Latest jobs bill won't add many job.

[AROCES]

Wednesday, 10 Feb 2010 01:49 PM

It sounds great: A big jobs bill that would hand President Barack Obama a badly needed victory and please Republicans with tax cuts at the same time. But there's a problem: It won't actually create many jobs.

Even the Obama administration acknowledges the legislation's centerpiece — a tax cut for businesses that hire unemployed workers — would work only on the margins.

Senate Democrats are working this week to round up Republican support for the bill, which would exempt businesses from paying Social Security payroll taxes on new employees hired this year, as long as the workers had been unemployed at least 60 days. The tax break is a simpler, less expensive alternative to Obama's proposed tax cut of up to $5,000 for each new worker that employers hire.

But tax experts and business leaders said companies are unlikely to hire workers just to receive a tax break. Before businesses start hiring, they need increased demand for their products, more work for their employees and more revenue to pay those workers

http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/US-What-Jobs/2010/02/10/id/349536

[Startraveler]

Before businesses start hiring, they need increased demand for their products, more work for their employees and more revenue to pay those workers

Holy Christ, are you actually asking for fiscal stimulus now that they're turning heavily to tax cuts?

[Caesar]

If the last jobs bill didn't work, I don't see this one working either.

[conspiracybeliever]

Actually I believe it has started working. I don't see the unemployment around me that I saw about a year ago. And this is what I believe. I believe what I see. I may be wrong but....

[AROCES]

Actually I believe it has started working. I don't see the unemployment around me that I saw about a year ago. And this is what I believe. I believe what I see. I may be wrong but....

Working for what Governement Department or agency?

[conspiracybeliever]

Working for what Governement Department or agency?

Actually I don't think the majority are. As far as I know, except for transportation, or road repair, whatever you call it, the state has laid off and still are making cuts. That includes jobs, paycuts, and benefits cuts. I believe that another Bush numbers game Aroces. To add a TON of government employees that really weren't needed. Jobs like social services (create money and jobs by making a business of children) and jobs in jails (find a reason to lock up the poor or unemployed)) to cover up the ability to create real jobs. More false jobs creating false numbers. That was the Bush era Aroces.

[AROCES]

Actually I don't think the majority are. As far as I know, except for transportation, or road repair, whatever you call it, the state has laid off and still are making cuts. That includes jobs, paycuts, and benefits cuts. I believe that another Bush numbers game Aroces. To add a TON of government employees that really weren't needed. Jobs like social services (create money and jobs by making a business of children) and jobs in jails (find a reason to lock up the poor or unemployed)) to cover up the ability to create real jobs. More false jobs creating false numbers. That was the Bush era Aroces.

So if Obama say tomorrow that unemployment is now at 5%, will you believe it?

Do you even know that most layoff came from the financial sector of the economy?

I think you are just spitting out saliva now without thinking, to lock up the poor and unemployed?

[conspiracybeliever]

So if Obama say tomorrow that unemployment is now at 5%, will you believe it?

Do you even know that most layoff came from the financial sector of the economy?

I think you are just spitting out saliva now without thinking, to lock up the poor and unemployed?

Did I say that was my thought because Obama said it? Read what I wrote Aroces instead of making it up. I said I believed it because that is what I see around me. And yes I do know most layoffs were from the financial sector. Those were jobs created through all the fraud going on in the Bush era. Remember Madoff and Enron? Jobs created by fraudulent businesses. And yes jobs created by making slaves of the poor, the working class and the unemployed. That creates a lot of jobs.

[ninjadude]

If the last jobs bill didn't work, I don't see this one working either.

what "last jobs bill" are you referring to? I'm unaware of any such thing.

[AROCES]

what "last jobs bill" are you referring to? I'm unaware of any such thing.

True, no one really noticed it for it didnt work.

[ninjadude]

True, no one really noticed it for it didnt work.

What bill are you referring to? If you guys mean the Stimulus, it was not a "jobs" bill.

[AROCES]

What bill are you referring to? If you guys mean the Stimulus, it was not a "jobs" bill.

Alright, you want to go by the name?

Stimulus to create jobs and the latest is jobs bill to create jobs, how's that?

[Caesar]

What bill are you referring to? If you guys mean the Stimulus, it was not a "jobs" bill.

Then what was if for? he said unemployment wouldn't go over 8% and that it would create or save 3 to 4 million jobs.

