What about the Proposed Jobs Bill do Repubs not like?

[Jarhead]

I noticed you didn't address the rebuttal to your original lie that it was the Democrats holding up the bill, and latched on to something that is subjective so you can denigrate it. But you are of course wrong there too.

It's Official: Obama Is Creaming Bush When It Comes To Jobs - Business Insider

I can only hope the Republican gamble to do anything to stop the President, give him a Waterloo moment so to speak, from getting re-elected fails and the voter turn the house back over to the Democrats.

I figured you were kidding about the Dems holding up the bill because it was so well known. Here's the link:
Obama Campaign Says GOP Blocking Jobs Bill--After Reid Blocks Jobs Bill | The Weekly Standard
And your article was a joke. Comparing Bush's worst month in the onset of a recession to Obama's whole term is an absurd argument only a moron would believe.

Psssss, today is October 18th, not the 4th.

Again you're caught in lie, The chart in the article I posted shows over two years split between the two Preisdents. 13 months of each, not President Bushes worst month to President Obama nearly three years. Care to revise your statement?

yo..

You can cite all of the graphs and charts you want.

Bottom line....

Unemployment is at 9.1%...and that does not include the underemnployed or those that have given up.

So do yourself a favor...stop looking for ways to ignore thwe bottom line and start realizing that unemployment is at 9.1%..

FYI....you need to read the fine print of your charts and graphs.....

And before you ask me why...let me put it to you this way....

According to the CBO report....3.6 million jobs were created....yet unempl;oyment didnt budge.

Seems to me they forgot to mentiuon that 3.6 million jhobs were also LOST during that span.

Or does it make you happy to know that a tremporary job was created for one man (at a cost to the taxpayer) while a permanent job for another man is lost.

 

[8537]

I agree...they paid off the right people....but that is a diversion...

the question is WHY did they feel the need to pay off the right people and get the waivers?

Because it's going to cost money and they see an option to save money instead. Given the choice of spending money on HC or not spending money on HC, a firm in a vacuum will not spend money on HC. These large firms simply see an opening for regulatory capture and they're jumping at it.

No sir.....not as I uynderstand it.

They asked for a waiver becuase they wanted a year plus to analyze how the employees react once the health care law went into affect so they can properly prepare for the transition..and properly estimate annual costs.

I mean...what good is a wiaver if you need to do it a year or two later anyway?

The waiver saves them money. Regulatory capture usually tries to hide itself at least a little bit, but this time it's right out in the open for all to see. When the year is up, they'll request a second....and they'll almost certainly get it.

 

[BlindBoo]

I figured you were kidding about the Dems holding up the bill because it was so well known. Here's the link:
Obama Campaign Says GOP Blocking Jobs Bill--After Reid Blocks Jobs Bill | The Weekly Standard
And your article was a joke. Comparing Bush's worst month in the onset of a recession to Obama's whole term is an absurd argument only a moron would believe.

Psssss, today is October 18th, not the 4th.

Again you're caught in lie, The chart in the article I posted shows over two years split between the two Preisdents. 13 months of each, not President Bushes worst month to President Obama nearly three years. Care to revise your statement?

yo..

You can cite all of the graphs and charts you want.

Bottom line....

Unemployment is at 9.1%...and that does not include the underemnployed or those that have given up.

So do yourself a favor...stop looking for ways to ignore thwe bottom line and start realizing that unemployment is at 9.1%..

FYI....you need to read the fine print of your charts and graphs.....

And before you ask me why...let me put it to you this way....

According to the CBO report....3.6 million jobs were created....yet unempl;oyment didnt budge.

Seems to me they forgot to mentiuon that 3.6 million jhobs were also LOST during that span.

Or does it make you happy to know that a tremporary job was created for one man (at a cost to the taxpayer) while a permanent job for another man is lost.

What makes me happy is being able to prove Rabbi's lies. Fact is Democrats didn't vote against the jobs bill(well, 2 of them did along with all the Republicans). Also the charts or article did not compare President Bushes worst month with President Obamas entire term.

The rest I'll leave up to you to decide.

 

[8537]

FD's make work failure averaged 20% unemployment from his inauguration until Hitler ended the FDR Depression by conquering France.

