district.

Republican Senator Bob Bennett of Utah trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying said, the addition of federal funds would maximize the stimulative effect on the local economy.

Republican Pat Tiberi of Ohio trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying it would support businesses and jobs.

Republican Mary Bono Mack trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in her home district by saying the funding will provide much needed assistance.

Republican Senator Mike Johanns of Nebraska trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home state by saying that just one proposed stimulus-funded project in Nebraska would create 38 new jobs.

Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home state by highlighting a project he says would create over 200 jobs in the first year, and at least another 40 new jobs in the following years.

Republican John Linder of Georgia trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying the employment opportunities created by this program would be quickly utilized.

Republican Mike Castle of Delaware trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by sending out press releases touting how imperative those funds were.

You want to see Mike Castle of Delaware handing out one of those giant checks? Yes, as if he hadn‘t actually voted to kill the money that‘s in that check. Mike Castle is running for senator from Delaware now, presumably on the platform of being a giant hypocrite.

Republican Eric Cantor not only trashed the stimulus and voted no on it, he coordinated the feat of having all House Republicans vote against it. Then he held a job fair in his home district at which nearly which half of the companies who were at the job fair because they were in a position to hire have received stimulus funds.

Even John Boehner, leader of the House Republicans, who has led the trashing of the stimulus and voted no on it and who bragged so enthusiastically on Republicans in the House all voting against it.

When it came to his home district, John Boehner praised the federal funding for shovel-ready projects that will create much needed jobs.

Republican Senator Jim Inhofe of denying-global-warming fame - he trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised the effect in his home state by saying it would help spur additional economic growth.

Republican Jack Kingston of Georgia trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying these funds should help save or create local jobs.

Republican John Carter of Texas trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying it was a victory for the economy in central Texas.

Republican Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania trashed the stimulus, voted no, then praised its effect in his home district by saying it would be great for employment in the area.

Shall I go on? I could. I could keep going until the top of the hour and beyond. But you get the idea, right? This stuff isn‘t secret. The conservative newspaper “The Washington Times” had a big feature on this today. “Politico” has reported on it as well calling what the Republicans are doing here a “cash-and-trash” strategy.

The blog “Think Progress” has done yeoman‘s work tallying up all the Republicans who have done this and posting pictures of them handing out giant checks representing funds that these politicians voted against even though they‘re now taking credit for handing it over.

Even the president has called out Republicans for attending ribbon cuttings for stimulus-funded projects that they voted against. The White House has put some of the documentation of Republican hypocrisy on this in writing.

None of this is a secret, which is the most important thing to understand about it. Republicans right now do not care about policy. By which I mean, they will not vote for things that even they admit are good policies.

On policy terms, they have been caught bragging on the stimulus as good policy. I have no doubt that some of them think that health reform is good policy. We know they think things like a deficit commission or cap and trade or pay-go are good policy because they‘re on the record supporting them.

But they‘re not going to vote for them because - screw policy. Screw what even they believe is good for the country.

Screw what even they believe is good for their own districts. They are not voting yes for even things that they agree with, for anything substantive.

They are not going to vote yes for anything substantive that this president supports. It‘s not going to happen.

You‘re not going to earn Republican votes for a second stimulus, for example, by pointing out it‘s good policy that creates jobs. We know they already know that.

They concede that in their home districts and they are still not voting for it. And they are unembarrassed about this fact. They are not embarrassed. Charging them with hypocrisy, appealing to their better, more practical, more what‘s-best-for-the-country patriotic angels is like trying to teach your dog to drive.

It wastes a lot of time. It won‘t work. And ultimately the dog comes out of the exercise less embarrassed for failing than you do for trying.

Grow up, Democrats. Face the music. Do it alone. You‘re the majority. Kill the filibuster if they won‘t let you use that majority. The country needs you to.

© 2010 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/145629/

===========

The Repug bastards, BITCH SLAPPED! :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Members of the Senate Finance Committee unveiled a long-awaited bipartisan jobs bill Thursday morning — only to have it scrapped within hours by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32850.html#ixzz0fHcgnmeu
Was it really long-awaited?

Do you support that kind of socialism?

[mogrovejo]

Nono's right. There were a couple of different bills floating out there.

So? This was the only bipartisan bill.



Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) worked for weeks with Reid's blessing and frequent involvement to craft an $85 billion jobs bill, a measure that seemed destined to break the partisan logjam that has ground the Senate to a halt.