A few sources with estimates for job creation are

CBO: 800,000 to 2.4 million

IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million

Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.1 million

Moody’s Economy.com: 1.6 million

Obama Again Raises Estimate of Jobs His Stimulus Plan Will Create or Save

So this will cost about 150k per job created

[ninjadude]

Then what was if for?

To "stimulate" the economy. Jobs were only part of it.

[Caesar]

To "stimulate" the economy. Jobs were only part of it.

So at first you said "it was not a "jobs" bill" now its part of it?

[ninjadude]

So at first you said "it was not a "jobs" bill" now its part of it?

of course. But "jobs bill" implies that it was soley for the creation of jobs. This is not true. It was to stimulate the economy. One aspect was jobs. If that makes it a "jobs bill" in your mind, that must be why you believe snow in the winter is proof that global warming is not true.

[Caesar]

of course. But "jobs bill" implies that it was soley for the creation of jobs. This is not true. It was to stimulate the economy. One aspect was jobs. If that makes it a "jobs bill" in your mind, that must be why you believe snow in the winter is proof that global warming is not true.

Then why stimulate the economy if the goal wasn't to help with unemployment? so those fact-cat bankers can make more money?

[AROCES]

of course. But "jobs bill" implies that it was soley for the creation of jobs. This is not true. It was to stimulate the economy. One aspect was jobs. If that makes it a "jobs bill" in your mind, that must be why you believe snow in the winter is proof that global warming is not true.

What is the other aspect?

[Startraveler]

ARRA was an investment in our infrastructure, our communities, and our natural resources:

The productivity began with the stimulus package, which was far more than an injection of $787 billion in government spending to jump-start the ailing economy. More than one-third of it -- $288 billion -- came in the form of tax cuts, making it one of the largest tax cuts in history, with sizable credits for energy conservation and renewable-energy production as well as home-buying and college tuition. The stimulus also promised $19 billion for the critical policy arena of health-information technology, and more than $1 billion to advance research on the effectiveness of health-care treatments.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan has leveraged some of the stimulus money to encourage wide-ranging reform in school districts across the country. There were also massive investments in green technologies, clean water and a smart grid for electricity, while the $70 billion or more in energy and environmental programs was perhaps the most ambitious advancement in these areas in modern times. As a bonus, more than $7 billion was allotted to expand broadband and wireless Internet access, a step toward the goal of universal access.

The passage of the HITECH Act inside of ARRA alone has the potential to be one of the biggest changes (or improvements) to our health care delivery system, perhaps ever. ARRA wasn't just paying people to hire (a "jobs bill"). It was about providing investment capital (particularly with regard to public goods) so that there's something hire people for. And a lot of potential long-term benefits are associated with those investments, unrelated to employment.

[AROCES]

ARRA was an investment in our infrastructure, our communities, and our natural resources:

The passage of the HITECH Act inside of ARRA alone has the potential to be one of the biggest changes (or improvements) to our health care delivery system, perhaps ever. ARRA wasn't just paying people to hire (a "jobs bill"). It was about providing investment capital (particularly with regard to public goods) so that there's something hire people for. And a lot of potential long-term benefits are associated with those investments, unrelated to employment.

Why do it now when government revenue has gone down?

[Startraveler]

Why do it now when government revenue has gone down?

It was about providing investment capital (particularly with regard to public goods) so that there's something hire people for.

[ninjadude]

Then why stimulate the economy if the goal wasn't to help with unemployment? so those fact-cat bankers can make more money?

I didn't say it was not to help with jobs and unemployment. In fact it did both. As well as much more. And it was still too small because of republican obstructionism.

[ninjadude]

Why do it now when government revenue has gone down?

To STIMULATE the economy.

[Caesar]

I didn't say it was not to help with jobs and unemployment. In fact it did both. As well as much more. And it was still too small because of republican obstructionism.

They didn't even need a Republican vote. if you throw trillions in the economy, have the Feds Funds Rate at almost nothing, of course you will see a jump in the economy, but it usually doesn't last long. Obama said unemployment wouldn't go over 8 % if this bill was passed and its been close to 10%.

[Startraveler]

They didn't even need a Republican vote.

Yes, they did. A 59-seat majority isn't enough to overcome a filibuster. Luckily they got 3 Republicans votes in the Senate.