Why Haven't Obama's Policies Helped The Economy?

[Foxfyre]

.

This jobs bill is different? Really? How's that?

I own a small business, which means I hire 100% American and pay my taxes to our country only.
One of the thing's I've complained about is that there have been no real incentives for small business to hire people in anythig offered by Obama or Bush before him. This is different. How: None of was in any previous bills:

1. Cut payroll tax in half on 1st $5M in wages. This is great. Big Corps who ship their jobs and tax renenues overseas won't even notice it. Who will? American small businesses like mine. Which of course is why the GOP is already fighting this clause. WTF?
2. Cut payroll tax completely on new hires & raises, up to the first $50M. This is good too! This could help the economy! Which again, is why I'm sure it will be attacked by those who normally fight for tax cuts and say they are the answer to everything.
3. 100% write-offs for new locations and equipment. This eliminates depreciating stuff over years so basically, you get like, 5 times the normal deduction. In other words, if I hire a new recruiter for my firm, I can write off the new computer I buy for them. If I open a new office, same thing on a bigger scale. I really don't see how anyone could argue against this but I'm sure I know who will...
4. Obama's talking about cutting the payout time to American small businesses to 90 days - which would give 100% American companies a chance at billions we pay to foreign or not-totally US companies. How's he going to do it? Um yeah. Good luck with that. I'm doubtful. But if he could, what would be the problem with it?
5. One thing I like is that he's talking about helping people who have been out of work, start their own business. I used to volunteer in Texas, teaching people how to do exactly that. They were often surprised how easy it could be. The key was always capitalization. If someone could keep their unemployment while starting a new business, this would solve that problem. If only one out of hundred were successful, that would be huge.

That's what's different.

Now none of this is a magic wand or even rocket science. If you make hiring people and the cost of materials they need to work and the cost of opening locations here in America cheaper, that's an incentive. It may not be a big deal to Conoco Philips, who could give a f*ck about the U.S. economy or hiring Ameicans, but it will make a difference to Fred, who just got some new contracts and has been wrestling with the idea of hiring someone.

What I find interesting, is that the same GOP who has been screaming at the top of their lungs, that all of our problems would be solved by lowering taxes, have already come out against a couple of the above incentives. Why? They don't help their Big Business donors and worse, could end up creating real competition for them. So when it comes to what's best for Americans or what's best for Big Business, their priorities are clear.

I am also a small business owner and I find your post a bit strange. I, and nobody else I know running a business, would consider a temporary reduction in FICA as anything more than a lollipop to appease an angry kid. I, and nobody else I know running a business, would see it as an incentive to expand, hire, or buy. So you are pretty much an anomaly in that regard.

Help the deficit or help jump start the economy? Not a chance.

Also paying somebody to hire new employees is great if I needed the employee anyway. No way am I going to hire somebody I will be responsible for after the little windfall up front runs out. If I need the employee anyway, I would have hired him/her anyway but hey, free money is free money and I wouldn't turn that down.

Again that blind squirrel should be able to see that free money isn't free but adds to the deficit, adds to the debt, and takes as much money out of the economy--more actually because the debt has to be serviced--than it pays in.

Help jump start the economy? No way.

 

[Brutus]

Which of course is why the GOP is already fighting this clause. WTF?

sure there are!!! Where is the evidence???

NY TIMES: A small but vocal group dislikes the payroll tax cuts for employees and small businesses. “I have been very unequivocal,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon. “No more tax cuts.”

His voice rising to a near shriek, he added: “We have the economy that tax cuts give us. And it’s pretty pathetic, isn’t it? The president is in a box.”

There are also Democrats, some of them senators up for election in 2012, who oppose the bill simply for its mental connection to the stimulus bill, which laid at least part of the foundation for the Republican takeover of the House in 2010.

“I have serious questions about the level of spending that President Obama proposed,” said Senator Joe Manchin III, a Democrat from West Virginia, in a statement issued right after Mr. Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress last week.

While Mr. Reid, who is known for trying to protect Democrats from casting tough votes, may be delaying the bill to insulate his party

 

[IndependntLogic]

You realize all of those breaks are limited to like 1 year, right?
Do you hire people with the expectation they will stay for only one year? Probably not.

