Why isn't Obama's job plan called stimulus 2?
 

whats the difference between the american jobs act & the 2009 stimulus bill. Nothing from what i see. Both bills are a series of temporary fixes, with nothing that deals with critical problems associated with the trade gap, the skills gap & oil prices.

& the clown-in-chief says the bill is fully paid for because he will let the supercommittee decide on what to cut to pay for it.

:1orglaugh

Who cares.

The fact is that unless you run for office yourself so you can fix whatever you perceive the
problem to be; you are not doing anything except complaining. Which means that
there isn't even one politician alive that is doing less than you.

:2 cents:

my bet is the repubs pass this. Everybody in DC is looking for cover as the public blames them for doing nothing to solve the jobs problem.

this will make the tea party stronger as repubs will have to fight from the right over passing more deficit spending.

Ron Paul will vote to save america.

The main difference is that the original stimulus bill handed billions of dollars in bailout money to the banks. This one doesn't. That doesn't mean it will work or help much, but that is one difference. .

I doubt that. Details include disallowing many deductions for anyone making over 200k a year. This is just another attempt to make the top 25% income earners pay more taxes.

and you got that information from... some bullshit source for sure...

Umm, CNN. Whitehouse just released some details. this was one of them

you might be confusing the TARP with the stimulus. the stimulus spent no money on banks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...nt_Act_of_2009

what really disappoints me about obama is the lack of imagination. I really expect more from an intellectual president then rehashing a program that has temporary benefits.

Like I said... bullshit source.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-...rican-jobs-act

I am waiting for the actual bill text to be posted... but I certainly don't think it contains anything limiting deductions for those earning $250k or higher... for a very simple reason... Obama is trying to get the bill passed. Republicans would never agree to the bill if it contains language such as that.

that would make me laugh, if the repubs oppose this because the rich dont get their cut.

The only way Obama will not be re-elected, is if the completion to one of the following sentences makes any sense whatsoever.

Once Romney is President, the US economy will improve based upon his plan to...

Once Perry is President, the US economy will improve based upon his plan to...

Once Paul is President, the US economy will improve based upon his plan to...

Good luck with that!

* BTW, I only threw Paul in there, as a courtesy to the OP - in reality Ron Paul really has no chance in hell.

the public cares nothing for plans. they have been bullshitted long enough that they dont believe anything.

you continue to overestimate obamas strength among independents. Its not there pal. Obamys not getting the south again, not getting the midwest again. All the repubs need to do is keep their mouths shut.

I don't get it, the first job bill didn't work, so he wants to pass another one?

He wants to tax the rich, but with this bill he would be giving employers tax breaks for hiring, thus cutting the taxes on the rich?

Independents won't go for Perry, and the Christian right-wing-baggers will not vote for Romney. Again, I wish you the best of luck!

why is a rock not called a cloud?

You know what cracked me up? A $4000 credit for hiring the most undesirable employees, aka the "long term unemployed".

They haven't found work for a fucking reason... because nobody wants them, or they don't want to work.

Obama knows as much about creating jobs as Trump does about driving a Prius.

This a better source? But you are half right, it limits deductions for individuals making $200k a year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/...-just-not-yet/

So a whitehouse spokesman is a "bullshit source". Sounds like your just looking for a pissing match with someone. Was there piss in your cornflakes this morning or something?

Higher oil prices create a lot of jobs in certain areas, ask Rick Perry.. :winkwink:

That might be an oversimplification of the situation. I don't doubt that there are some people on unemployment who are just lazy/undesirable, but I think some are just holding out for a better job.

If you had a job making $20 per hour and now you were on unemployment and getting the equivalent of $11-$12 per hour you may not take a job paying $9 per hour. Instead you might ride out the unemployment and try to find something that pays more.

Did you do the math on that, from an employer's perspective?

