Journal roman_mir's Journal: Obama's Job Destruction Act 36
Obama's Jobs Destruction Act
In his speech Obama didn't say "stimulus" once. He wants to stay away from that word, last stimulus was a failure and unpopular.
Of-course deficits that finance the stimulus destroy more jobs than the tax cuts create.
None of it is paid for, cuts from future increases is not paying for anything, but there is net increase in deficit (and it's underestimated) 450 Billion USD year 2011.
Debt ceiling now will have to be raised again obviously next year, because this is 450Billion that are not accounted for in the last debt ceiling increase.
Tax credit for hiring people who are unemployed for more than 6 months. So now employers will have incentive NOT to hire anybody who hasn't been unemployed for 6 months
More unemployment!
7.25 - is minimum wage. 4000USD is given as tax credit, and you have to keep the person for 6 months minimum.
So hiring somebody at 7.25USD/hour and given 4000USD credit reduces minimum wage to 3.40USD/hour.
Minimum wage will be reduced, and so there WILL be more employment, but some people will be FIRED to give more space for new minimum wage hires because of the tax credit.
Bill will make it illegal to discriminate against long term unemployed. So what will happen is that people who are long term unemployed will NOT be interviewed. Who wants to have a lawsuit on their hands?
If anybody is unemployed for 4-5 months, now there is a reason not to hire them right away, to interview them and to keep them on UI for another 1-2 months and then to get the tax credit once they are at 6 months unemployment time.
Of-course fire anybody after 6 months, get new hires. It's all going to be minimum wage jobs, nobody who is hiring people at good salaries will care about 4000USD tax credit.
The 1 year cut in SS payroll tax will make SS that much more broke (it's broke now, but it can be made worse.)
To pretend that there is SS "trust fund", gov't will borrow money, put it into "trust fund", borrow from "trust fund" and spend it on stimulus. Many lies all around.
If you hire a returning veteran, the tax credit is 5600USD. Applied to minimum wage, it makes minimum wage 1.87USD/hour. This creates huge government incentive to have very high turnover.
Payroll taxes will be lost on existing jobs, ha ha. They'll have to print more money.
For returning veterans with injuries (wounded warrior), you get 9600USD tax credit. For a minimum wage job this makes the pay a NEGATIVE ONE
Hire as many wounded warriors as possible immediately and just pay them, but the employer gets 1.98/hour for every new hire. Hire all of them and have the Fed monetize the debt that will be created paying these tax credits.
How do you like them apples?
you're not very good at this (Score:2)
So, why do you hate our troops so much?
Re: (Score:1)
You are telling the guy who is constantly advocating (and donating to Ron Paul's campaign), that all wars must stop and troops must come home that he 'hates troops'?
Hmmm.
No, what you don't understand is that majority of the returning injured veterans are young people with no other experience but fighting in wars, and now they will be faced with the current job market, and for the most of them the choices are so limited especially due to the injuries. Without injuries they could at least look at the prospect
Re: (Score:2)
You are telling the guy who is constantly advocating (and donating to Ron Paul's campaign), that all wars must stop and troops must come home that he 'hates troops'?
No, I'm telling the guy who assumes that troops don't know anything useful when they leave the service - and hence assumes that they must take minimum wage jobs - that he hates the troops by virtue of his ignorance. If you knew anything about the armed services you would know that most troops are assigned to specific duties beyond just shooting other people. The vast majority of those duties have very real connections to decent jobs in the real world, for those who would opt to go directly from the servi
Re: (Score:1)
Here is what I see in your comments: Blah blah, you are a troll, blah blah.
Here is what you miss: the 4000, the 5600, the 9600 tax credit is enough to provide incentives for somebody who is looking for minimum wage employees and it does nothing for those, who are looking for people that must be paid more based on their market price.
This very amount of the tax credit is going to select only for the minimum wage employees and will have no effect on decisions made about skilled and well paid employees, and you
Re: (Score:2)
Here is what I see in your comments: Blah blah, you are a troll, blah blah.
Wow, what a brilliant way to conduct yourself in conversation. I see now why people love you so much around here, even though you support the candidate with the most vocal supporters on slashdot.
Here is what you miss: the 4000, the 5600, the 9600 tax credit is enough to provide incentives for somebody who is looking for minimum wage employees and it does nothing for those, who are looking for people that must be paid more based on their market price.
