DC Democrats kill bipartisan jobs bill

[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

[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
By CARL HULSE


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 gra ude 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]

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 es 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 compe ive 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 compe ion, 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 compe ive 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 compe ion, 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 compe ive 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. , 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...

[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 ing 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. , 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 Cons ution, 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...

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.