But as Baucus, Grassley and President Barack Obama were preparing to celebrate a rare moment of bipartisan Kumbaya on Thursday, Reid stunned a meeting of Senate Democrats by announcing he was scrapping Baucus-Grassley

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32878.html#ixzz0fdk06Y0T

The Dems are completely unable to deliver the bipartisanship that was a central part of their platform just one year ago. No wonder that centrist democrats are becoming a very rare specimen in DC.

[mogrovejo]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/02/evan_bayh.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Bayh to Obama: take this job and shove it



Millions of Americans long to tell their bosses “take this job and shove it.” Hardly any have the power and money to do so, especially in these recessionary times. Sen. Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana, however, is the exception. His stunning retirement from the Senate is essentially a loud and emphatic “screw you” to President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/evan-bayh-to-retire.html). For months now, Bayh has been screaming at the top of his voice that the party needs to reorient toward a more popular, centrist agenda -- one that emphasizes jobs and fiscal responsibility over health care and cap and trade. Neither the White House nor the Senate leadership has given him the response he wanted. Their bungling of what should have been a routine bipartisan jobs bill last week seems to have been the last straw.

[SnakeBoy]

Then again, I wouldn't be surprised if nothing gets done under Reid/Pelosi. Worst Congress in a long, long time.

It's amazing how terrible they are. I wouldn't be suprised if republicans successfully have them labeled the party of no by election time.

[ElNono]

So? This was the only bipartisan bill.

From the article you linked:

Reid said his bill would include four basic provisions: Build America bonds, a small-business tax program that allows quick expense write-offs, a one-year extension of the highway act and a bipartisan tax-credit deal struck by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

[ChumpDumper]

That one left a mark.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Was this the final straw for Bah? Nice job Harry.

[mogrovejo]

From the article you linked:

Reid said his bill would include four basic provisions: Build America bonds, a small-business tax program that allows quick expense write-offs, a one-year extension of the highway act and a bipartisan tax-credit deal struck by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.).

That doesn't make a jobs bill. We'll see the bipartisan support that Reid's bill will get.

[ChumpDumper]

That doesn't make a jobs bill. We'll see the bipartisan support that Reid's bill will get.Yes it does make a jobs bill. Don't be such a sore loser.

Why are you such a fan of government intervention in the economy now anyway?

Socialist.

[ElNono]

That doesn't make a jobs bill. We'll see the bipartisan support that Reid's bill will get.

So you don't know... gotcha.

[mogrovejo]

So you don't know... gotcha.

I don't know what?

I dispute the idea that there were a couple of different bills with bipartisan support. There was one and the democrats killed it.

Bill /= Provision.

[ElNono]

I don't know what?

I dispute the idea that there were a couple of different bills with bipartisan support. There was one and the democrats killed it.

Bill /= Provision.

You just said you don't know if Reid's bill will have bipartisan support.
Do you know now?

[Winehole23]

http://images.oneofakindantiques.com/6063_yale_paddle_1.jpg

[Wild Cobra]

Let's face it. The left and right are too far apart to make a bipartisan bill. The republicans will introduce ideas that will be flat out ignored by the democrats. The republicans will not vote for more redistribution of wealth at the scale the democrats want.

[mogrovejo]

You just said you don't know if Reid's bill will have bipartisan support.
Do you know now?

Uh? I'd strongly advise you to read the posts in this thread. If you already did it, I suggest you to write to Politico.

Again, there was ONE bipartisan bill and Reid killed it. What's so difficult to understand about this?

[ElNono]

Uh? I'd strongly advise you to read the posts in this thread. If you already did it, I suggest you to write to Politico.

I don't have anything to write to Politico. And this is in this thread:


We'll see the bipartisan support that Reid's bill will get.

Again, do you know what kind of bipartisan support Reid's bill will get?


Again, there was ONE bipartisan bill and Reid killed it. What's so difficult to understand about this?

There was one bill among others supported by a single democrat and a bunch of republicans. As a matter of fact, the lack of support from the democrat caucus is what killed it. Doesn't sound too bipartisan to me.

[ElNono]

Let's face it. The left and right are too far apart to make a bipartisan bill. The republicans will introduce ideas that will be flat out ignored by the democrats. The republicans will not vote for more redistribution of wealth at the scale the democrats want.

Let's face it. God forbid you have to give this administration any kind of credit if they do manage to pass a bill with republican support that helps americans.

[boutons_deux]

The we-hate-deficits (unless-they-make-us-and-our-owners-richer) Repug demands met in the bipartisan "jobs" bill were more deficit-increasing giveways for the wealthy.