I have not seen anything to say that the tax credit applies only to minimum wage jobs. You imply it but provide no reason to believe that it couldn't be used for higher paid workers.
This very amount of the tax credit is going to select only for the minimum wage employees and will have no effect on decisions made about skilled and well paid employees,
You have provided no reason to believe that. Why wouldn't an employer be able to use that to hire someone at a higher wage? 4,00
Re: (Score:1)
I have not seen anything to say that the tax credit applies only to minimum wage jobs. You imply it but provide no reason to believe that it couldn't be used for higher paid workers.
- again, you are completely missing the point. Are you working for a government office anywhere?
The point is that 4000 - 10000 tax credit does not even enter the equation when you have to consider who to hire for a job, that is not a minimum wage one, but instead is a highly skilled job, where experience counts. When you hire somebody for 80,000, the 4,000 credit (because most people are not veterans or wounded warriors) is really the very last thing you'll be thinking about just because of how expensive i
Re: (Score:1)
I challenge you to find a candidate who has run for US president - from any party - who has ever had as much vocal support from slashdot members as Ron Paul. I won't hold my breath on this one, because you won't find one.
- you are also not very bright.
OBAMA
Re: (Score:2)
I challenge you to find a candidate who has run for US president - from any party - who has ever had as much vocal support from slashdot members as Ron Paul. I won't hold my breath on this one, because you won't find one.
- you are also not very bright.
OBAMA
You are either delusional or a troll. While Ron Paul was running in 2008 he was on the slashdot front page almost every day. During the same time frame Obama rarely got any attention, and most of his attention here was negative in nature.
Many people on slashdot were at the time - and still to this day - subscribing to the FUD of Obama being a communist fascist gunning to take over every aspect of everyone's lives. They saw Ron Paul as The One who could reverse all of this.
Re: (Score:1)
Listen, go talk to your usual buddies, whoever you compete for dickishness with here. You are going to tell me I am troll for saying Obama is the preferred politician in these waters? Ha ha. I have yet to post a comment that is not replied to and moderated by scores of Obamites telling me exactly what you just said, that I am trolling them, when in fact I present data, numbers and obviousness.
Ron Paul gets his support because unlike all of other politicians he is an honest player, sticks to his principles
Re: (Score:2)
Listen, go talk to your usual buddies, whoever you compete for dickishness with here.
Wow, you are so kind sir. It is no wonder people love you so.
You are going to tell me I am troll for saying Obama is the preferred politician in these waters? Ha ha
Yes, you are. Obama is about as popular around here as ebola.
I have yet to post a comment that is not replied to and moderated by scores of Obamites telling me exactly what you just said, that I am trolling them
You have no way to know who is moderating you, or what their motives are. I can tell you that you are indeed a troll, so if you are being moderated as such you deserve it. Even other Ron Paulites would acknowledge that you are crass and trolling.
when in fact I present data, numbers
Still waiting for sources on your claims.
and obviousness.
I have never seen you present anything that could reasonably be called "obviousness".
Ron Paul gets his support because unlike all of other politicians he is an honest player, sticks to his principles no matter how much he gets hurt by that.
It does
Re: (Score:1)
I don't need to be liked, I present data, you take it the way you want it. Now go away, troll, bother somebody else.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need to be liked
You do a good job of making yourself unlikeable. You have legions of fellow Ron Paul supporters here and yet you manage to piss off large numbers of people here on slashdot.
I present data
That is an inaccurate statement, to be kind. Others might call it an outright lie. What you present is your own fact-devoid interpretation of a situation. You are presenting an opinion, and trying to sell it as God's Own Truth.
Now go away, troll, bother somebody else.
If you don't want to have a discussion, you should post your journal entries as "comments disabled". The
Re: (Score:1)
data [slashdot.org], I always [slashdot.org] present [slashdot.org] data [slashdot.org] and more data [slashdot.org].
And you are in my journal, which is full of data and interpretation of it. Comments are enabled, true, but not for trolls. Bye.
Re: (Score:2)
data, I always present data and more data.
And how does any of that relate to this discussion? Oh, it doesn't. What you have presented here thus far in this discussion is not data.
