"Pass this jobs bill now"...

Frogman
Profile picture for user Frogman
Posts
906
Joined
10/14/2006
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Frogman 9/12/2011 12:11pm
9/12/2011 12:11pm
WhKnuckle wrote:
You're wrong in the sense that jobs created to fix roads and bridges make a difference, even if it's temporary. And they CAN do something about...
You're wrong in the sense that jobs created to fix roads and bridges make a difference, even if it's temporary. And they CAN do something about jobs by changing the psychology of the public - by convincing them that government isn't going to just stand by and let the economy stall out. If people believe the economy is going to get better, they'll spend money and the economy WILL get better. The first stimulus raised GDP from negative 8% to positive 3% before enough money was actually spent do to do a damn thing, because people were encouraged that the governement was going to prop the thing up. Then the economy went flat because the public became aware of how many Congressmen were willing, even eager, to see America go down the tubes via debt default and outrageous extremist demands. You can plot out the statistics and the correlation is undeniable.


It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand, if government goes into it's normal mode of ideological gridlock, that will convince the public that the economy never will get better, and they'll do the reverse; they'll hoard cash and pay off debt, and that will drive the economy down.

Economics is all psychology. If people believe something will help, they'll behave that way and it WILL work; if they believe there's no hope of anything working, they'll behave that way and, no matter what you propose, nothing will work. I listen to Bloomberg radio in my truck all the time, but it's not to get all the statistics - I'm interested in the psychology of the movers and shakers in the economic realm. You figure out their psychology, and you can invest with confidence that, regardless of statistics, you'll be on the right side of the market.
LOL
dougie
Profile picture for user dougie
Posts
2140
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Temecula, CA, USA
dougie 9/12/2011 2:35pm
9/12/2011 2:35pm
A little off topic but I dont want to start a string for just one little question. It seems everytime I read a story about Obama on the news sites I find an abundance of letters after the stories where the writers mention Obama and rasing taxes. I know he wants to raise taxes on the rich and I know he wants to do away with some tax breaks. But after reading all these letters Im left with the impression he's already taxing everyone to death. Has he been responsible for any tax increases since he took office? Have there been any?
jmar
Profile picture for user jmar
Posts
14154
Joined
2/11/2007
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
jmar 9/12/2011 3:42pm
9/12/2011 3:42pm
dougie wrote:
A little off topic but I dont want to start a string for just one little question. It seems everytime I read a story about Obama...
A little off topic but I dont want to start a string for just one little question. It seems everytime I read a story about Obama on the news sites I find an abundance of letters after the stories where the writers mention Obama and rasing taxes. I know he wants to raise taxes on the rich and I know he wants to do away with some tax breaks. But after reading all these letters Im left with the impression he's already taxing everyone to death. Has he been responsible for any tax increases since he took office? Have there been any?
Dougie

I am not a big Obama guy, but if he were to come up with a cure for cancer, the haters would still hate.

The Shop

See All »
borg
Profile picture for user borg
Posts
7052
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
borg 9/12/2011 4:08pm
9/12/2011 4:08pm
dougie wrote:
A little off topic but I dont want to start a string for just one little question. It seems everytime I read a story about Obama...
A little off topic but I dont want to start a string for just one little question. It seems everytime I read a story about Obama on the news sites I find an abundance of letters after the stories where the writers mention Obama and rasing taxes. I know he wants to raise taxes on the rich and I know he wants to do away with some tax breaks. But after reading all these letters Im left with the impression he's already taxing everyone to death. Has he been responsible for any tax increases since he took office? Have there been any?
The only one I know of that has already gone into effect is the cigarette tax in '09. Some of the Obamacare taxes may be in effect now. Not sure though. For the most part, overall taxes are lower on balance. Some people don't clarify if they're talking about new tax increases or proposed tax increases.
jmar
Profile picture for user jmar
Posts
14154
Joined
2/11/2007
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
jmar 9/12/2011 4:32pm
9/12/2011 4:32pm
I believe we have already started paying the tax on Obamacare.
indy_maico
Profile picture for user indy_maico
Posts
5103
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
indy_maico 9/12/2011 5:21pm
9/12/2011 5:21pm
jmar wrote:
I believe we have already started paying the tax on Obamacare.
Really? Where?