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2010/02/16/more-jobs-please/

[mogrovejo]

I don't have anything to write to Politico.

Okay, just don't use me as a proxy to channel your disagreements with them.


And this is in this thread:Again, do you know what kind of bipartisan support Reid's bill will get?

Of course not, otherwise why would I say we'll see? And Reid will probably attach this so-called jobs bill to a bigger one in order to get it passed, I suspect.


There was one bill among others supported by a single democrat and a bunch of republicans. As a matter of fact, the lack of support from the democrat caucus is what killed it. Doesn't sound too bipartisan to me.

Really? It was supported by a single democrat? How do you know that? Please, provide a link.

[ElNono]

Okay, just don't use me as a proxy to channel your disagreements with them.

I haven't disagreed with anybody. I merely quoted the article you posted.


Of course not, otherwise why would I say we'll see? And Reid will probably attach this so-called jobs bill to a bigger one in order to get it passed, I suspect.

So you don't know... gotcha.


Really? It was supported by a single democrat? How do you know that? Please, provide a link.

You need to read the articles you post. I'm not here to do your homework.

[mogrovejo]

You need to read the articles you post. I'm not here to do your homework.

None of the articles I posted states that there was only one democrat supporting the bipartisan bill - in fact, they state precisely the opposite.

Please, provide quote or link. Or you just made that up?

[Nbadan]

Why would they support this bill? the GOP stuffed it with pork-barrel projects...


Senate Democrats have scrapped a bipartisan jobs bill after Republicans stuffed it with such provisions as loans to chicken producers, aid to catfish farmers, an extension of several parts of the Patriot Act, and other unrelated items.

Instead, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is offering the Senate a pared-back jobs bill containing only provisions aimed at helping unemployment, such as tax breaks for companies that hire unemployed workers and for small businesses.

"Our side isn´t sure that the Republicans are real interested in developing good policy and to move forward together," said Sen. Thomas Carper of Delaware. "Instead, they are more inclined to play rope-a-dope again. My own view is, let´s test them."
Senate Democrats Ax Bipartisan Jobs Bill

The bigger bill got a decidedly mixed reception at a luncheon meeting of Democrats, many of whom were uncomfortable with supporting a bill containing so many provisions unrelated to creating jobs, including loans for chicken producers and aid to catfish farmers.

The provisions also included a $31 billion package of tax breaks for individuals and businesses, an extension of several parts of the USA Patriot Act and higher payments for doctors facing Medicare payment cuts.

Time (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article)

[ElNono]

None of the articles I posted states that there was only one democrat supporting the bipartisan bill - in fact, they state precisely the opposite.

Please, provide quote or link. Or you just made that up?

It does? Quote please.

I see a link to only one single article you posted in this thread, on the first post, and it clearly says Max Baucus (D-Mont.) was the only democrat behind the bill. Did I miss something?

[ElNono]

With G.O.P. Help, Senate Advances Jobs Bill (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/22/with-g-o-p-help-senate-advances-jobs-bill/?hp)
By CARL HULSE

http://i47.tinypic.com/219t1di.jpg
One Republican and one Democrat, two yea votes: Massachusetts Senators Scott Brown, left,
and John Kerry spoke during the jobs measure vote.

In a rare bipartisan breakthrough, the Senate pushed a $15 billion measure intended to spur job creation over a crucial preliminary obstacle Monday night after five Senate Republicans broke ranks to back consideration of the Democratic leadership initiative.

The test vote of 62-30 makes it likely the Senate will approve the measure that Democrats said would create tens of thousands of new jobs, improving the struggling national employment market. But whether the House will go along with the legislation without making substantial changes remains to be seen.

After being repeatedly stymied by Republicans on a series of initiatives and nominations, Democrats were elated with the outcome and expressed gratitude to the Republicans who joined in bringing the measure to the floor.

“Today jobs triumphed over politics,” said Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California.

Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts, the newly elected Republican, was the first to join Democrats in backing the measure. He was then joined by Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, George Voinovich of Ohio and Christopher Bond of Missouri, who voted after it became obvious Democrats would prevail. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska was the sole Democrat to oppose beginning debate on the measure.

Mr. Brown said he backed the measure grudgingly since even its sponsors acknowledge it is limited in scope.

“It is the first step in creating jobs, not only for the people of Massachusetts but for the people of the country,” said Mr. Brown, who said he intended to pursue other proposals such as an across-the-board cut in payroll taxes.