And you are in my journal
Indeed I am. I am here because I am allowed to be. I am here because I errantly thought you posted it wanting to have a discussion.
which is full of data and interpretation of it
Full of interpretation, yes. Full of data, no.
Comments are enabled, true,
Not sure why you did that, since you don't want to discuss what you posted.
R
but not for trolls
So you're going to stop commenting in this discussion then? I would highly recommend you do so.
Bye
Where are you
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that returning injured veterans would take minimum wage jobs. Which of course means you are assuming they aren't qualified for anything that pays better; ergo you are assuming they haven't been trained in anything valuable.
So, why do you hate our troops so much?
Wow, you're an idiot. None of that is even close to what was said. roman_mir's point was that the tax credit makes the most economic sense for employers who pay minimum wage, ergo they'll use it the most. And since the tax credit for injured vets is even higher, they'll get more of the minimum wage jobs.
I'm a vet myself. Of the 20 guys who were in my division on my first ship, I'm the only one making six figures. Most of the rest have jobs like home pest inspectors, welders, security guards, and one teacher
Re: (Score:1)
The insulting part of this, is that Obama will do this to the returning veterans, will give tax credits to hire them, pressuring the market to hire them at minimum or near minimum wage, will completely subsidize hiring of wounded warriors and pretend that his job is done. He is doing it to win the next elections, he'll have those people employed for 6 months, just enough for his elections maybe. Of-course other minimum wage employees will be laid off, because why not lay them off, they are minimum wage, min
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, you're an idiot.
Wow, such a kind way to enter into a discussion. No wonder you are here to support the author's vaporous claims.
roman_mir's point was that the tax credit makes the most economic sense for employers who pay minimum wage, ergo they'll use it the most
That is his claim. It is not a statement of fact just simply because he says it. If someone needs an employee for a $50k position but they can't afford to pay more than $46k, the $4k tax credit would be great for them, too.
And since the tax credit for injured vets is even higher, they'll get more of the minimum wage jobs.
His claim, however, was that all injured vets would be hired into minimum wage jobs for 6 months and then canned. Sure if an employer has a minimum wage job and happens t
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, such a kind way to enter into a discussion.
I've found it's best to put the central theme of a thesis in the first sentence.
If someone needs an employee for a $50k position but they can't afford to pay more than $46k, the $4k tax credit would be great for them, too.
I can't even wrap my head around this argument. Do you honestly think a business would hire someone just because of this tax credit? Really?
However the argument that the author of this JE is attempting to make is that they account for nearly 100% of injured vets, which is insulting to say the least.
I read the same JE you did, and was not left with anything close to that impression. You seem to be projecting an awful lot here. Maybe you should try rereading it without using whatever blinders you have about roman_mir's intentions.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow, such a kind way to enter into a discussion.
I've found it's best to put the central theme of a thesis in the first sentence.
A thesis should be supported. You have not supported yours so far.
If someone needs an employee for a $50k position but they can't afford to pay more than $46k, the $4k tax credit would be great for them, too.
I can't even wrap my head around this argument. Do you honestly think a business would hire someone just because of this tax credit? Really?
It's not my fault you suck at reading comprehension. I did not say someone would hire someone just because of the tax credit - though this craptacular JE revolves around that premise - rather I said that the tax credit could make the difference for someone who is on the fence about expanding.
Maybe you should try rereading it without using whatever blinders you have about roman_mir's intentions.
roman_mir is a troll, plain and simple. I read his writings as such.
Re: (Score:1)
do not engage into this, it's a worthless waste of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed.
Re: (Score:1)
What a glorious [house.gov] son of a bitch! :)
Committee on OVERSIGHT & GOVERNMENT REFORM. 9-13-2011 "Take Two: The President's Proposal to Stimulate the Economy and Create Jobs" [house.gov]
500 BILLION DEBT CEILING RAISED!!!!!! (Score:1)
Debt ceiling QUIETLY raised by 500 BILLION for Obama's Jobs Destruction Bill :) [wsj.com]
What are jobs destroying regulations (Score:1)
some thoughts [slashdot.org] and examples [slashdot.org] on what job destroying regulations look like.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing, of course.
Re: (Score:1)
trust me, I am not writing it for you or to prove anything. However I did make a mistake, I wanted to link to 2 different comments of mine.