Serious question, no malice intended.
jmar
Profile picture for user jmar
Posts
14154
Joined
2/11/2007
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
jmar 9/12/2011 5:47pm
9/12/2011 5:47pm
jmar wrote:
I believe we have already started paying the tax on Obamacare.
indy_maico wrote:
Really? Where?

Serious question, no malice intended.
I don't know for sure (that's why I said that I believe) but I think the taxes were going to start ahead of enacting the health care program.
indy_maico
Profile picture for user indy_maico
Posts
5103
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
indy_maico 9/12/2011 6:07pm
9/12/2011 6:07pm Edited Date/Time 9/12/2011 6:08pm
jmar wrote:
I believe we have already started paying the tax on Obamacare.
indy_maico wrote:
Really? Where?

Serious question, no malice intended.
jmar wrote:
I don't know for sure (that's why I said that I believe) but I think the taxes were going to start ahead of enacting the health...
I don't know for sure (that's why I said that I believe) but I think the taxes were going to start ahead of enacting the health care program.
Well, if you look at the heritage foundations list of 'taxes' on the link I posted, unless you use a tanning bed, as of September 2011, you aren't paying anything towards the Affordable Healthcare for America Act.

Fact of the matter is, most people are paying less in Federal taxes now under Obama then they did under Bush, now that he has (foolishly) cut payroll taxes for individuals by 2% while keeping the Bush tax cuts intact.
pelted
Profile picture for user pelted
Posts
678
Joined
6/25/2007
Location
., USA
pelted 9/12/2011 6:23pm
9/12/2011 6:23pm
WhKnuckle wrote:
You're wrong in the sense that jobs created to fix roads and bridges make a difference, even if it's temporary. And they CAN do something about...
You're wrong in the sense that jobs created to fix roads and bridges make a difference, even if it's temporary. And they CAN do something about jobs by changing the psychology of the public - by convincing them that government isn't going to just stand by and let the economy stall out. If people believe the economy is going to get better, they'll spend money and the economy WILL get better. The first stimulus raised GDP from negative 8% to positive 3% before enough money was actually spent do to do a damn thing, because people were encouraged that the governement was going to prop the thing up. Then the economy went flat because the public became aware of how many Congressmen were willing, even eager, to see America go down the tubes via debt default and outrageous extremist demands. You can plot out the statistics and the correlation is undeniable.


It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the other hand, if government goes into it's normal mode of ideological gridlock, that will convince the public that the economy never will get better, and they'll do the reverse; they'll hoard cash and pay off debt, and that will drive the economy down.

Economics is all psychology. If people believe something will help, they'll behave that way and it WILL work; if they believe there's no hope of anything working, they'll behave that way and, no matter what you propose, nothing will work. I listen to Bloomberg radio in my truck all the time, but it's not to get all the statistics - I'm interested in the psychology of the movers and shakers in the economic realm. You figure out their psychology, and you can invest with confidence that, regardless of statistics, you'll be on the right side of the market.
Frogman wrote:
LOL
Not as big a LOL as this steaming pile of shit (bolding mine):

WhKnuckle wrote: ...[dribblesnip]... if you can get a little good news going on the economy, consumers will be a bit more willing to spend; and if they'll spend, employers will hire; and that's how you turn an economy around. Or, if you're a Republican, you can just declare the problem unsolvable without turning America into China.