Might want to pick a better example

The unemployment rate fell about 10 percentage points - a decline of 40% - during FDR's first term. This was thanks in part to the most rapid four year period of peacetime expansion in US history.

You can't blame FDR for the fact that our production was virtually cut in half during the three years preceding his first term.

unemployment was exactly as high as it was 8 years after the New Deal...WW 2 ended the GD.

I have no earthly idea where you got that information. It was 25% in 1933. It was 19% in 1937. It was 14% in 1940.

Can you explain, economically speaking, how WW2 ended the Depression?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

My son, 26, in law school was deriding me as a Conservative for not understanding how great ObamaCare is because I can continue to carry him on my insurance policy.

My response was, "If we had a really free market for health insurance, companies would be lining up to blow you to get your business because you're a young healthy guy and a very low risk to them. You'd have your choice of policies and pay less than peanuts for it."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The unemployment rate fell about 10 percentage points - a decline of 40% - during FDR's first term. This was thanks in part to the most rapid four year period of peacetime expansion in US history.

You can't blame FDR for the fact that our production was virtually cut in half during the three years preceding his first term.

unemployment was exactly as high as it was 8 years after the New Deal...WW 2 ended the GD.

I have no earthly idea where you got that information. It was 25% in 1933. It was 19% in 1937. It was 14% in 1940.

Can you explain, economically speaking, how WW2 ended the Depression?

You're seriously fucked up to compare the invasion of Poland, the lowlands, battle of Britain and Fall of France with some FDR style public works program.

 

[8537]

unemployment was exactly as high as it was 8 years after the New Deal...WW 2 ended the GD.

I have no earthly idea where you got that information. It was 25% in 1933. It was 19% in 1937. It was 14% in 1940.

Can you explain, economically speaking, how WW2 ended the Depression?

You're seriously fucked up to compare the invasion of Poland, the lowlands, battle of Britain and Fall of France with some FDR style public works program.

I don't expect you to understand, Frank. Doing so would require admitting you might be wrong

 

[Jarhead]

Because it's going to cost money and they see an option to save money instead. Given the choice of spending money on HC or not spending money on HC, a firm in a vacuum will not spend money on HC. These large firms simply see an opening for regulatory capture and they're jumping at it.

No sir.....not as I uynderstand it.

They asked for a waiver becuase they wanted a year plus to analyze how the employees react once the health care law went into affect so they can properly prepare for the transition..and properly estimate annual costs.

I mean...what good is a wiaver if you need to do it a year or two later anyway?

The waiver saves them money. Regulatory capture usually tries to hide itself at least a little bit, but this time it's right out in the open for all to see. When the year is up, they'll request a second....and they'll almost certainly get it.

when you put in a request for a waiver you do not simply say "I want a waiver and here is some money to make it happen"..

A waiver, whether or not you pay off someone to process it, must rationalize WHY you want the waiver..

Now certainly the reason they put down is not "becuase it is cheaper to pay off to get a waiver than it is to adhere to the law"....

So what reaosn do you think they put down?

They need time to evaluate how the law affects their operating costs.

And all is relative to size...so the smaller companies have the same issue at a smaller scale....but with the same percentage affect on operating costs.....

it is an issue...and why companies are afraid to hire. They can not accurately determine what their operating costs will be once the law is in full swing.

Bear in mind...every employee has a return...and ROI if you will.

If an employee costs you 50K and your gross goes up 55K...you have a 10% return on that employee. Now....if all of a sudden you need to shell out 5K for insurance....you have a 0 return on that employee.

Now lets use a more rational example....

Most employees are in the 25-35K range.

SO you have a 30K employee.....you get a 33K return on him. 10%. Now, all of a sudden you have to foot 5K of his insurance....now you have a negative 6% return on him.

It is not an easy thing to anticipate....off by 10% of the anticipated number of those you will need to insure can mean going under.

 

[8537]

No sir.....not as I uynderstand it.

They asked for a waiver becuase they wanted a year plus to analyze how the employees react once the health care law went into affect so they can properly prepare for the transition..and properly estimate annual costs.

I mean...what good is a wiaver if you need to do it a year or two later anyway?