Actually, many small businesses operate exactly that way. I own a recruiting firm. If I get a lot of contracts all at once, I'll probably hire someone regardless of whether taxes are a few points higher or lower. If I get a few contracts that could increase revenues by say, $500K, I may or may not.
But with all the incentives that Obama is talking about, I'll definitely hire at least one and maybe two. Now while they're working on the contracts I've gotten, their job is to try to get more business. Like most professional services, making rain is an expectation for long term employment. I have friends in the legal, accounting and other professions who operate the same way. But I suppose you would rather have people just not working at all for the year?
And um, wasn't it the GOP mantra that if we just lowered taxes and companies showed a profit, roses would bloom and unicorns would reduce unemployment to 0%? Now suddenly they're fighting against lowering taxes. What a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[Foxfyre]

Which of course is why the GOP is already fighting this clause. WTF?

sure there are!!! Where is the evidence???

NY TIMES: A small but vocal group dislikes the payroll tax cuts for employees and small businesses. “I have been very unequivocal,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon. “No more tax cuts.”

His voice rising to a near shriek, he added: “We have the economy that tax cuts give us. And it’s pretty pathetic, isn’t it? The president is in a box.”

There are also Democrats, some of them senators up for election in 2012, who oppose the bill simply for its mental connection to the stimulus bill, which laid at least part of the foundation for the Republican takeover of the House in 2010.

“I have serious questions about the level of spending that President Obama proposed,” said Senator Joe Manchin III, a Democrat from West Virginia, in a statement issued right after Mr. Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress last week.

While Mr. Reid, who is known for trying to protect Democrats from casting tough votes, may be delaying the bill to insulate his party

You're attributing a post to me here that I did NOT make. Please correct that. Thanks.

 

[Brutus]

Which of course is why the GOP is already fighting this clause. WTF?

sure there are!!! Where is the evidence???

NY TIMES: A small but vocal group dislikes the payroll tax cuts for employees and small businesses. “I have been very unequivocal,” said Representative Peter A. DeFazio, a Democrat from Oregon. “No more tax cuts.”

His voice rising to a near shriek, he added: “We have the economy that tax cuts give us. And it’s pretty pathetic, isn’t it? The president is in a box.”

There are also Democrats, some of them senators up for election in 2012, who oppose the bill simply for its mental connection to the stimulus bill, which laid at least part of the foundation for the Republican takeover of the House in 2010.

“I have serious questions about the level of spending that President Obama proposed,” said Senator Joe Manchin III, a Democrat from West Virginia, in a statement issued right after Mr. Obama spoke to a joint session of Congress last week.

While Mr. Reid, who is known for trying to protect Democrats from casting tough votes, may be delaying the bill to insulate his party

You're attributing a post to me here that I did NOT make. Please correct that. Thanks.

sorry I'll be more careful

 

[IndependntLogic]

This jobs bill is different? Really? How's that?

I own a small business, which means I hire 100% American and pay my taxes to our country only.
One of the thing's I've complained about is that there have been no real incentives for small business to hire people in anythig offered by Obama or Bush before him. This is different. How: None of was in any previous bills:

1. Cut payroll tax in half on 1st $5M in wages. This is great. Big Corps who ship their jobs and tax renenues overseas won't even notice it. Who will? American small businesses like mine. Which of course is why the GOP is already fighting this clause. WTF?
2. Cut payroll tax completely on new hires & raises, up to the first $50M. This is good too! This could help the economy! Which again, is why I'm sure it will be attacked by those who normally fight for tax cuts and say they are the answer to everything.
3. 100% write-offs for new locations and equipment. This eliminates depreciating stuff over years so basically, you get like, 5 times the normal deduction. In other words, if I hire a new recruiter for my firm, I can write off the new computer I buy for them. If I open a new office, same thing on a bigger scale. I really don't see how anyone could argue against this but I'm sure I know who will...
4. Obama's talking about cutting the payout time to American small businesses to 90 days - which would give 100% American companies a chance at billions we pay to foreign or not-totally US companies. How's he going to do it? Um yeah. Good luck with that. I'm doubtful. But if he could, what would be the problem with it?
5. One thing I like is that he's talking about helping people who have been out of work, start their own business. I used to volunteer in Texas, teaching people how to do exactly that. They were often surprised how easy it could be. The key was always capitalization. If someone could keep their unemployment while starting a new business, this would solve that problem. If only one out of hundred were successful, that would be huge.

That's what's different.

Now none of this is a magic wand or even rocket science. If you make hiring people and the cost of materials they need to work and the cost of opening locations here in America cheaper, that's an incentive. It may not be a big deal to Conoco Philips, who could give a f*ck about the U.S. economy or hiring Ameicans, but it will make a difference to Fred, who just got some new contracts and has been wrestling with the idea of hiring someone.

