Where did I hear this ? Oh yeah, from me.

[dogtowner]

read

I'll go so far as to say it wont create ANY jobs.

WASHINGTON – It's a bipartisan jobs bill that would hand President Barack Obama a badly needed political victory and placate Republicans with tax cuts at the same time. But it has a problem: It won't 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.

As for the bill's effectiveness, 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.

because

Rick Klahsen, a tax expert at the accounting firm RSM McGladrey, said his clients need to see business pick up before they can hire more workers.

"If demand were increased, they are saying it will take care of itself because I will then have the motivation to go out and hire new employees," Klahsen said.

every dolllar is nice but 6.2% for less than 1 year is not much incentive considering the average compensation is 1.5x salary.

The bipartisan Senate plan would exempt businesses from paying a 6.2 percent Social Security tax on the wages of new employees, as long as the workers have been unemployed at least 60 days. The tax break would run through the end of the year.

A company could save a maximum of $6,621 if it hired an unemployed worker after the bill is enacted and paid that worker at least $106,800 — the maximum amount of wages subject to Social Security taxes — by the end of the year. The company could get an additional $1,000 on its 2011 tax return if it kept the new worker for at least a full year.

I cant decide if I'm glad that the administration admits its a useless idea or depressed that all it has is useless ideas.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Clipped from your very own article: It also would extend through 2010 about $33 billion in popular tax breaks that expired at the end of 2009, including an income tax deduction for sales and property taxes and a business tax credit for research and development.
Those tax cuts make Republicans willing participants in the bill, despite skepticism in both parties that it will produce an abundance of jobs.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but during the recession/almost depression during the wonderful Ronald Reagan years...when I lost my job at a Crude Oil Exploration/Recovery Corporation...this type of incentive was implemented back then too. I was one of the fortunate people on unemployment that was hired by a small business and part of my wages were offset by the stimulus plan that the Republicans enacted to keep our country afloat...so what's so horrible about doing something that's been tried before and cheered by the masses and still people just rave about dear old Ronald Reagan's genius in saving the economy during that period

 

[citizenzen]

read

I'm sorry to be so stubborn, but I won't follow a link on demand. If you'd like me to read something, then I'd appreciate a little more consideration than an order to "read". Perhaps you could phrase it, "I ran across an interesting article about [fill in the blank] and thought you might find it interesting..."

Dogs and soldiers obey commands. But I am neither one of those.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

I'm sorry to be so stubborn, but I won't follow a link on demand. If you'd like me to read something, then I'd appreciate a little more consideration than an order to "read". Perhaps you could phrase it, "I ran across an interesting article about [fill in the blank] and thought you might find it interesting..."

Dogs and soldiers obey commands. But I am neither one of those.

Well, I'll say that he did post quite a bit of the article {sans the one that I pulled out and posted} so in his ability to be selective {just in case no one else chose to read the READ command} I usually try because as in ASUR's case there is much left up to interpretation that just gets lost in translation I've learned to not take many of the RIGHT WINGED NUT JOBS for granted around here because they...well let's just say they tend to stretch the truth meter to it braking point

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Correct me if I'm wrong...but during the recession/almost depression during the wonderful Ronald Reagan years...when I lost my job at a Crude Oil Exploration/Recovery Corporation...this type of incentive was implemented back then too. I was one of the fortunate people on unemployment that was hired by a small business and part of my wages were offset by the stimulus plan that the Republicans enacted to keep our country afloat...so what's so horrible about doing something that's been tried before and cheered by the masses and still people just rave about dear old Ronald Reagan's genius in saving the economy during that period

Reagan was a pinko you know

 

[dogtowner]

I'm sorry to be so stubborn, but I won't follow a link on demand. If you'd like me to read something, then I'd appreciate a little more consideration than an order to "read". Perhaps you could phrase it, "I ran across an interesting article about [fill in the blank] and thought you might find it interesting..."