The waiver saves them money. Regulatory capture usually tries to hide itself at least a little bit, but this time it's right out in the open for all to see. When the year is up, they'll request a second....and they'll almost certainly get it.

when you put in a request for a waiver you do not simply say "I want a waiver and here is some money to make it happen"..

A waiver, whether or not you pay off someone to process it, must rationalize WHY you want the waiver..

Now certainly the reason they put down is not "becuase it is cheaper to pay off to get a waiver than it is to adhere to the law"....

So what reaosn do you think they put down?

They need time to evaluate how the law affects their operating costs.

And all is relative to size...so the smaller companies have the same issue at a smaller scale....but with the same percentage affect on operating costs.....

it is an issue...and why companies are afraid to hire. They can not accurately determine what their operating costs will be once the law is in full swing.

Companies aren't hiring because no one's buying their products. It's a demand problem, just like it was in 2001, in 1990, in 1981....The fundamental driver of demand for labor is demand for good and services.

The regulatory environment is window dressing. Survey 100 businesses in any given town and 75 will say that demand is the problem. Five will blame some boogeyman. Maybe 10 will tell you it's the regulatory environment.

Now, scale this up to BoA or Goldman or Exxon and the case changes - but they're working under capture anyway and I'd prefer to see them smaller.

 

[edthecynic]

I'm just wondering what the objections are to the dems proposed Jobs bill? It's deficit neutral and seems to be designed to make an impact immediately.

Jobs Bill Overview

So, I was wondering which parts, specifically, those who are against it have the biggest issue with.

You should ask the Democrats in the Senate since they are the ones holding it up. Actually I think it was voted down. Mainly by Democrats btw.

How about, it is a repetition of policies that have already failed to improve employment and have caused the downgrade of thsi country's debt and massive deficits?

Neg rep for your stupid pointless and inflammatory avatar.

You should know better than to parrot your MessiahRushie's lies!!!

The pathological liar McConnell led a GOP filibuster to block the vote on the bill he previously said he wanted a speedy vote on. In a political stunt the turtle said he wanted a vote on the bill when he thought there would not be enough Dem votes, but once he figured out he was wrong he flip-flopped like all good CON$ do.

Senate Republicans vote to filibuster Obama jobs bill: U.S. Senate | Alaska news at adn.com
By ANDREW TAYLOR and BEN FELLER
Associated Press
By ANDREW TAYLOR and BEN FELLER
Published: October 11th, 2011 06:22 PM
Last Modified: October 11th, 2011 06:24 PM
WASHINGTON -- United against Barack Obama, Senate Republicans voted Tuesday night to kill the jobs package the president had spent weeks campaigning for across the country, a stinging loss at the hands of lawmakers opposed to stimulus-style spending and a tax increase on the very wealthy.



Forty-six Republicans joined with two Democrats to filibuster the $447 billion plan. Fifty Democrats had voted for it, but the vote was not final. The roll call was kept open to allow Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. to vote. The likely 51-48 eventual tally would be far short of the 60 votes needed to keep the bill alive in the 100-member Senate.



Read more: Senate Republicans vote to filibuster Obama jobs bill: U.S. Senate | Alaska news at adn.com

 

[Samson]

I'm just wondering what the objections are to the dems proposed Jobs bill? It's deficit neutral and seems to be designed to make an impact immediately.

Jobs Bill Overview

So, I was wondering which parts, specifically, those who are against it have the biggest issue with.

You should ask the Democrats in the Senate since they are the ones holding it up. Actually I think it was voted down. Mainly by Democrats btw.

How about, it is a repetition of policies that have already failed to improve employment and have caused the downgrade of thsi country's debt and massive deficits?

Neg rep for your stupid pointless and inflammatory avatar.

You should know better than to parrot your MessiahRushie's lies!!!

The pathological liar McConnell led a GOP filibuster to block the vote on the bill he previously said he wanted a speedy vote on. In a political stunt the turtle said he wanted a vote on the bill when he thought there would not be enough Dem votes, but once he figured out he was wrong he flip-flopped like all good CON$ do.