What I find interesting, is that the same GOP who has been screaming at the top of their lungs, that all of our problems would be solved by lowering taxes, have already come out against a couple of the above incentives. Why? They don't help their Big Business donors and worse, could end up creating real competition for them. So when it comes to what's best for Americans or what's best for Big Business, their priorities are clear.

I am also a small business owner and I find your post a bit strange. I, and nobody else I know running a business, would consider a temporary reduction in FICA as anything more than a lollipop to appease an angry kid. I, and nobody else I know running a business, would see it as an incentive to expand, hire, or buy. So you are pretty much an anomaly in that regard.

Help the deficit or help jump start the economy? Not a chance.

Also paying somebody to hire new employees is great if I needed the employee anyway. No way am I going to hire somebody I will be responsible for after the little windfall up front runs out. If I need the employee anyway, I would have hired him/her anyway but hey, free money is free money and I wouldn't turn that down.

Again that blind squirrel should be able to see that free money isn't free but adds to the deficit, adds to the debt, and takes as much money out of the economy--more actually because the debt has to be serviced--than it pays in.

Help jump start the economy? No way.

You know, you're absolutely right! The GOP and Conservatives are completely full of sh1t! They've been saying taxes effect hiring but you've just proven them wrong!

You're right. I was wrong. At least in that regard.

Now, 100% expensing, not having to wait a year for payouts on government contracts etc... (A night mare I went through once and swore never again) and teaching people to start businesses seems like a good idea to me but
You're right. The Republicans and Conservatives are full of sh1t when they say low taxes are the cure to all problems. And they've ALL been saying that for two years...

Oh and btw, I didn't say this is the solution to all our problems. I responded to someone who asked how this was different than the other stims and that this one actually does SOMETHING for small and American businesses.

 

[The Rabbi]

I own a small business, which means I hire 100% American and pay my taxes to our country only.
One of the thing's I've complained about is that there have been no real incentives for small business to hire people in anythig offered by Obama or Bush before him. This is different. How: None of was in any previous bills:

1. Cut payroll tax in half on 1st $5M in wages. This is great. Big Corps who ship their jobs and tax renenues overseas won't even notice it. Who will? American small businesses like mine. Which of course is why the GOP is already fighting this clause. WTF?
2. Cut payroll tax completely on new hires & raises, up to the first $50M. This is good too! This could help the economy! Which again, is why I'm sure it will be attacked by those who normally fight for tax cuts and say they are the answer to everything.
3. 100% write-offs for new locations and equipment. This eliminates depreciating stuff over years so basically, you get like, 5 times the normal deduction. In other words, if I hire a new recruiter for my firm, I can write off the new computer I buy for them. If I open a new office, same thing on a bigger scale. I really don't see how anyone could argue against this but I'm sure I know who will...
4. Obama's talking about cutting the payout time to American small businesses to 90 days - which would give 100% American companies a chance at billions we pay to foreign or not-totally US companies. How's he going to do it? Um yeah. Good luck with that. I'm doubtful. But if he could, what would be the problem with it?
5. One thing I like is that he's talking about helping people who have been out of work, start their own business. I used to volunteer in Texas, teaching people how to do exactly that. They were often surprised how easy it could be. The key was always capitalization. If someone could keep their unemployment while starting a new business, this would solve that problem. If only one out of hundred were successful, that would be huge.

That's what's different.

Now none of this is a magic wand or even rocket science. If you make hiring people and the cost of materials they need to work and the cost of opening locations here in America cheaper, that's an incentive. It may not be a big deal to Conoco Philips, who could give a f*ck about the U.S. economy or hiring Ameicans, but it will make a difference to Fred, who just got some new contracts and has been wrestling with the idea of hiring someone.

What I find interesting, is that the same GOP who has been screaming at the top of their lungs, that all of our problems would be solved by lowering taxes, have already come out against a couple of the above incentives. Why? They don't help their Big Business donors and worse, could end up creating real competition for them. So when it comes to what's best for Americans or what's best for Big Business, their priorities are clear.

I am also a small business owner and I find your post a bit strange. I, and nobody else I know running a business, would consider a temporary reduction in FICA as anything more than a lollipop to appease an angry kid. I, and nobody else I know running a business, would see it as an incentive to expand, hire, or buy. So you are pretty much an anomaly in that regard.

Help the deficit or help jump start the economy? Not a chance.

Also paying somebody to hire new employees is great if I needed the employee anyway. No way am I going to hire somebody I will be responsible for after the little windfall up front runs out. If I need the employee anyway, I would have hired him/her anyway but hey, free money is free money and I wouldn't turn that down.