The one thing missing from this plan was more lending to small businesses. I know businesses that would like to expand can't get credit. That's ridiculous. Banks are really holding the country back - I realize what a bad signal it would send to nationalize banks, but maybe it's time to think about that. They're using the fact that they're FDIC insured as leverage to behave any way they want - the fact that small businesses can't get credit from the very banks we risked $800 billion to rescue is bullshit (even though we got most of the money back). We should just split off their deposits and consumer/small business functions, put that into the central bank, and let them go play casino with derivatives and life insurance roulette on corporate employees without the safety net of public money under the guise of "well, if they go broke we're stuck with all the FDIC losses". And it wouldn't be hard to do - if banks had to hold enough cash to cover all their deposits (thus relieving the public of the FDIC risk), they'd all go out of business tomorrow.
SteveS
Profile picture for user SteveS
Posts
5598
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
USA
SteveS 9/12/2011 7:45pm
9/12/2011 7:45pm
indy_maico wrote:
Really? Where?

Serious question, no malice intended.
jmar wrote:
I don't know for sure (that's why I said that I believe) but I think the taxes were going to start ahead of enacting the health...
I don't know for sure (that's why I said that I believe) but I think the taxes were going to start ahead of enacting the health care program.
indy_maico wrote:
Well, if you look at the heritage foundations list of 'taxes' on the link I posted, unless you use a tanning bed, as of September 2011...
Well, if you look at the heritage foundations list of 'taxes' on the link I posted, unless you use a tanning bed, as of September 2011, you aren't paying anything towards the Affordable Healthcare for America Act.

Fact of the matter is, most people are paying less in Federal taxes now under Obama then they did under Bush, now that he has (foolishly) cut payroll taxes for individuals by 2% while keeping the Bush tax cuts intact.
That tax cut isn't a cut. The employer is making up the difference.
indy_maico
Profile picture for user indy_maico
Posts
5103
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
indy_maico 9/13/2011 4:52am
9/13/2011 4:52am
jmar wrote:
I don't know for sure (that's why I said that I believe) but I think the taxes were going to start ahead of enacting the health...
I don't know for sure (that's why I said that I believe) but I think the taxes were going to start ahead of enacting the health care program.
indy_maico wrote:
Well, if you look at the heritage foundations list of 'taxes' on the link I posted, unless you use a tanning bed, as of September 2011...
Well, if you look at the heritage foundations list of 'taxes' on the link I posted, unless you use a tanning bed, as of September 2011, you aren't paying anything towards the Affordable Healthcare for America Act.

Fact of the matter is, most people are paying less in Federal taxes now under Obama then they did under Bush, now that he has (foolishly) cut payroll taxes for individuals by 2% while keeping the Bush tax cuts intact.
SteveS wrote:
That tax cut isn't a cut. The employer is making up the difference.
Are you saying the employer is paying an extra 2% over what they would have been paying anyway?

I hadn't read that anywhere.

Only that the employee is paying 2% less and the employer is paying the same as he was last year.

Part of this new 'jobs bill' is to extend the 2% cut to employers as well, so social security which is going underwater anyway will have 4% less funding it.

That is something I'd expect a republican president to do, not a democrat.

But the republicans are against it.

This is the bizzarro-world that we now live in.
JustMX
Profile picture for user JustMX
Posts
5353
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
USA
JustMX 9/13/2011 6:13am
9/13/2011 6:13am
indy_maico wrote:
Are you saying the employer is paying an extra 2% over what they would have been paying anyway? I hadn't read that anywhere. Only that the...
Are you saying the employer is paying an extra 2% over what they would have been paying anyway?

I hadn't read that anywhere.

Only that the employee is paying 2% less and the employer is paying the same as he was last year.

Part of this new 'jobs bill' is to extend the 2% cut to employers as well, so social security which is going underwater anyway will have 4% less funding it.

That is something I'd expect a republican president to do, not a democrat.

But the republicans are against it.

This is the bizzarro-world that we now live in.
Isn't the combined amount paid by Employee and employer 12.4%?

If you take 4% off that it leaves 8.4% being held for SS.

