Watch the unemployement rate drop!

[Craig234]

It's the same as with the cash for clunkers program: in the end, there will be a slight increase in the number of new people hired by eligible small businesses, but we'll end up paying a lot of money for it because all the other ones that were going to hire anyway are also getting the credit.

The correct measure of success for a program like this is not how many were hired during a specified period, it's how many were hired over and above the number that would have been hired had the program not existed. Then you see how much each incremental hire really cost. It's not always a cut-and-dried analysis, but in the case for cash for clunkers it showed that we got ripped off. This will be similar.

At the least, it's a rare tax cut for small business, instead of them getting the scraps or having theirs increased.

 

[sandorski]

//jaw-dropping facepalm

Where was the interference?

 

[sandorski]

When the dems solutions consist solely of throwing so much money around that they have to continually raise the debt ceiling... I see a problem with that. Even if it was a good idea... it is just sending the problem down the road for another administration to worry about.

What do you propose?

Tax Cuts are not a viable alternative either.

 

[piasabird]

It does not do any good if all the new jobs are part-time minimum wage retail jobs and they are replacing the good paying jobs that are gone. So take the government (Fake) figures and statistics with a grain of salt. Never trust government numbers. When the Government looks at inflation for instance they dont count things like the price of food. However, everyone knows food prices keep going up.

Freezing about 10 percent of the budget or less will do nothing. Typically Democrats let the military infrastructure shrink while our enemies are developing newer and better weapons systems. Just hope we dont get attacked with O'Bumma in office.

 

[EagleKeeper]

At the least, it's a rare tax cut for small business, instead of them getting the scraps or having theirs increased.

While a tax cut - it is directed for publicity and is not going to generate a positive momentum.

Granting the tax break for any small business purpose would stimulate some small business spending.

The government gives me a $5K to hire an employee that I do not need is a PR stunt only.
As another has stated, I am not going to spend $25K on a person that is not going to generate $20K of income to the business.

Now $5K to attempt to expand my business so that I may be able to justify the employee a year or two down the road will be useful.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Where was the interference?

I hope I'm just not sensing your sarcasm.

 

[sandorski]

I hope I'm just not sensing your sarcasm.

No sarcasm. What interference?

 

[palehorse]

A year has passed with no Market interference, yet the problems have not gone away.

Are you high?!

 

[rudder]

Where do you get this info? The hard data I've seen says it likely at least Doubled Sales.

The cash for clunkers merely compressed sales. The people most likely to be the ones to purchase a new car simply made that purchase sooner than planned. No jobs were created. Most of the auto manufacturers had excess inventory above what they would normally would carry. This simply burned off the excess. The GM plant near me still closed down.

 

[sandorski]

The cash for clunkers merely compressed sales. The people most likely to be the ones to purchase a new car simply made that purchase sooner than planned. No jobs were created. Most of the auto manufacturers had excess inventory above what they would normally would carry. This simply burned off the excess. The GM plant near me still closed down.

That has been suggested, but not Proved. Any Data to back that up?

 

[sandorski]

Are you high?!

Are you? What interference occurred that thwarted Recovery?

 

[Craig234]

Are you? What interference occurred that thwarted Recovery?

THere was interference, for good reason. TARP (with problems), Stimiulus, Auto takeovers were some.

 

[sandorski]

THere was interference, for good reason. TARP (with problems), Stimiulus, Auto takeovers were some.

Ya, I know, I'm just waiting for the big reason why Recovery hasn't occurred due to "Interference in the market". I don't really expect a real answer, because they all know the situation would be far worse if those programs had not been invoked.

 

[Corn]

Are you high?!

Chances are, yes he is......but that doesn't really excuse that ridiculous claim.

 

[sandorski]

Chances are, yes he is......but that doesn't really excuse that ridiculous claim.

Take a shot at the question.

 

[highland145]

That has been suggested, but not Proved. Any Data to back that up?

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/05/news/companies/auto_sales/index.htm

 

[Corn]

Take a shot at the question.

Which question, your first ridiculous statement followed up by the idiotic "what interference?".....or your pathetic dodge when confronted by reality? I've got little patience in playing the ever changing question game.

 

[sandorski]

http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/05/news/companies/auto_sales/index.htm

That doesn't really address the particular point. Other than the fact that December Sales were better than expected. Good news, hopefully it is a sign of things to come.

 

[sandorski]

Which question, your first ridiculous statement followed up by the idiotic "what interference?".....or your pathetic dodge when confronted by reality? I've got little patience in playing the ever changing question game.

What interference occurred that thwarted Recovery?

Go ahead.

 

[highland145]

That doesn't really address the particular point. Other than the fact that December Sales were better than expected. Good news, hopefully it is a sign of things to come.

Thought the point was total sales/jump starting the economy with Clunkers. The year sucked and it cost $24k/clunker per the edmonds article. http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm

 

[hal2kilo]

What interference occurred that thwarted Recovery?

Go ahead.

Hey give him a break, they didn't put that much detail in the Talking Point pamphlet.

 

[QuantumPion]

Great, that $5k tax break might make up for the massive tax increase that we'll all get at the end of this year when the Dems let the Bush tax cut expire...or not.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hey give him a break, they didn't put that much detail in the Talking Point pamphlet.

Heh. Recovery a la 1931. Yeh, the market will just self-regulate, honest... but not without untold misery, unrest, and the risk of revolution...

 

[woolfe9999]

It's the same as with the cash for clunkers program: in the end, there will be a slight increase in the number of new people hired by eligible small businesses, but we'll end up paying a lot of money for it because all the other ones that were going to hire anyway are also getting the credit.

The correct measure of success for a program like this is not how many were hired during a specified period, it's how many were hired over and above the number that would have been hired had the program not existed. Then you see how much each incremental hire really cost. It's not always a cut-and-dried analysis, but in the case for cash for clunkers it showed that we got ripped off. This will be similar.

Not quite. You're committing the same fallacy for the hiring tax credit as you are for cash for clunkers. About what, 25% of the people who received the clunkers credit bought cars because of it, while the rest would have bought cars anyway? But the 75% who would have bought cars anyway received money that they could then spend on goods and services. It's the same with this hiring tax credit. Those who would have hired anyway receive money for other business purposes. Even if it goes into the pocket of the business owner, it's money the business owner can spend. This is called stimulating the economy by way of giving people money. That's the republican idea of stimulus through tax cuts, right? I thought this was the only proper way to stimulate the economy, or so say conservatives.

I guess this is a valid idea, when it's proposed by republicans.

- wolf

 

[sandorski]

Thought the point was total sales/jump starting the economy with Clunkers. The year sucked and it cost $24k/clunker per the edmonds article. http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/28/autos/clunkers_analysis/index.htm

Edmonds was way wrong. Their methodology was in error. Here's a counter perspective