Again that blind squirrel should be able to see that free money isn't free but adds to the deficit, adds to the debt, and takes as much money out of the economy--more actually because the debt has to be serviced--than it pays in.

Help jump start the economy? No way.

You know, you're absolutely right! The GOP and Conservatives are completely full of sh1t! They've been saying taxes effect hiring but you've just proven them wrong!

You're right. I was wrong. At least in that regard.

Now, 100% expensing, not having to wait a year for payouts on government contracts etc... (A night mare I went through once and swore never again) and teaching people to start businesses seems like a good idea to me but
You're right. The Republicans and Conservatives are full of sh1t when they say low taxes are the cure to all problems. And they've ALL been saying that for two years...

Oh and btw, I didn't say this is the solution to all our problems. I responded to someone who asked how this was different than the other stims and that this one actually does SOMETHING for small and American businesses.

First off, you are full of shit, not Republicans.
What Republicans want is a permanent reduction, not a temporary targeted tax cut. In fact two GOP senators introduced a bill to repeal the temporary cut because it isn't doing any good for the economy but it is raising the deficit.
Second, the first stimulus bill contained pretty much the same provisions. That's why we're talking about extending the cut in FICA. The only difference now is that it also applies to employers. But again, only for one year.
So you are either stupid, lying, or both.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I am also a small business owner and I find your post a bit strange. I, and nobody else I know running a business, would consider a temporary reduction in FICA as anything more than a lollipop to appease an angry kid. I, and nobody else I know running a business, would see it as an incentive to expand, hire, or buy. So you are pretty much an anomaly in that regard.

Help the deficit or help jump start the economy? Not a chance.

Also paying somebody to hire new employees is great if I needed the employee anyway. No way am I going to hire somebody I will be responsible for after the little windfall up front runs out. If I need the employee anyway, I would have hired him/her anyway but hey, free money is free money and I wouldn't turn that down.

Again that blind squirrel should be able to see that free money isn't free but adds to the deficit, adds to the debt, and takes as much money out of the economy--more actually because the debt has to be serviced--than it pays in.

Help jump start the economy? No way.

You know, you're absolutely right! The GOP and Conservatives are completely full of sh1t! They've been saying taxes effect hiring but you've just proven them wrong!

You're right. I was wrong. At least in that regard.

Now, 100% expensing, not having to wait a year for payouts on government contracts etc... (A night mare I went through once and swore never again) and teaching people to start businesses seems like a good idea to me but
You're right. The Republicans and Conservatives are full of sh1t when they say low taxes are the cure to all problems. And they've ALL been saying that for two years...

Oh and btw, I didn't say this is the solution to all our problems. I responded to someone who asked how this was different than the other stims and that this one actually does SOMETHING for small and American businesses.

First off, you are full of shit, not Republicans.
What Republicans want is a permanent reduction, not a temporary targeted tax cut. In fact two GOP senators introduced a bill to repeal the temporary cut because it isn't doing any good for the economy but it is raising the deficit.
Second, the first stimulus bill contained pretty much the same provisions. That's why we're talking about extending the cut in FICA. The only difference now is that it also applies to employers. But again, only for one year.
So you are either stupid, lying, or both.

LOL! Yeah okay. The Republicans are right abut everything all the time. You betcha!
Would you like me to tell you your opinions on a dozen issues? I can. Because you're a stupid mindless drone. You don't even have any personal opinions because you're a ignorant sheeple. So you don't mind being a complete hypocritical whackjob, if that's what you're told to be.
You wanna try that with me? No? Didn't think so. That's the problem with those of us who think for ourselves. You can't just look in a pamphlet and find our every opinion because we make up our own minds. Unlike idiots like you.

Hmmmm. So you started the petty little name-calling and I returned fire. That was fun.

 

[The Rabbi]

You know, you're absolutely right! The GOP and Conservatives are completely full of sh1t! They've been saying taxes effect hiring but you've just proven them wrong!

You're right. I was wrong. At least in that regard.

Now, 100% expensing, not having to wait a year for payouts on government contracts etc... (A night mare I went through once and swore never again) and teaching people to start businesses seems like a good idea to me but
You're right. The Republicans and Conservatives are full of sh1t when they say low taxes are the cure to all problems. And they've ALL been saying that for two years...

Oh and btw, I didn't say this is the solution to all our problems. I responded to someone who asked how this was different than the other stims and that this one actually does SOMETHING for small and American businesses.