(Sorry, I fucking HATE rhetorical questions. I know you didn't do the math, just like I know you don't have many employees in that range. If you did, you'd know your math makes as much sense as this "Stimulus2" package that Obama is pushing. In other words... you don't have employees in that range, and you didn't do the math. End of story.)

(P.S. I don't know you, please don't take offense - it wasn't meant to be personal. Also, please don't reply if you're a liberal. Those fucking idiots annoy the shit out of me.)

(P.P.S. Do you realize that a $4000 credit barely covers the employers tax liability on a "highly qualified" yet "picky and intelligent" and "discriminating" employee of that caliber if you employ that individual long enough to actually earn the credit? I could and SHOULD rant on this subject, but I don't want to steal someone else's thunder. I'm too busy to follow up on that thunder, because I actually DO know how to make profit.)

What I dont get is this free ride on payroll taxes. What is that refering to? A employer does not pay taxes himself, he deducts from the employees check. Unless they are refering to the SSN the employer has to match?

FUTA Employer
Social Security Employer
Medicare Employer
State SUI Employer
State Administrative Contribution

Exactly the type of employee I do not want to hire. :2 cents:

Those are almost nothing for me with 2 employees. Whoopty fucking doo. LOL. Matching ss will help but we dont have the details on all this yet so I dont know. Obama did say this will not affect SS so I'm thinking this does not include matching SS.

Why was the extermination of the Jews called the Final Solution?

Why is genocide often called ethnic cleansing?

Why did Marxism become communism, which became socialism, which became liberalism, which became social justice and progressivism?

Why was reverse racism called Affirmative Action, and now, diversity?

Why does the US government often call debt and spending.. investment?

Why is scat called that, and not simply.. shit?

First, I don't employ anyone. I work for myself and am self-employed, but don't have any employees.

Second, not a liberal nor a conservative I would be more of a libertarian, just a little less batshit than most of them.

Third, my math has nothing to do with an employer. You simply said that Obama is offering credits to businesses who hire those who are long term unemployed and you went on to refer to those people has being "undesirable" or not wanting to work or that nobody wants them. My math was meant to point out that if I once had a job making $20 per hour an I got laid off and I am now making what is the equivalent of $11-$12 per hour on unemployment I don't have a whole lot of motivation to take a $9 per hour job. So maybe some of these long term unemployed people are just choosing the lesser of two evils and are deciding to stay on unemployment while they continue to look for a better job instead of settling for a lesser paying job.

Another example could be that people make different decisions based on family needs. I have a friend whose wife got laid off from her job. She got another job, then got hurt (not on the job) and had to have surgery. Her employer didn't hold her job for her so she was out of work again and back looking. After a couple of months they decided that it would be better for her to just stay home for now and be a stay at home mom. They would save money on gas and babysitting and it would almost be the same as if she were working part time or making a low wage. So for 2 years she did this. Then their youngest started first grade and with the kids gone all day to school she started looking for work again and found a pretty good job. So she wasn't "undesirable" she and her family simply made a choice that it was better for them that she not work at that exact moment.

All I am trying to do is point out that every person who is long term unemployed is not some lazy welfare loving piece of garbage. There are some of those, but to assume that of everyone is simply an over simplification especially during the times we are experiencing now.

So be 100% honest. If you had a job making $20 per hour and lost it. You went on unemployment and were making the equivalent of $12 per hour on unemployment and you had the choice of either taking a $8 per hour job that would require you to work Monday - Friday 8-5 (thus cutting way down on your ability to continue to look for a better job) you would still take the lower paying job instead of staying on unemployment and trying to find something better and closer to what you were once making?

Also, would you rather hire an employee who took a job, worked it for 4-5 months then moved on to some other better job as soon as they found it? Wouldn't you feel like they were just going to do the same to you?

I will concede that point - it's obviously factually true. However... it's not statistically correct.

Here's what I believe: The majority of people on welfare do not want to work.

Therefore, giving a tax benefit to an employer that hires someone that most likely doesn't want to work in order to stimulate the economy is a farce, because this plan leads to failure.