Senate Republicans vote to filibuster Obama jobs bill: U.S. Senate | Alaska news at adn.com
By ANDREW TAYLOR and BEN FELLER
Associated Press
By ANDREW TAYLOR and BEN FELLER
Published: October 11th, 2011 06:22 PM
Last Modified: October 11th, 2011 06:24 PM
WASHINGTON -- United against Barack Obama, Senate Republicans voted Tuesday night to kill the jobs package the president had spent weeks campaigning for across the country, a stinging loss at the hands of lawmakers opposed to stimulus-style spending and a tax increase on the very wealthy.



Forty-six Republicans joined with two Democrats to filibuster the $447 billion plan. Fifty Democrats had voted for it, but the vote was not final. The roll call was kept open to allow Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. to vote. The likely 51-48 eventual tally would be far short of the 60 votes needed to keep the bill alive in the 100-member Senate.



Read more: Senate Republicans vote to filibuster Obama jobs bill: U.S. Senate | Alaska news at adn.com

Politicians being political.



That's the best you got?

 

[Jarhead]

The waiver saves them money. Regulatory capture usually tries to hide itself at least a little bit, but this time it's right out in the open for all to see. When the year is up, they'll request a second....and they'll almost certainly get it.

when you put in a request for a waiver you do not simply say "I want a waiver and here is some money to make it happen"..

A waiver, whether or not you pay off someone to process it, must rationalize WHY you want the waiver..

Now certainly the reason they put down is not "becuase it is cheaper to pay off to get a waiver than it is to adhere to the law"....

So what reaosn do you think they put down?

They need time to evaluate how the law affects their operating costs.

And all is relative to size...so the smaller companies have the same issue at a smaller scale....but with the same percentage affect on operating costs.....

it is an issue...and why companies are afraid to hire. They can not accurately determine what their operating costs will be once the law is in full swing.

Companies aren't hiring because no one's buying their products. It's a demand problem, just like it was in 2001, in 1990, in 1981....The fundamental driver of demand for labor is demand for good and services.

The regulatory environment is window dressing. Survey 100 businesses in any given town and 75 will say that demand is the problem. Five will blame some boogeyman. Maybe 10 will tell you it's the regulatory environment.

Now, scale this up to BoA or Goldman or Exxon and the case changes - but they're working under capture anyway and I'd prefer to see them smaller.

it is a demand issue for some perhaps....but not for many others.

I find myself waiting on line at a retail store longer......not becuase sales are up...but becuase the amount of employees are down....but employee numbers are dwon MORE than sales are or the lines would be fewer, but the same length of time to get through them.

Had to have my boiler serviced for the upcoming winter. Got an appointment first week in Novemeber. Asked him why so long. He said business is down and He has less employees ......

But that did not answer my question of why so long...for if he laid off in accordance with business dropping, he would have less empoloyees, less customers, but still the normal wait time for service.

In other words, he is not meeting the demand of his clients as he used to...none of them are
Companies are able to hire...have the business to hire....so what is holding them back?

Uncetainty. Thats all it is...uncertainty.

and 400 billion in stimulus wont do a dam thing.

 

[thereisnospoon]

True. I wonder how much support he'll give to any element of the Republican alternative

Senate Republicans, having rejected President Barack Obama's jobs bill, offered a sweeping and largely repackaged plan of their own on Thursday

Well I think it is a given that the media and the WH - and the Senate...will frame this as heartless, uncaring and all around un-American bill not worth looking at.

Indeed...and it will not be a difficult sell.

Why are Repubs so consistantly ignorant? A modest tax increase on +$1 million income earners would allow them to claim the high ground that Obama wants to hold.

That's a political conclusion. We aren't interested in politics anymore.
the federal government has more than enough of our money. The government must learn to exercise fiscal discipline. Of course those on the Left do not want to discuss THAT.

 

[Rocko]

The unemployment rate fell about 10 percentage points - a decline of 40% - during FDR's first term. This was thanks in part to the most rapid four year period of peacetime expansion in US history.

You can't blame FDR for the fact that our production was virtually cut in half during the three years preceding his first term.

unemployment was exactly as high as it was 8 years after the New Deal...WW 2 ended the GD.

I have no earthly idea where you got that information. It was 25% in 1933. It was 19% in 1937. It was 14% in 1940.