First off, you are full of shit, not Republicans.
What Republicans want is a permanent reduction, not a temporary targeted tax cut. In fact two GOP senators introduced a bill to repeal the temporary cut because it isn't doing any good for the economy but it is raising the deficit.
Second, the first stimulus bill contained pretty much the same provisions. That's why we're talking about extending the cut in FICA. The only difference now is that it also applies to employers. But again, only for one year.
So you are either stupid, lying, or both.

LOL! Yeah okay. The Republicans are right abut everything all the time. You betcha!
Would you like me to tell you your opinions on a dozen issues? I can. Because you're a stupid mindless drone. You don't even have any personal opinions because you're a ignorant sheeple. So you don't mind being a complete hypocritical whackjob, if that's what you're told to be.
You wanna try that with me? No? Didn't think so. That's the problem with those of us who think for ourselves. You can't just look in a pamphlet and find our every opinion because we make up our own minds. Unlike idiots like you.

Hmmmm. So you started the petty little name-calling and I returned fire. That was fun.

Translation: I have nothing to refute his statement.

I point out that Obama's "tax cut" is only temporary and therefore will not stimulate hiring, nor is it fundamentally different from his last stimulus. And you respond with a bunch of unfounded, juvenile insults.
You are not a business owner, unless a fantasy football team is a business. You are a liar and a fraud and a claque for Obama.

 

[IndependntLogic]

First off, you are full of shit, not Republicans.
What Republicans want is a permanent reduction, not a temporary targeted tax cut. In fact two GOP senators introduced a bill to repeal the temporary cut because it isn't doing any good for the economy but it is raising the deficit.
Second, the first stimulus bill contained pretty much the same provisions. That's why we're talking about extending the cut in FICA. The only difference now is that it also applies to employers. But again, only for one year.
So you are either stupid, lying, or both.

LOL! Yeah okay. The Republicans are right abut everything all the time. You betcha!
Would you like me to tell you your opinions on a dozen issues? I can. Because you're a stupid mindless drone. You don't even have any personal opinions because you're a ignorant sheeple. So you don't mind being a complete hypocritical whackjob, if that's what you're told to be.
You wanna try that with me? No? Didn't think so. That's the problem with those of us who think for ourselves. You can't just look in a pamphlet and find our every opinion because we make up our own minds. Unlike idiots like you.

Hmmmm. So you started the petty little name-calling and I returned fire. That was fun.

Translation: I have nothing to refute his statement.

I point out that Obama's "tax cut" is only temporary and therefore will not stimulate hiring, nor is it fundamentally different from his last stimulus. And you respond with a bunch of unfounded, juvenile insults.
You are not a business owner, unless a fantasy football team is a business. You are a liar and a fraud and a claque for Obama.

Um no. Translation: It's not worth arguing with whackjobs whose every opinion is formed for them by their party. How did a cut in payroll tax for employees help me as an employer? Was the 100% expensing of equipment needed to put them to work if I did hire them? Nope. 100% write-off of opening an office or plant here in America (that right there can be tens of thousands for a small business and millions for a large one, btw)? Nope.

And now you continue with the petty little insults. Why? Because although I started my result with this:

1. What you describe is what every president does. Then they pick what they think will help the country. Obama is obviously a VERY bad picker!
2. Obama's entire domestic agenda has been a disaster.

that's not enough for stupid whackjobs like you. Unless you agree with idiots like you on every point, of course someone is a "Liberal" or "claque for Obama".
So would you like me to tell you your views on Obama, Libya, Iraq, Killing OBL, ObamaCare, Unions, Defense, The Deficit, Taxes and more? Really you don't even need to post because you're a mindless drone.
Wanna try it with me? You can't. I think for myself.
Oh, and I've owned a legal recruiting firm for almost 20 years now.
How many people do you employ? None? How many jobs do you create? None? Yeah we knew that.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK, so you're incoherent.
There is little to no difference between Obama's first stimulus and second stimulus. And the second will have the same effect on the economy as the first, none.

 

[IndependntLogic]

OK, so you're incoherent.
There is little to no difference between Obama's first stimulus and second stimulus. And the second will have the same effect on the economy as the first, none.

So you admit there is a difference. And that I pointed out the differences. (LOL! J/K you don't have the character for that!!!).

Well that's your opinion. You may be right. I didn't say it was a magic wand - as a matter of fact, I said it's NOT a magic wand. I said there were things that are different, that I like.
Which to you of course translates to "I am a liberal socialists Obama-loving dog molesting union member."
Because that's how you see things. It's called whackjobbery....

