Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Obamer's job billFollow

#27 Sep 09 2011 at 2:11 PM Rating: Good
****
6,471 posts
There's always a 1-post lag when gbaji and joph go at it.
#28 Sep 09 2011 at 2:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Sep 09 2011 at 2:22 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
Hold on here, I was pointing out that they're not centrist ideas ( I have no idea as I didn't read the speech). I was simply pointing out what you'd say.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#30 Sep 09 2011 at 2:23 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,569 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Demea wrote:
What's funny is that Obama basically told the Senate "super-committee" created by the recent debt ceiling bill to find ways to pay for everything. "Hey guys, I know you're trying to find $1.5 trillion over the next decade, but can you spot me $500 billion next week?"

I don't see an issue with that. Presumably, we want the bill "paid for" so why not ask the bipartisan group tasked with "paying for" the debt ceiling increase to look at this as well? Had Obama just laid out $450b in cuts, the GOP would be jammering about how unreasonable all those cuts were.

I agree that the bill should be "paid for", but asking for the money up-front and then telling a bi-partisan commission to haggle over the cuts/taxes necessary to offset the spending is a sure-fire way to ensure that it doesn't get "paid for" at all.

Wherefore art thou, pay-go?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#31 Sep 09 2011 at 2:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Requiring the necessary cuts or taxes to fund a proposal is the very definition of PAYGO.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Sep 09 2011 at 2:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Here's the list of tax-related things in the plan. Someone explain to be how these are targeted at some Democratic special interest groups or whatever...


Um... Ok.

The White House wrote:
- Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses: The President’s plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold.


Interesting how "98 percent of businesses" is in the first sentence, but when you read further, it's really 98% of firms that have payroll below $5M. I'm actually a bit curious who that other 2% are also.

Quote:
- A complete payroll tax holiday for added workers or increased wages: The President’s plan will completely eliminate payroll taxes for firms that increase their payroll by adding new workers or increasing the wages of their current worker (the benefit is capped at the first $50 million in payroll increases).


Again with a cap. Why? If it's a good idea for companies which hire a few hundred new workers, why wouldn't it be even better for companies which employ a few thousand new workers? We want to create "more jobs", right? Let's face it, the local candleshop owner is either going to start or not start up their business based on factors somewhat unrelated to whether there's a payroll tax cut in effect. It's the big business choosing to open a plant or office in the US versus opening it in India that we really care about. But this cap effectively means that this wont influence their choices at all, and that's where we're losing the most jobs.

To be fair, this isn't so much targeted at benefiting Dem buddies as excluding big business. Which politically kinda has the same effect.

Quote:
- Extending 100% expensing into 2012: This continues an effective incentive for new investment.


I'm not sure what expensing is being talked about here, so I can't comment. Could be good, could be bad.

Quote:
- A “Returning Heroes” hiring tax credit for veterans: This provides tax credits from $5,600 to $9,600 to encourage the hiring of unemployed veterans.


Yeah. This is purely political. Let's target veterans for benefits so that if Republicans oppose it, we can say that they hate veterans! Brilliant. Same argument I've made before. If your objective is to create productive jobs, then do so. Don't play political games.


Quote:
- A $4,000 tax credit to employers for hiring long-term unemployed workers.


This is so fraught with potential employment peril that it's hard to know where to begin. So if someone loses their job, they will now be at a $4k disadvantage getting a new one compared to someone who's been unemployed for a long period of time? This seems aimed at encouraging and even rewarding companies with revolving door employment practices. It also might have the interesting side effect of actually discouraging unemployed people from getting jobs quickly, since they might think that if they wait 6 months (or whatever time period "long term" means) they can land a better job because of the tax credit.

Fraught with peril! Danger Danger. Don't muck with businesses hiring choices. It's a bad idea.


Quote:
- Cutting payroll taxes in half for 160 million workers next year: The President’s plan will expand the payroll tax cut passed last year to cut workers payroll taxes in half in 2012 – providing a $1,500 tax cut to the typical American family, without negatively impacting the Social Security Trust Fund.


Is this in addition to the other payroll cuts and the tax credits? I'm also curious how this doesn't negatively impact the Social Security fund. Is this some kind of magical unicorn riding new math? I just find it hard to trust someone who claims that we can reduce the amount of money going into a fund without negatively impacting the fund. Um... Seems like he's doing the typical liberal trick of redefining "negative impact".


He's buying votes with this bill. Nothing more.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Sep 09 2011 at 2:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If that was your attempt to show all sorts of Democratic favoritism, you did an exceptionally shitty job.

By the way, it's 98% of ALL businesses. Without the formatting in the original, it looks more confusing.