The central element of the measure drafted by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, is a $13 billion plan to give companies who hire unemployed Americans an exemption from paying payroll taxes on those workers through the end of this year.

Republicans complained about the way the measure was handled and that they would be prohibited from offering any amendments.

“Millions of Americans want to get back to work,” said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader. “That’s why Republicans will offer ideas that will make it easier for businesses to hire new workers. Those ideas should be considered too.”

[DMX7]

http://i47.tinypic.com/219t1di.jpg
Kerry: You better vote for this, fruitcake.

[Winehole23]

I guess it wasn't that hard for them to hold hands in a minor may, on a minor payroll tax abatement. By any contemporary measure the bill is tiny and pro-business in tilt.

At any rate, neither major party has a credible record on bipartisanship, so the timing is opportune for both sides, and the mostly symbolic nature of the jobs bill makes it a perfect photo op.

[ElNono]

That's exactly why I knew a compromise would be worked out.
There's nothing controversial about job creation and both parties have basically everything to gain and nothing to lose by passing this.

[j.dizzle]

Our gov is a piece of garbage now..These bitches dont care about helping nobody but themselves..True story. The last few years have showed everyone that getting re-elected is more important then doing the right thing. I wish the gov would do all of us a favor & disappear cuz they aint doin any of us favors. Higher taxes, fewer jobs, new rules, & a bankrupt country ALL coming soon. Get ready haha

[coyotes_geek]

The central element of the measure drafted by Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, is a $13 billion plan to give companies who hire unemployed Americans an exemption from paying payroll taxes on those workers through the end of this year.

Yay corporate welfare!

[Wild Cobra]

That's exactly why I knew a compromise would be worked out.
There's nothing controversial about job creation and both parties have basically everything to gain and nothing to lose by passing this.
Except that government doesn't create jobs. Most are created by small businesses. Now if the majority of the bill is a 1 yr. abatement of SS/medicare insurance payments for businesses, then it's at least a reasonable measure. I am curious where the other $2 billion goes.

I personally think a better approach would be to lower or eliminate corporate and business taxes. Maybe start with a graduated 5 to 10 year scale, reducing taxes each year. The greater of a percentage of employees hired, the faster the the tax breaks.

Before people jump on me that businesses should pay taxed, keep in mind that the more you tax something the less you get of it. The less you tax something the more you get. If we want to put people back to work, we need to stop discouraging employers from hiring them. A second point to that is consumers end up paying for those taxes anyway in higher product costs. Reducing or eliminating taxes will also make our businesses more competitive in the global market, as the can sell products for less.

[Wild Cobra]

Yay corporate welfare!
Since when is reducing a tax burden, welfare?

Can we keep this an honest discussion rather than using inflammatory lies?

[coyotes_geek]

Since when is reducing a tax burden, welfare?

Can we keep this an honest discussion rather than using inflammatory lies?

For payroll taxes, companies and employees/taxpayers split the tax burden for funding SS & medicare 50-50, but the proceeds from those two tax burdens go solely to the employees. When the government tells companies that they no longer have to pitch in their half of the total burden, all that is happening is that the company's tax burden is being shifted to the employees/taxpayers who at some point down the road will have to make up the difference via higher taxes and/or lower benefits. Not exactly a situation we as taxpayers should be excited about IMO. The government lowering corporate tax burdens at our expense meets my definition of corporate welfare but you're free to call it whatever you like.

[Wild Cobra]

For payroll taxes, companies and employees/taxpayers split the tax burden for funding SS & medicare 50-50, but the proceeds from those two tax burdens go solely to the employees.

Solely? Then why does the government keep spending the excess?


When the government tells companies that they no longer have to pitch in their half of the total burden, all that is happening is that the company's tax burden is being shifted to the employees/taxpayers who at some point down the road will have to make up the difference via higher taxes and/or lower benefits.

You need to broaden your horizons. Taxation, wealth, etc. is not a zero sum game. However, if you wish to think of it that way, we pay for those costs in higher prices. If we reduce the cost of doing business, businesses, through the force of competition, will reduce their prices. We the consumers come out ahead.

Please don't tell me if you raise the taxes on someone you think they have the same spending power afterward?

Please don't tell me if you raise the taxes on corporations, that you don't think they pass the cost on to the consumers.


Not exactly a situation we as taxpayers should be excited about IMO. The government lowering corporate tax burdens at our expense meets my definition of corporate welfare but you're free to call it whatever you like.

At our expense...