Re: (Score:2)
trust me, I am not writing it for you
That part is pretty obvious. You have made it very clear you don't want a discussion here.
or to prove anything
That's good since you are doing a horseshit job of proving anything beyond your own failure to comprehend the written language.
However I did make a mistake
I am impressed you are capable of admitting that. Not that I expect you to admit to all the other mistakes you have made in this JE and JE discussion, but the fact that you are willing to admit to one mistake of minimal importance does offer a small glimmer of hope.
I wanted to link to 2 different comments of mine.
That part was pretty ob
Re: (Score:1)
That part is pretty obvious. You have made it very clear you don't want a discussion here.
- there is no discussion with trolls.
That part was pretty obvious. You seem very fond of self-referencing.
- I actually like to remember when I say something, it really helps to put perspective on the current events. You, on the other hand, don't seem to be able to say anything that's worth anybody referencing it.
Re: (Score:2)
That part is pretty obvious. You have made it very clear you don't want a discussion here.
- there is no discussion with trolls.
Indeed it is impossible to have a conversation with you, as much as I try.
That part was pretty obvious. You seem very fond of self-referencing.
- I actually like to remember when I say something, it really helps to put perspective on the current events.
Slashdot has tools that allow you to browse through your old comments, and you can of course use google for that as well.
You, on the other hand, don't seem to be able to say anything that's worth anybody referencing it.
I am not aware of anyone referencing your comments, at least not in a positive manner. Just because you like to refer back to yourself does not mean that anyone else views you as a source of knowledge.
Re: (Score:1)
You are still here, still talking, still like to talk about some 'conversation', yet you still did not say a single useful thing at all on the entire topic, but there are plenty of your drivel here, all on topic how my comments are 'trolling'. Dude, you are the classical definition of a troll. When they write the next trollcyclopedia, they should have your picture on page 187.
Re: (Score:2)
You are still here, still talking
Indeed
still like to talk about some 'conversation'
I errantly expected that you posted this JE as "comments enabled" because you wanted to have a conversation. Obviously, that was an incorrect expectation; you just want to talk to yourself, which you could have done just as well with "comments disabled".
yet you still did not say a single useful thing at all on the entire topic
I asked you why you assume all injured troops to be worthless and incapable of holding better-than-minimum-wage jobs. Your JE depends on that statement to be true.
Apparently, your idea of a "useful thing" in conversation is only something that a
Re: (Score:1)
It doesn't matter what /. says, here is what makes you the real troll:
I asked you why you assume all injured troops to be worthless and incapable of holding better-than-minimum-wage jobs. Your JE depends on that statement to be true.
- this is what makes you a troll, regardless of multiple actually quite patient explanations that this jobs destruction bill does not enter the equation when hiring a skilled professional, but it makes it possible to completely abuse the system, yet you chose to push you agenda that I am somehow insisting that all veterans are "worthless and incapable".
Now I have exhausted all reasons to answer any more of your comments, which I am sure
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter what /. says
Actually, it does. You complain a lot about people moderating you down for being a troll. If you would write things that do not so obviously meet the slashdot definition of troll, you might be moderated troll less often.
here is what makes you the real troll:
I asked you why you assume all injured troops to be worthless and incapable of holding better-than-minimum-wage jobs. Your JE depends on that statement to be true.
- this is what makes you a troll, regardless of multiple actually quite patient explanations that this jobs destruction bill does not enter the equation when hiring a skilled professional
No, it very clearly does enter into the equation when hiring a skilled professional. If someone can get a $4k, $5.6k, or $9.6k tax break by hiring a skilled professional, why wouldn't they take the break if they needed to hire someone? If an employer is on the fence on hiring because t
Re: (Score:1)
Read and weep, motherfucker. [house.gov]
Government Oversight Committee [house.gov]
Forbes: What Obama Should Really Do To Spur Job Growth [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Read and weep, motherfucker.
Peter Schiff is a conservative hack. In the document you linked to he lists his time spent working for your hero Ron Paul as experience under "politics". There is nothing meaningful or intelligent in that document.
Government Oversight Committee
That links to a bunch of other conservative hacks who were there to try to slow down the process. Note that your earlier friend Peter Schiff is on that list, along with other conservative hacks.
Forbes: What Obama Should Really Do To Spur Job Growth
Note that piece is written by (surprise, surprise) Peter Schiff. Taking economic advice from him