Quote:
Cutting the payroll tax in half for 98 percent of businesses:
The President's plan will cut in half the taxes paid by businesses on their first $5 million in payroll, targeting the benefit to the 98 percent of firms that have payroll below this threshold.


Edited, Sep 9th 2011 3:45pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Sep 09 2011 at 2:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Requiring the necessary cuts or taxes to fund a proposal is the very definition of PAYGO.


Which is what he's not doing. Unless you're using an incredibly loose definition of "requiring the necessary cuts". The principle behind paygo is that you must have equal offsetting cuts or taxes in the same piece of legislation in which you create new spending. Saying "we'll just have the super committee come up with an equal amount of cuts later" is a far far cry from that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Sep 09 2011 at 2:41 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,471 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If that was your attempt to show all sorts of Democratic favoritism, you did an exceptionally shitty job.


However, he did do a great job at suggesting that Republicans hate small business and veterans. So there's that.
#36 Sep 09 2011 at 2:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Saying "we'll just have the super committee come up with an equal amount of cuts later" is a far far cry from that.

No, the standard method of having no funding measures at all in mind is a "far, far cry". This is a fair bit closer.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Sep 09 2011 at 2:53 PM Rating: Good
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,400 posts
I think I'd feel better about this whole 'using the committee' thing if the they had already shown they were capable of producing results.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#38 Sep 09 2011 at 2:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Legislatively, they'll get results on way or the other. Either they'll make the cuts voluntarily or else they'll happen automatically in a more draconian measure. Which makes complaints of "PAYGO" pretty silly since the bill will be paid (under the hypothetical theory that Congress takes it up at all).
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Sep 09 2011 at 3:03 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If that was your attempt to show all sorts of Democratic favoritism, you did an exceptionally shitty job.


Small businesses instead of large. Teachers. Schools. Construction workers. Gee. You're right, there's nothing about this plan that shows any favoritism. You just left most of it out of the list you made is all.

Quote:
Building a world-class transportation system is part of what made us a economic superpower. And now we’re going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads? At a time when millions of unemployed construction workers could build them right here in America?


Translation: Let's spend more money on Amtrak and other mass transit systems.

Quote:
There are private construction companies all across America just waiting to get to work. There’s a bridge that needs repair between Ohio and Kentucky that’s on one of the busiest trucking routes in North America. A public transit project in Houston that will help clear up one of the worst areas of traffic in the country. And there are schools throughout this country that desperately need renovating. How can we expect our kids to do their best in places that are literally falling apart? This is America. Every child deserves a great school — and we can give it to them, if we act now.


Well, he mentioned a bridge, so that's something. Smiley: oyvey

Quote:
It will rehabilitate homes and businesses in communities hit hardest by foreclosures. It will jumpstart thousands of transportation projects all across the country. And to make sure the money is properly spent, we’re building on reforms we’ve already put in place. No more earmarks. No more boondoggles. No more bridges to nowhere. We’re cutting the red tape that prevents some of these projects from getting started as quickly as possible. And we’ll set up an independent fund to attract private dollars and issue loans based on two criteria: how badly a construction project is needed and how much good it will do for the economy.


So. We'll give money to poor people to own homes and eliminate red tape which might slow down the rate at which we spend money. Cause that'll ensure that there's less waste and that our money is used in the best way possible. And while we're at it, let's create Fannie/Freddie style systems for the construction industry! Cause that worked out so well for us last time.

Quote:
Pass this jobs bill, and companies will get a $4,000 tax credit if they hire anyone who has spent more than six months looking for a job. (Applause.) We have to do more to help the long-term unemployed in their search for work. This jobs plan builds on a program in Georgia that several Republican leaders have highlighted, where people who collect unemployment insurance participate in temporary work as a way to build their skills while they look for a permanent job.


I love how he points to a Republican plan that does nothing even remotely similar and claims that his plan builds on that plan. Is he really fooling anyone? There's a huge difference between saying that if you're on unemployment for more than X amount of time, we're going to require you to participate in a jobs program versus effectively rewarding people for staying unemployed for that length of time. The point is to *not* have more people staying unemployed. We want them to take jobs as soon as possible. Yes, even if they are lower paying than what they had. Because every person in the workforce instead of sitting on their hands is contributing to recovery. It just amazes me how Democrats can so easily and with straight faces claim that what they're doing is "just like what the GOP wants". It's not. It's not even close and it's scary that they either don't know the difference, or think that so many Americans wont be able to see that difference.

Quote:
Pass this jobs bill, and the typical working family will get a $1,500 tax cut next year. Fifteen hundred dollars that would have been taken out of your pocket will go into your pocket. This expands on the tax cut that Democrats and Republicans already passed for this year. If we allow that tax cut to expire -- if we refuse to act -- middle-class families will get hit with a tax increase at the worst possible time. We can’t let that happen. I know that some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live. Now is not the time to carve out an exception and raise middle-class taxes, which is why you should pass this bill right away.