Can you explain, economically speaking, how WW2 ended the Depression?

I think your 24 % may be the real unemployment rate....I can't provide a link now, but there's evidence that the New Deal did not sustain lower unemployment, and there's also evidence that FDR's New Deal prolonged the pain felt.

It's real simple to understand, WW 2 started a manufacturing boom, where demand of our products, from our allies was at an all time high.

 

[8537]

when you put in a request for a waiver you do not simply say "I want a waiver and here is some money to make it happen"..

A waiver, whether or not you pay off someone to process it, must rationalize WHY you want the waiver..

Now certainly the reason they put down is not "becuase it is cheaper to pay off to get a waiver than it is to adhere to the law"....

So what reaosn do you think they put down?

They need time to evaluate how the law affects their operating costs.

And all is relative to size...so the smaller companies have the same issue at a smaller scale....but with the same percentage affect on operating costs.....

it is an issue...and why companies are afraid to hire. They can not accurately determine what their operating costs will be once the law is in full swing.

Companies aren't hiring because no one's buying their products. It's a demand problem, just like it was in 2001, in 1990, in 1981....The fundamental driver of demand for labor is demand for good and services.

The regulatory environment is window dressing. Survey 100 businesses in any given town and 75 will say that demand is the problem. Five will blame some boogeyman. Maybe 10 will tell you it's the regulatory environment.

Now, scale this up to BoA or Goldman or Exxon and the case changes - but they're working under capture anyway and I'd prefer to see them smaller.

it is a demand issue for some perhaps....but not for many others.

I find myself waiting on line at a retail store longer......not becuase sales are up...but becuase the amount of employees are down....but employee numbers are dwon MORE than sales are or the lines would be fewer, but the same length of time to get through them.

Had to have my boiler serviced for the upcoming winter. Got an appointment first week in Novemeber. Asked him why so long. He said business is down and He has less employees ......

But that did not answer my question of why so long...for if he laid off in accordance with business dropping, he would have less empoloyees, less customers, but still the normal wait time for service.

In other words, he is not meeting the demand of his clients as he used to...none of them are
Companies are able to hire...have the business to hire....so what is holding them back?

Uncetainty. Thats all it is...uncertainty.

and 400 billion in stimulus wont do a dam thing.

I think we agree on two important factors: Demand and uncertainty.

Based on your experience, you believe the vast majority of uncertainty is political/regulatory. Based on my experience, I believe the vast majority of uncertainty is macroeconomic conditions.

I'll take the places two we agree and accept that two thoughtful people can disagree on the third.

 

[8537]

unemployment was exactly as high as it was 8 years after the New Deal...WW 2 ended the GD.

I have no earthly idea where you got that information. It was 25% in 1933. It was 19% in 1937. It was 14% in 1940.

Can you explain, economically speaking, how WW2 ended the Depression?

I think your 24 % may be the real unemployment rate....I can't provide a link now, but there's evidence that the New Deal did not sustain lower unemployment, and there's also evidence that FDR's New Deal prolonged the pain felt.

There was no "real" unemployment rate in 1933. Any figure you see is an extrapolation from other data sources.

As for the evidence that FDR's New Deal prolonged the pain, The Mackinak and UCLA studies both fail to address a simple fact: That the economy grew at record pace for the four years after FDR took office - a peacetime growth rate not seen since.

It's real simple to understand, WW 2 started a manufacturing boom, where demand of our products, from our allies was at an all time high.

So demand for products ended the Depression?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I'm just wondering what the objections are to the dems proposed Jobs bill? It's deficit neutral and seems to be designed to make an impact immediately.

Jobs Bill Overview

So, I was wondering which parts, specifically, those who are against it have the biggest issue with.

You should ask the Democrats in the Senate since they are the ones holding it up. Actually I think it was voted down. Mainly by Democrats btw.

How about, it is a repetition of policies that have already failed to improve employment and have caused the downgrade of thsi country's debt and massive deficits?

Neg rep for your stupid pointless and inflammatory avatar.

Actually every single Republican voted against debating the bill while almost all Democrats vote to debate it. It will now be taken up peicemeal.