If you really believe that, you are a lost cause. Reducing corporate tax burdens allow for them to reduce costs and be more competitive in the global marketplace.

Ever get a job from someone poor?

Reduce the wealth in this nation, and you reduce employers. This is why we have such high unemployment.

[ElNono]

Except that government doesn't create jobs.

What's the goal of the bill?

[Wild Cobra]

What's the goal of the bill?
If I understand what is said here, and if it's accurate, it's to lower the costs associated with employing people.

[coyotes_geek]

Solely? Then why does the government keep spending the excess?

You need to broaden your horizons. Taxation, wealth, etc. is not a zero sum game. However, if you wish to think of it that way, we pay for those costs in higher prices. If we reduce the cost of doing business, businesses, through the force of competition, will reduce their prices. We the consumers come out ahead.

Please don't tell me if you raise the taxes on someone you think they have the same spending power afterward?

Please don't tell me if you raise the taxes on corporations, that you don't think they pass the cost on to the consumers.

At our expense...

If you really believe that, you are a lost cause. Reducing corporate tax burdens allow for them to reduce costs and be more competitive in the global marketplace.

Ever get a job from someone poor?

Reduce the wealth in this nation, and you reduce employers. This is why we have such high unemployment.

You're confusing payroll taxes and income taxes. They're two different beasts. If we could ever find a way to cut government spending enough I'd actually be in favor of cutting corporate income taxes to stimulate growth. But I can't get behind cutting the corporate portion of payroll taxes for the reasons I explained above.

In terms of how effective a strategy this whole concept would be, I don't see it accomplishing anything. I just don't see any company out there deciding to hire someone that they would not have hired otherwise simply because they can get out of pitching in the 7.65% of that employee's salary for payroll taxes. Companies hire people based on demand for their products, not on how much taxes they have to pay. That being said, I'm sure companies will find a way to get their tax break and the program will be trumpeted as a success. Even though we'll never have a way to know how many jobs that wouldn't have been there otherwise were "created" by this bill. Hell, we may even see companies start laying people off for short periods of time so that they can hire them back later and get their tax break.

[ElNono]

If I understand what is said here, and if it's accurate, it's to lower the costs associated with employing people.

And the intended effect of that would be what exactly?

Come on, you're almost there... :lol

[Wild Cobra]

You're confusing payroll taxes and income taxes. They're two different beasts. If we could ever find a way to cut government spending enough I'd actually be in favor of cutting corporate income taxes to stimulate growth. But I can't get behind cutting the corporate portion of payroll taxes for the reasons I explained above.

Why do you assume I am confusing the two?


In terms of how effective a strategy this whole concept would be, I don't see it accomplishing anything. I just don't see any company out there deciding to hire someone that they would not have hired otherwise simply because they can get out of pitching in the 7.65% of that employee's salary for payroll taxes.
I agree most companies will use that idea. Now what is most damaging about such things, is now, many companies will wait to see the results of this bill. Why higher employees now, if they can wait and get a break?

Congress keeps fucking things up. If you listen to industry analysts, a major reason for sluggishness is not knowing what changes await them in the future. If they had one set of rules to follow, and be consistent, things would be better.

Companies hire people based on demand for their products, not on how much taxes they have to pay.
Yes, for the most part. Taxes are considered too however. Those who are in the fence of is added employees are cost effective or not, will likely higher more people if those costs go down.

That being said, I'm sure companies will find a way to get their tax break and the program will be trumpeted as a success.
Look at it like Cash for Clunkers. It will make a smaller difference than it's marketed for. Most those people would have bought a new car anyway.

Even though we'll never have a way to know how many jobs that wouldn't have been there otherwise were "created" by this bill. Hell, we may even see companies start laying people off for short periods of time so that they can hire them back later and get their tax break.
True enough. That's why we need to restore the intent of the Constitution, and get rid of most government interference.

[Wild Cobra]

And the intended effect of that would be what exactly?

Come on, you're almost there... :lol
Well, what it will do more than anything else is give more support to the propaganda that government helps.

Is that what you are looking for?

Remember, I am not solidly supporting this:

Now if the majority of the bill is a 1 yr. abatement of SS/medicare insurance payments for businesses, then it's at least a reasonable measure. I am curious where the other $2 billion goes.
I said reasonable. Not great.

[ElNono]

Well, what it will do more than anything else is give more support to the propaganda that government helps.

Is that what you are looking for?

Remember, I am not solidly supporting this:

I said reasonable. Not great.

:lmao