What is the "typical working family" he's talking about? See, I've just seen Democrats play word games so many times that I assume the worst when they use vague phrases like this. I also love how he once again attempts to take what he's doing, which is presumably very very different from what Republicans have done, and makes it look like he's just doing more of the same thing. What form does this "tax cut" take? How does one qualify for it? How much do you want to bet that this is more welfare in disguise?

Quote:
This approach is basically the one I’ve been advocating for months. In addition to the trillion dollars of spending cuts I’ve already signed into law, it’s a balanced plan that would reduce the deficit by making additional spending cuts, by making modest adjustments to health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid, and by reforming our tax code in a way that asks the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share.


Modest cuts to medicare and medicaid? What cuts? For whom? Want to bet that those "cuts" will bear most heavily on those who've paid the most into those programs? And hey! While we're at it, let's make those wealthy people "pay their fair share". Ignore the fact that they already pay their fair share, and a good portion of everyone else's share as well.

You're right Joph! This is totally different rhetoric than we've heard in the past! Oh wait. No. It's really exactly the same.

Quote:
I am also -- I’m also well aware that there are many Republicans who don’t believe we should raise taxes on those who are most fortunate and can best afford it.


Ooooh! I love this one. Yeah, we oppose raising taxes based on who can best afford to pay. That's our motivation. Good to see he's not tossing any partisan barbs out there at all! Um... Earth to Obama. We oppose you raising taxes on those who we need most to create jobs.


Do I really have to go on? It's hard to not just quote nearly every single paragraph and point out how partisan it is. Even when he plays at being non-partisan, it's always with a backhanded swipe at Republicans: (You guys should like this because it's just more of what you want). IMO, this is one of the ugliest and most partisan speeches I've seen (ok, read) him give to date. He's playing pure politics with this one. It has nothing at all to do with jobs.


Which is kinda sad. Predictable, but sad.

Edited, Sep 9th 2011 2:08pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Sep 09 2011 at 3:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Legislatively, they'll get results on way or the other. Either they'll make the cuts voluntarily or else they'll happen automatically in a more draconian measure. Which makes complaints of "PAYGO" pretty silly since the bill will be paid (under the hypothetical theory that Congress takes it up at all).


But only the automatic effects that were legislated into the debt deal. I suppose we could assume that congress could toss an extra $500B into that default result if nothing is agreed to, but it's still Obama basically washing his hands of the hard part of governing and kicking the can down the road.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#41 Sep 09 2011 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Small businesses instead of large. Teachers. Schools. Construction workers.

You explicitly said the tax parts were designed to benefit those favored by Democrats....
You previously wrote:
He talks about how important it is to simplify the tax code and eliminate deductions, but then turns around and immediately proposes what are essentially just another set of deductions and exemptions to the tax code. So he's not so much for simplifying it as changing it to benefit groups he likes (to vote for him!). And predictably all the costs rest on his political enemies while the benefits go to his friends (with a bit sprinkled about for the regular people as well of course!).
...So strike your "Teacher! Construction worker!" crying.

This leaves us with you proclaiming Obama to be the champion of small businesses? Erm... ok. Got me there!

Annnnnnnnnnndddddd.... START SPINNING!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#42 Sep 09 2011 at 3:30 PM Rating: Excellent
**
589 posts
So small businesses that are a sector that employs the most people in this country is less important then large businesses which have been exporting jobs since the 80s?
____________________________
.
#43 Sep 09 2011 at 3:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,379 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
So small businesses that are a sector that employs the most people in this country is less important then large businesses which have been exporting jobs since the 80s?
If Obama is supporting small businesses, then yup. Spot on.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#44 Sep 09 2011 at 4:15 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Before Gbaji starts his "You're not looking at the deltas! How dare you focus on one thing I said!" tear, the reason why this is important is because the tax incentives make up about half of the bill and Gbaji will be the first to parrot "It was all Democratic hand-outs!" (as already evidenced). So, before crying about the rest let's pause to properly establish exactly how this half is a giant Democratic favor-fest except for when it's crushing Obama's enemies.

Edited, Sep 9th 2011 5:16pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Sep 09 2011 at 4:32 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
Gbaji's just reading from the GOP playbook.
- Obama bad!
- Corporate tax cuts good!
- Obama BAD!

____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#46 Sep 09 2011 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Gbaji's just reading from the GOP playbook.
- Obama bad!
- Corporate tax cuts good!
- Obama BAD!


This.