In other words, Stimulus2 is a farce.

fugheddaboudit.

I can tell you how it is for construction workers, a lot of them don't mind being laid off because they can collect unemployment and do side work, which is all un-taxed money straight in their pocket. Some of them make more money when they're laid off than they do when they're working. Of course there hasn't been much in terms of construction work going on in the past couple of years anyway, you think a guy that's been a carpenter or a mason his whole life is going to go and get some job washing dishes or some bullshit like that to save the state a couple bucks? No way. Foolish pride will prevent most people from doing menial jobs Besides, they take unemployment out of your check anyway while you're working, it's not like they're giving you free money.

There is a big difference between someone who has been on unemployment for 12-18 months after losing their job and someone who has been on welfare for 10 years.

I fully agree that most people who are welfare long term have no desire to work. They have found a way to survive on the system and they are happy to do just that. Those are not the people we are talking about here. The long term unemployed are those who have been out of work more than 9 months and are actively looking for a job not those who have been on welfare for 5 years and have no interest in coming off of it.

Watching this Obama speech is absolutely amazing. People are applauding this guy like crazy. How many of his bills will congress pass before they finally figure out that his ideas do nothing? Again the main source of funding for this bill is gonna be from small business owners, the same guys who are hurting right now. These incentives for hiring more people are more for larger companies. I see no real benifits for small businesses. This country has turned into a huge flock of mindless sheep. I'm willing to bet the first itemized deduction they will do away with is my health insurance costs.

I have two more things to add.

1. There is no way in hell I would ever be out of work for that long unless I simply didn't want to work. Yeah, maybe I'm a little better looking, a little more motivated, slightly more articulate, and overall a slightly better candidate... but my point is the same. The majority of people out of work that long don't want to work, enjoy collecting unemployment, and will likely make a bad employee.

Giving incentives to hire poor quality employees is backwards and will never work, just like the rest of Obama's ideas.

2. I did some of the math for those of you that do not have direct employees and may not understand that an employer has additional liabilities above and beyond the benefits and paycheck the employee receives. Namely Unemployment, Social Security, Medicare.

If you pay someone $40,000 per year ($20/hr) your employer liabilities start here:

$20/hr wages = $40,000
medicare at 1.45% = $580
Fed Unemployment .08% = $56
State unemployment 3.6% = $1440

total before other expenses: $44,556

That's before any health insurance, 401k, etc.

That's some food for thought, with facts on the side.

Cheers :)

May I ask you a question. How old are you?

truth is: all politicians are alike, and all their bills are the same. they all SUCK

also offering employers tax breaks wont do shit on two counts. First when people work for 30 cents an hour in china no tax break is going to bring it back. Secondly rich dont create jobs ,demand creates jobs. No one buying no one hiring. You got a pizza place, you sell 1000 pizzas a week. You current work force is a little tight but you got it covered. No tax break is going to motivate you to hire another person. Now if all of a sudden you were selling 3000 pizzas a week. No tax hikes is going to stop you from hiring more people because if you dont you wont be in business for long.

The only difference I see is political. The Democrats no longer control everything, the house, senate, and presidency, so when the same crap fails again they'll try to blame the house republicans for the fact that the president's plans continue to fail.

Poltically, it might have been better for the republicans if they had NOT won a majority in the house this year. It just means they share the blame fire the effects of the president's policies over the last three years. They might have been off not winning anything until 2012, so it was real clear which philosophy failed.

I don't see anything new in this most recent round of Obama proposing more of the same failure, though. Just different political consequences.

Yes!!!!!!! They're all a bunch of fucking crooks and that weaselly bastard Ron Paul is no different. Just think about the type of egomaniac you have to be to become a politician, to think you know what's best for a nation of millions. The real stand-up people don't even think about getting into politics.

I believe in this a lot really.

I honestly think that incoming presidents go to the White House with the best of intentions, only to discover everything is an uphill battle and it's impossible to get anything done.