Dogs and soldiers obey commands. But I am neither one of those.

sit. stay.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

A poll, is a poll, is a poll, is a poll...the pendulum just keeps swinging to & fro! IMO, we need to understand that the length of time it took to create this monolithic disaster will not a quick fix make!!! And for the many around here that just keep beating the drum of bashing our newly elected president {YAWN} that you too have yet to post any solutions that would have made this turnaround anything different then what our elected officials are trying to accomplish with their methods
**********************************
<story source>
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/us/politics/12poll.html?th&emc=th

While the president is showing signs of vulnerability on his handling of the economy — a majority of respondents say he has yet to offer a clear plan for creating jobs — Americans blame former President George W. Bush, Wall Street and Congress much more than they do Mr. Obama for the nation’s economic problems and the budget deficit, the poll found.

They credit Mr. Obama more than Republicans with making an effort at bipartisanship, and they back the White House’s policies on a variety of disputed issues, including allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military and repealing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy.
The poll suggests that both parties face a toxic environment as they prepare for the elections in November. Public disapproval of Congress is at a historic high, and huge numbers of Americans think Congress is beholden to special interests. Fewer than 1 in 10 Americans say members of Congress deserve re-election.
As the party in power, Democrats face a particular risk from any wave of voter discontent; unfavorable views of the Democratic Party are as high as they have been since the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994, though Republicans continue to register an even worse showing. The percentage of Americans who approve of Mr. Obama’s job performance, 46 percent, is as low as it has been since he took office.
Still, the poll suggests that Mr. Obama and his party have an opportunity to deflect the anger and anxiety if they can frame the election not as a referendum on the president and his party, but as a choice between them and a Republican approach that yielded results under Mr. Bush that much of the nation still blames for the country’s woes. That is what the White House has been trying to do since the beginning of the year.
For all the erosion in support for Mr. Obama, Americans say he better understands their needs and problems and has made more of an effort to be bipartisan than Congressional Republicans, the poll found.
“It feels like an attempt to sabotage the majority and to regain control of power rather than working on a compromise,” John Smith, a Republican from Greenville, S.C., said of his party after participating in the poll.
Americans say that Mr. Obama is far less likely to favor special interests over the American people than Congress. Mr. Obama and his party continue to have an edge over Republicans on which party would do better in dealing with health care and job creation. But Republicans have gained an edge on handling of the economy.
The public has lost much of its enthusiasm for a health care overhaul, and how Mr. Obama has managed it. He gets low marks for his handling of the deficit and the economy. And the fact that 56 percent of respondents think that Mr. Obama does not have a plan to create jobs is a distressing bit of news for a White House that in recent weeks had made an intensive effort to present Mr. Obama as concerned with the economy.
But the public backs other elements of Mr. Obama’s agenda. By a two-to-one ratio, Americans support an end to tax cuts for the wealthy, and Americans favor allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military.
The Tea Party movement, which has grown out of the strain of discontent, so far commands relatively little public support; 18 percent of respondents said they considered themselves supporters of the movement, while 55 percent said they had heard little or nothing about it.
The level of dissatisfaction with both political parties — and the fact that 56 percent of Americans in the poll want a smaller government — suggests that the Tea Party movement has an opportunity to draw more support. The poll found that 51 percent of Americans now view the Democratic Party unfavorably, nearly matching the highest in the history of the Times/CBS News poll. At the same time, 57 percent have an unfavorable view of the Republican Party.
The nationwide telephone poll of 1,084 adults was taken from Feb. 5 through 10 and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points for all adults.
The poll found substantial pessimism: 62 percent of respondents said the country was heading in the wrong direction. And 70 percent of those polled said they thought it was going to take two years or longer for the effects of the recession that technically ended last year to fade away.
Three-quarters of the public disapproves of Congress, matching the highest level measured by the New York Times/CBS News Poll since it began asking the question in 1977. Four out of five voters thought Congress was more interested in serving special interests than voters.

 

[dogtowner]

A poll, is a poll, is a poll, is a poll...the pendulum just keeps swinging to & fro! IMO, we need to understand that the length of time it took to create this monolithic disaster will not a quick fix make!!! And for the many around here that just keep beating the drum of bashing our newly elected president {YAWN} that you too have yet to post any solutions that would have made this turnaround anything different then what our elected officials are trying to accomplish with their methods
**********************************
<story source>
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/us/politics/12poll.html?th&emc=th

the average length of a recession is 13 months

because administrations generally take more productive action.