Futhermore, how far up would the unemployement gone had we not had the stimulus, we'll never know. However it was the political theater brought about in an unnecessary confrontation on the debt ceiling that caused the downgrading of our credit rating. The President faced a massive debt when taking office and he did add to it, but hardly caused it. Lets see, President Bush nearly doubled the debt. Where were all the whiners then? You gonna give President Obama the same laditude? I'm not, he needs to cut the debt.

Unemployment continued to rise in spite of TWO stimulus packages. TWO!
So you can stop wondering.
And please do not ask "I wonder then how much MORE unemployment would have risen?"...The government can only help grow an economy by keeping it's hands off the economy.
History shows each time government has attempted to manipulate the marketplace, those good intentions paved the way to unintended consequences.
As a matter of fact, the only instances where government work grew the economy are in war time when government contracts went out to defense contractors who in turn had no choice but to hire and train new employees.

 

[Jarhead]

Companies aren't hiring because no one's buying their products. It's a demand problem, just like it was in 2001, in 1990, in 1981....The fundamental driver of demand for labor is demand for good and services.

The regulatory environment is window dressing. Survey 100 businesses in any given town and 75 will say that demand is the problem. Five will blame some boogeyman. Maybe 10 will tell you it's the regulatory environment.

Now, scale this up to BoA or Goldman or Exxon and the case changes - but they're working under capture anyway and I'd prefer to see them smaller.

it is a demand issue for some perhaps....but not for many others.

I find myself waiting on line at a retail store longer......not becuase sales are up...but becuase the amount of employees are down....but employee numbers are dwon MORE than sales are or the lines would be fewer, but the same length of time to get through them.

Had to have my boiler serviced for the upcoming winter. Got an appointment first week in Novemeber. Asked him why so long. He said business is down and He has less employees ......

But that did not answer my question of why so long...for if he laid off in accordance with business dropping, he would have less empoloyees, less customers, but still the normal wait time for service.

In other words, he is not meeting the demand of his clients as he used to...none of them are
Companies are able to hire...have the business to hire....so what is holding them back?

Uncetainty. Thats all it is...uncertainty.

and 400 billion in stimulus wont do a dam thing.

I think we agree on two important factors: Demand and uncertainty.

Based on your experience, you believe the vast majority of uncertainty is political/regulatory. Based on my experience, I believe the vast majority of uncertainty is macroeconomic conditions.

I'll take the places two we agree and accept that two thoughtful people can disagree on the third.

who is the other thoughtful person? I would like to meet him. I thought I was alone on this board.

 

[8537]

it is a demand issue for some perhaps....but not for many others.

I find myself waiting on line at a retail store longer......not becuase sales are up...but becuase the amount of employees are down....but employee numbers are dwon MORE than sales are or the lines would be fewer, but the same length of time to get through them.

Had to have my boiler serviced for the upcoming winter. Got an appointment first week in Novemeber. Asked him why so long. He said business is down and He has less employees ......

But that did not answer my question of why so long...for if he laid off in accordance with business dropping, he would have less empoloyees, less customers, but still the normal wait time for service.

In other words, he is not meeting the demand of his clients as he used to...none of them are
Companies are able to hire...have the business to hire....so what is holding them back?

Uncetainty. Thats all it is...uncertainty.

and 400 billion in stimulus wont do a dam thing.

I think we agree on two important factors: Demand and uncertainty.

Based on your experience, you believe the vast majority of uncertainty is political/regulatory. Based on my experience, I believe the vast majority of uncertainty is macroeconomic conditions.

I'll take the places two we agree and accept that two thoughtful people can disagree on the third.

who is the other thoughtful person? I would like to meet him.

It's a woman. Her name is Valeyard. I win!

<<I have no idea if you're familiar with that reference to some other board back in the day>>

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have no earthly idea where you got that information. It was 25% in 1933. It was 19% in 1937. It was 14% in 1940.

Can you explain, economically speaking, how WW2 ended the Depression?

You're seriously fucked up to compare the invasion of Poland, the lowlands, battle of Britain and Fall of France with some FDR style public works program.

I don't expect you to understand, Frank. Doing so would require admitting you might be wrong

You're already on record stating that war is public works, no?