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

OK, so you're incoherent.
There is little to no difference between Obama's first stimulus and second stimulus. And the second will have the same effect on the economy as the first, none.

There is a difference, the new one spends 25% more money over the time period its allotted to be spent .

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You realize all of those breaks are limited to like 1 year, right?
Do you hire people with the expectation they will stay for only one year? Probably not.

Actually, many small businesses operate exactly that way. I own a recruiting firm. If I get a lot of contracts all at once, I'll probably hire someone regardless of whether taxes are a few points higher or lower. If I get a few contracts that could increase revenues by say, $500K, I may or may not.
But with all the incentives that Obama is talking about, I'll definitely hire at least one and maybe two. Now while they're working on the contracts I've gotten, their job is to try to get more business. Like most professional services, making rain is an expectation for long term employment. I have friends in the legal, accounting and other professions who operate the same way. But I suppose you would rather have people just not working at all for the year?
And um, wasn't it the GOP mantra that if we just lowered taxes and companies showed a profit, roses would bloom and unicorns would reduce unemployment to 0%? Now suddenly they're fighting against lowering taxes. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Small business DO NOT operate that way. Small business owners look for good, long term, employees they can depend on. At least thats how the 2 my family members own, the shops i've dealt with, and my own boss' mentality is whom all own small businesses with less than 10 employees per location.

 

[IndependntLogic]

You realize all of those breaks are limited to like 1 year, right?
Do you hire people with the expectation they will stay for only one year? Probably not.

Actually, many small businesses operate exactly that way. I own a recruiting firm. If I get a lot of contracts all at once, I'll probably hire someone regardless of whether taxes are a few points higher or lower. If I get a few contracts that could increase revenues by say, $500K, I may or may not.
But with all the incentives that Obama is talking about, I'll definitely hire at least one and maybe two. Now while they're working on the contracts I've gotten, their job is to try to get more business. Like most professional services, making rain is an expectation for long term employment. I have friends in the legal, accounting and other professions who operate the same way. But I suppose you would rather have people just not working at all for the year?
And um, wasn't it the GOP mantra that if we just lowered taxes and companies showed a profit, roses would bloom and unicorns would reduce unemployment to 0%? Now suddenly they're fighting against lowering taxes. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Small business DO NOT operate that way. Small business owners look for good, long term, employees they can depend on. At least thats how the 2 my family members own, the shops i've dealt with, and my own boss' mentality is whom all own small businesses with less than 10 employees per location.

Really? None do? Zero? You know this about all of the millions of small businesses in America? Wow! You're busy!
Of course I look for good long-term employees but part of what makes them good, is the ability to generate business on their own. That applies to most professional services business.
So your friend of a friend of a family member or whatever owns two small businesses. That's nice. Are they professional services businesses? And they don't expect any rain-making?
Is it possible your blanket statement might not apply to ALL small businesses or is that this "muct be true!" because Neil Cavuto said so?

So again, Bush temporary tax cuts good, Obama's bad - before they're even ironed out. Hmmm. Opinions fed to you by FOX? Naaahhhhh couldn't be.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Actually, many small businesses operate exactly that way. I own a recruiting firm. If I get a lot of contracts all at once, I'll probably hire someone regardless of whether taxes are a few points higher or lower. If I get a few contracts that could increase revenues by say, $500K, I may or may not.
But with all the incentives that Obama is talking about, I'll definitely hire at least one and maybe two. Now while they're working on the contracts I've gotten, their job is to try to get more business. Like most professional services, making rain is an expectation for long term employment. I have friends in the legal, accounting and other professions who operate the same way. But I suppose you would rather have people just not working at all for the year?
And um, wasn't it the GOP mantra that if we just lowered taxes and companies showed a profit, roses would bloom and unicorns would reduce unemployment to 0%? Now suddenly they're fighting against lowering taxes. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Small business DO NOT operate that way. Small business owners look for good, long term, employees they can depend on. At least thats how the 2 my family members own, the shops i've dealt with, and my own boss' mentality is whom all own small businesses with less than 10 employees per location.

Really? None do? Zero? You know this about all of the millions of small businesses in America? Wow! You're busy!
Of course I look for good long-term employees but part of what makes them good, is the ability to generate business on their own. That applies to most professional services business.
So your friend of a friend of a family member or whatever owns two small businesses. That's nice. Are they professional services businesses? And they don't expect any rain-making?
Is it possible your blanket statement might not apply to ALL small businesses or is that this "muct be true!" because Neil Cavuto said so?