Looks like a lot more than a 4% reduction to me, more like about a 30% difference in money collected for SS.
indy_maico
Profile picture for user indy_maico
Posts
5103
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Indianapolis, IN, USA
indy_maico 9/13/2011 8:13am
9/13/2011 8:13am
indy_maico wrote:
Are you saying the employer is paying an extra 2% over what they would have been paying anyway? I hadn't read that anywhere. Only that the...
Are you saying the employer is paying an extra 2% over what they would have been paying anyway?

I hadn't read that anywhere.

Only that the employee is paying 2% less and the employer is paying the same as he was last year.

Part of this new 'jobs bill' is to extend the 2% cut to employers as well, so social security which is going underwater anyway will have 4% less funding it.

That is something I'd expect a republican president to do, not a democrat.

But the republicans are against it.

This is the bizzarro-world that we now live in.
JustMX wrote:
Isn't the combined amount paid by Employee and employer 12.4%? If you take 4% off that it leaves 8.4% being held for SS. Looks like a...
Isn't the combined amount paid by Employee and employer 12.4%?

If you take 4% off that it leaves 8.4% being held for SS.

Looks like a lot more than a 4% reduction to me, more like about a 30% difference in money collected for SS.
You are absolutely correct. Even worse!

Pit Row

See All »
GoldenState54 9/14/2011 10:07am
9/14/2011 10:07am
This jobs bill bullshit is nothing but a gimmick to try and get a bunch of companies to hire minimum wage workers to move the unemployment numbers.
txmxer
Profile picture for user txmxer
Posts
9770
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Weatherford, TX, USA
txmxer 9/14/2011 10:10am
9/14/2011 10:10am
GoldenState54 wrote:
This jobs bill bullshit is nothing but a gimmick to try and get a bunch of companies to hire minimum wage workers to move the unemployment...
This jobs bill bullshit is nothing but a gimmick to try and get a bunch of companies to hire minimum wage workers to move the unemployment numbers.
Unsure
txmxer
Profile picture for user txmxer
Posts
9770
Joined
8/21/2006
Location
Weatherford, TX, USA
txmxer 9/14/2011 10:45am
9/14/2011 10:45am
txmxer wrote:
Unsure
GoldenState54 wrote:
https://youtu.be/ou9d6Q9_9W4
I like Schiff for the most part. He calls it as he sees it and doesn't seem to be partisan when he comments. Basically he busts balls on both sides of the aisle.

My response was about the creation of minimum wage jobs. I thought the problem was that people were sitting on unemployment rather than go to work and therefore getting people to accept whatever the pay is would be helpful.

Of course Schiff slams that whole thing as well. A lot of it's conjecture, but he's smarter than most it seems. He could be wrong, but I don't think he says anything that is purely self promotion or just to try and get the market to move for his personal favor.
Racer92
Profile picture for user Racer92
Posts
17965
Joined
8/15/2006
Location
Central, TX, USA
Racer92 9/14/2011 11:02am
9/14/2011 11:02am
GoldenState54 wrote:
This jobs bill bullshit is nothing but a gimmick to try and get a bunch of companies to hire minimum wage workers to move the unemployment...
This jobs bill bullshit is nothing but a gimmick to try and get a bunch of companies to hire minimum wage workers to move the unemployment numbers.
txmxer wrote:
Unsure
Cmon Mike, we both know that if he wants better ratings this time next year he hasta get something kicked off now so it has time to show up on reports. The re-election effort is is full swing now.
Sherwood
Profile picture for user Sherwood
Posts
3682
Joined
5/12/2010
Location
USA
Sherwood 9/14/2011 12:49pm
9/14/2011 12:49pm
You can go to basically any hotel/motel and they will be hiring minimum wage jobs, people simply don't want them. How's "creating" more minimum wage jobs nobody wants going to help?
dougie
Profile picture for user dougie
Posts
2140
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Temecula, CA, USA
dougie 9/14/2011 2:10pm
9/14/2011 2:10pm
What we need is to start paying people like engineers, plant managers etc Minimum wage. Pay skilled workers say $6/hr. Pay unskilled workers from $2 to $4/hr. We need to compete with China, with Viet Nam, with Cambodia, with Eqypt, with Nicaragua, with Guatemala. What we need to do is to figure out how to live on $80 to $320 a week. Then the jobs might quit leaving. Actually now that I think about it even this wont likely work. We need to be paid less than the current 3rd world countries so we are an attactive enough location for business to want to set up shop. Its all about chasing the dollar to the bottom.