It wouldn't matter what the Democrats did. ANYTHING they do, even if it's something a Republican should like, will be held suspect by gbaji.
#47 Sep 09 2011 at 6:51 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Honestly, the only hiring that the majority of businesses do when they already have five million a year in payroll is not in the US. It's usually because a business that large is expanding overseas.

I especially don't think the businesses where the CEO alone makes five million or more a year deserve any kind of tax break, ever again, especially if the business in question posts losses all the **** time.

Hey big corporations! Hire me! I'll gladly take ten million in compensation and I guarantee I'll do a better job than the majority of the morons running your firms!

Edited, Sep 9th 2011 9:03pm by catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#48 Sep 09 2011 at 6:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Small businesses instead of large. Teachers. Schools. Construction workers.

You explicitly said the tax parts were designed to benefit those favored by Democrats....


And those he wants to get to vote for him. Or did you miss that despite just quoting it again?


Um... And if a tax deduction is given to a small business but not a large one, you don't see some partisanship there? If it's given to businesses with government contracts, you don't see some partisanship there either?

You're also looking only at the changes that give things to people. Let's not forget that the "simplifications" he's proposing (ie: removal of exemptions and deductions) are pretty clearly targeted at traditional enemies of the Democrats. You're trying to look at just one half of the picture here.

Quote:
This leaves us with you proclaiming Obama to be the champion of small businesses? Erm... ok. Got me there!


Really? So 100% of this bill is tax cuts for small businesses with no other effects, no elimination of tax cuts or deductions or exemptions to anyone else?

It's not really about small businesses is it? That's just the latest Democrat smokescreen. They don't want to appear anti-business, so they hype all the stuff they're doing to help small businesses, while causing much greater harm to big business.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#49 Sep 09 2011 at 7:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
RavennofTitan wrote:
So small businesses that are a sector that employs the most people in this country is less important then large businesses which have been exporting jobs since the 80s?


Small businesses are important, but not for the reasons the Democrats have latched on to.

Small businesses are a means to prosperity for those who own the businesses. They mostly only provide entry level jobs for those they employ. There's value in that too, but the overwhelming majority of people employed by a small business will move on to a larger business seeking better pay and benefits (if they can). Focusing on small business is good, but not if the cost if big business jobs.


The problem with the Dems approach is that it basically gives people lots of low paying jobs which will barely let them get by (gee, I wonder why?), while making it increasingly harder for them to move onward with their career path. This is great if your vision of America is one where as large a percentage of the population as possible will welcome government handouts to help their low salaries get them by. This is not so great if your vision of American is one where we provide as much opportunity to as many people to succeed on their own merits and abilities as possible.

It is a gross oversimplification to say you are either "for or against" small business. But gross simplifications are what the Dems are great at when tossing out political rhetoric.


Edited, Sep 9th 2011 6:10pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Sep 09 2011 at 7:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
******
21,262 posts
Huh, one of those "under five mil in payroll" businesses I worked for a few years back had a full roster of C-level execs, account managers, program managers, directors, supervisors, etc etc, in addition to the 50-odd "entry level" positions as well. The president of the company paid himself the princely sum of 150K a year, which is megabucks in this part of Georgia.

Incidentally, I swore I'd only go back if I got hired on as their Director of IT.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest and Taprara Rara on Lamia Server - Member of The Swarm
Curator of the XIV Wallpapers Tumblr and the XIV Fashion Tumblr
#51 Sep 09 2011 at 7:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And those he wants to get to vote for him. Or did you miss that despite just quoting it again?

I suppose he's guilty about wanting American workers and business owners to vote for him, the little scamp. You keep coming up with innovative ideas like that and Karl Rove is going to be out of a job.

Quote:
And if a tax deduction is given to a small business but not a large one, you don't see some partisanship there?

No, not at all. Hilariously, shouting about how "small businesses are the engine of the economy and why won't Obama help them?" is a standard page out of the pubbie playbook. I guess until Obama tries to help them, then he's "partisan" for not helping big business and his "favoring" small business is dirty politics Smiley: laugh

Quote:
You're also looking only at the changes that give things to people. Let's not forget that the "simplifications" he's proposing (ie: removal of exemptions and deductions) are pretty clearly targeted at traditional enemies of the Democrats.

Nice vague non-answer. Best you have, I guess. See, this is what happens when you just parrot the radio and blogs rather than learning something -- you make embarrassingly incorrect statements and are eventually forced into remarks like the above.

Quote:
So 100% of this bill is tax cuts for small businesses with no other effects, no elimination of tax cuts or deductions or exemptions to anyone else?

Confused much? I was mocking your complaint that this plan would help small businesses. Whatever "this is all small business deductions" strawman you have going is your own.

Well, way to show us all the vast Democratic conspiracy at work here. I think we've all learned a lot.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 1 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (1)