So again, Bush temporary tax cuts good, Obama's bad - before they're even ironed out. Hmmm. Opinions fed to you by FOX? Naaahhhhh couldn't be.

My bad I spoke in absolutes. "The majority of small businesses..........." is what I should have said.

And I form my own opinions thank you very much. No need to get all partisan hackish on me

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, many small businesses operate exactly that way. I own a recruiting firm. If I get a lot of contracts all at once, I'll probably hire someone regardless of whether taxes are a few points higher or lower. If I get a few contracts that could increase revenues by say, $500K, I may or may not.
But with all the incentives that Obama is talking about, I'll definitely hire at least one and maybe two. Now while they're working on the contracts I've gotten, their job is to try to get more business. Like most professional services, making rain is an expectation for long term employment. I have friends in the legal, accounting and other professions who operate the same way. But I suppose you would rather have people just not working at all for the year?
And um, wasn't it the GOP mantra that if we just lowered taxes and companies showed a profit, roses would bloom and unicorns would reduce unemployment to 0%? Now suddenly they're fighting against lowering taxes. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Small business DO NOT operate that way. Small business owners look for good, long term, employees they can depend on. At least thats how the 2 my family members own, the shops i've dealt with, and my own boss' mentality is whom all own small businesses with less than 10 employees per location.

Really? None do? Zero? You know this about all of the millions of small businesses in America? Wow! You're busy!
Of course I look for good long-term employees but part of what makes them good, is the ability to generate business on their own. That applies to most professional services business.
So your friend of a friend of a family member or whatever owns two small businesses. That's nice. Are they professional services businesses? And they don't expect any rain-making?
Is it possible your blanket statement might not apply to ALL small businesses or is that this "muct be true!" because Neil Cavuto said so?

So again, Bush temporary tax cuts good, Obama's bad - before they're even ironed out. Hmmm. Opinions fed to you by FOX? Naaahhhhh couldn't be.

Pretty much none do, right.
It costs money to hire and train people. If they quit, get fired, become disabled or die then all the hiring and training money was wasted. That's pretty inefficient. So businesses looking to hire at any level worth mentioning want someone who will spend years with the company.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Small business DO NOT operate that way. Small business owners look for good, long term, employees they can depend on. At least thats how the 2 my family members own, the shops i've dealt with, and my own boss' mentality is whom all own small businesses with less than 10 employees per location.

Really? None do? Zero? You know this about all of the millions of small businesses in America? Wow! You're busy!
Of course I look for good long-term employees but part of what makes them good, is the ability to generate business on their own. That applies to most professional services business.
So your friend of a friend of a family member or whatever owns two small businesses. That's nice. Are they professional services businesses? And they don't expect any rain-making?
Is it possible your blanket statement might not apply to ALL small businesses or is that this "muct be true!" because Neil Cavuto said so?

So again, Bush temporary tax cuts good, Obama's bad - before they're even ironed out. Hmmm. Opinions fed to you by FOX? Naaahhhhh couldn't be.

My bad I spoke in absolutes. "The majority of small businesses..........." is what I should have said.

And I form my own opinions thank you very much. No need to get all partisan hackish on me

No worries.
I would even contest that America has more service business than any other single category of small business nowadays but I'm not sure. I'll bet it's close though.

As far as your opinions, there are SO many people here whose every opinion can be found, simply by turning on Glenn Beck or Rush, it's hard to tell. When someone says everything about this bill is bad or ineffectual or exactly the same as the other ones, it certainly smells of the "Rushies".
You know the type: Bush wars good. Obama bad. Bush tax cuts good, Obama bad. Bush gets credit for Iraq Victory, Obama gets no credit for OBL... and so on.
Mindless drones who couldn't come up with an original opinion if their life depended on it.

My apologies for just assuming you fell in that category, based only on your views regarding a single subject. You're right. I should not let the other Internet People influence me that way.

 

[Foxfyre]

Really? None do? Zero? You know this about all of the millions of small businesses in America? Wow! You're busy!
Of course I look for good long-term employees but part of what makes them good, is the ability to generate business on their own. That applies to most professional services business.
So your friend of a friend of a family member or whatever owns two small businesses. That's nice. Are they professional services businesses? And they don't expect any rain-making?
Is it possible your blanket statement might not apply to ALL small businesses or is that this "muct be true!" because Neil Cavuto said so?

So again, Bush temporary tax cuts good, Obama's bad - before they're even ironed out. Hmmm. Opinions fed to you by FOX? Naaahhhhh couldn't be.

My bad I spoke in absolutes. "The majority of small businesses..........." is what I should have said.