Of course the above seems ridicuolus but I was reading a story yesterday about how in the past 30 years the rich have made so much freakin money but the middle has been milked dry. It said that in the past 30 years that the median incomes have risen by just 11%. Now if the cost of living goes up 2 to 3% a year wouldnt that be from 60 -90% increase in the cost of living in 30 years? Sounds to me like we're well on our way to low wages. Yea Globalization Smile
jmar
Profile picture for user jmar
Posts
14154
Joined
2/11/2007
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
jmar 9/14/2011 2:33pm
9/14/2011 2:33pm
Why are some of you so convinced that the only new job that could come of this tax break would be minimum wage.

If they would pass the tax credit for new hires, I would hire a few more guys. My lower tier guy's start out twice the minimum wage.
WhKnuckle
Profile picture for user WhKnuckle
Posts
7327
Joined
7/17/2007
Location
USA
WhKnuckle 9/14/2011 2:51pm
9/14/2011 2:51pm
jmar wrote:
Why are some of you so convinced that the only new job that could come of this tax break would be minimum wage. If they would...
Why are some of you so convinced that the only new job that could come of this tax break would be minimum wage.

If they would pass the tax credit for new hires, I would hire a few more guys. My lower tier guy's start out twice the minimum wage.
I was listening to Bloomberg radio today and heard a Wall Street employment expert say that there are two engineering jobs for every applicant in America right now. And he said McKinsey just did a study that concluded that we're turning out way too many MBAs and way too few engineers. Warmed my heart...
dougie
Profile picture for user dougie
Posts
2140
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
Temecula, CA, USA
dougie 9/14/2011 3:07pm
9/14/2011 3:07pm
jmar wrote:
You might want to look at the reasons for the increase in poverty. It's at the bottom of the story you posted. [b]Left behind in America...
You might want to look at the reasons for the increase in poverty. It's at the bottom of the story you posted.

Left behind in America: Who's to blame for the wealth divide?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20102289-503544.html?tag=content…
Thats a "must read" for everyone.
Frogman
Profile picture for user Frogman
Posts
906
Joined
10/14/2006
Location
Washington, DC, USA
Frogman 9/14/2011 3:44pm
9/14/2011 3:44pm
jmar wrote:
Why are some of you so convinced that the only new job that could come of this tax break would be minimum wage. If they would...
Why are some of you so convinced that the only new job that could come of this tax break would be minimum wage.

If they would pass the tax credit for new hires, I would hire a few more guys. My lower tier guy's start out twice the minimum wage.
Why do you need a tax cut to hire people?
jmar
Profile picture for user jmar
Posts
14154
Joined
2/11/2007
Location
Oklahoma City, OK, USA
jmar 9/14/2011 4:09pm
9/14/2011 4:09pm
jmar wrote:
Why are some of you so convinced that the only new job that could come of this tax break would be minimum wage. If they would...
Why are some of you so convinced that the only new job that could come of this tax break would be minimum wage.

If they would pass the tax credit for new hires, I would hire a few more guys. My lower tier guy's start out twice the minimum wage.
Frogman wrote:
Why do you need a tax cut to hire people?
Because I am on the bubble of needing a few more guys. I can get by with the employees that I have now, but it's stretching out my staff. Like everyone else, I don't know if this economy is going to take a turn for the worse, and things slow down again. If it did, I would have to cut back, so you hate to hire someone that you may have to lay off in five or six months.

The tax break gives me an incentive to take that chance.

Post a reply to: "Pass this jobs bill now"...