And I form my own opinions thank you very much. No need to get all partisan hackish on me

No worries.
I would even contest that America has more service business than any other single category of small business nowadays but I'm not sure. I'll bet it's close though.

As far as your opinions, there are SO many people here whose every opinion can be found, simply by turning on Glenn Beck or Rush, it's hard to tell. When someone says everything about this bill is bad or ineffectual or exactly the same as the other ones, it certainly smells of the "Rushies".
You know the type: Bush wars good. Obama bad. Bush tax cuts good, Obama bad. Bush gets credit for Iraq Victory, Obama gets no credit for OBL... and so on.
Mindless drones who couldn't come up with an original opinion if their life depended on it.

My apologies for just assuming you fell in that category, based only on your views regarding a single subject. You're right. I should not let the other Internet People influence me that way.

And in all due repect, you are jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions to assume that those of us who don't agree with you are simply parroting Limbaugh, Beck et al. For those of us who haven't listened to either Limbaugh or Beck in months, if we do agree with Limbaugh and Beck, who is copying who? Or maybe it is that we all have the same information, apply our own individual reason and intuition to analyze it, and all arrive at more or less the same conclusion?

Do you get all your information from Huff post or Daily Kos or Salon.com which would explain your point of view as reflecting theirs almost right down the line? Or do you get as much information as you can about a subject and form your own opinions about what it means?

If everybody in a room adds 2 and 2 and gets 4, it does not necessarily mean any have copied off each other or been taught or influenced by the same instructor. It merely means that all in the room were able to work the problem and arrive at the correct answer.

There IS a best answer for almost every question.

 

[IndependntLogic]

My bad I spoke in absolutes. "The majority of small businesses..........." is what I should have said.

And I form my own opinions thank you very much. No need to get all partisan hackish on me

No worries.
I would even contest that America has more service business than any other single category of small business nowadays but I'm not sure. I'll bet it's close though.

As far as your opinions, there are SO many people here whose every opinion can be found, simply by turning on Glenn Beck or Rush, it's hard to tell. When someone says everything about this bill is bad or ineffectual or exactly the same as the other ones, it certainly smells of the "Rushies".
You know the type: Bush wars good. Obama bad. Bush tax cuts good, Obama bad. Bush gets credit for Iraq Victory, Obama gets no credit for OBL... and so on.
Mindless drones who couldn't come up with an original opinion if their life depended on it.

My apologies for just assuming you fell in that category, based only on your views regarding a single subject. You're right. I should not let the other Internet People influence me that way.

And in all due repect, you are jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions to assume that those of us who don't agree with you are simply parroting Limbaugh, Beck et al. For those of us who haven't listened to either Limbaugh or Beck in months, if we do agree with Limbaugh and Beck, who is copying who? Or maybe it is that we all have the same information, apply our own individual reason and intuition to analyze it, and all arrive at more or less the same conclusion?

Do you get all your information from Huff post or Daily Kos or Salon.com which would explain your point of view as reflecting theirs almost right down the line? Or do you get as much information as you can about a subject and form your own opinions about what it means?

If everybody in a room adds 2 and 2 and gets 4, it does not necessarily mean any have copied off each other or been taught or influenced by the same instructor. It merely means that all in the room were able to work the problem and arrive at the correct answer.

There IS a best answer for almost every question.

Regarding the part in bold. Hmmm. Let's look at that and see if there's a difference between me (and other Independents) and Right (or Left!) wing parrots.

Does Huff / Kos state emphatically and often that:

Obama is a poor president and ineffectual leader? Look around at my posts. I do.
ObamaCare sucks and is the worst piece of legislation passed in decades? I do.
Pelosi is a screech hag and hypocrite / Reid is a crook? I do.
Labor unions are as often the cause of jobs being shipped overseas as executives? I do.
Christians are discriminated against?
The time for Affirmative Action is over?
We should eliminate over a dozen fed agencies and put those responsibilities solely in control of the states?

I could go on but I think you get the idea. Your assertation that I "get all your (my) information from Huff post or Daily Kos or Salon.com which would explain your point of view as reflecting theirs almost right down the line?" is pretty much blown out of the water. That would be the Independent part...

As far as
"There IS a best answer for almost every question.",
As a man much wiser than me wrote:

"Only a fool believes that one party or political ideology is right all the time."

You really think that all those people, coming to the exact same conclusion on every virtually issue, had nothing to do with Right or Left Wing media targeting their thoughts for influence. Yeah. Okay. If you say so.
Sure. And everything is still Bush's fault...