Author Topic: Obama to pay for "Jobs Bill" via 400 Billion in tax hikes. LMFAO! (Read 5967 times)

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #50 on:** September 13, 2011, 08:33:23 AM »

The Cost Of Obama's Stimulus Plan: $312,500 Per Job (Vote) Created Or Saved (And Guess Who Is Paying It)
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/12/2011 20:19 -0400

Gross Domestic Product White House

For those eager to put some math to the rhetoric coming from the White House over the president's jobs creation plan, and that should be everyone, here is a quick and dirty estimate based on the numbers being thrown around of a 2% GDP increase in year 1 and 1.9 million jobs created or saved... most saved, as in those you can't really quantify. Said otherwise, roughly a $300 billion increase in GDP yields 1.9 million jobs. So far so good. Now since the president is proposing to pay for the program over 10 years, let's assume the $475 billion in direct expenses is financed for 10 years at 2.5% which adds roughly $120 billion to the total cost of the program. In other words, as the calculations detailed and show below elaborate, the overall AJA plan will cost $250,000 per job created (excluding the interest expense) and $312,500 per union job, er job created (including interest). And that's how much it costs for Obama to purchase one vote... created or saved. Keynesian efficiency strikes like a Swiss watch yet again.

As for the just as troubling question of who ends up footing the bill of this "fully paid" for stimulus act, here are the details.

Earlier today, the OMB director Jack Lew gave some so far largely missing information when he laid out how the president plans on paying for the Stimulus Act (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/WhiteHouseDailyBriefing1719). Specifically, Obama and his advisors believe they are "over achieving" by raising more ($467 bn) over 10yrs to pay for the jobs package now.

So on an annual basis, tax increases will be as follows: (86% limit of itemized deductions, 4% hedge fund managers, 8.6% oil & gas, 0.6% Corp Jets)

Per Year (Beg Jan 2013)
1) Itemized Deductions (ie $250k or higher income $40.0 bn
2) Hedge Fund managers $ 1.8 bn
3) Oil & Gas Industry $ 4.0 bn
4) Corp Jet Depreciation $ 300 mm

The answer: THE JOBS BILL WILL BE PAID FOR EXCLUSIVELY BY TAX INCREASES (NO SPENDING CUTS)

(1) Limit on Itemized Deductions for those making above $200k & Families above $250 k ==> will raise $400 bn over 10yrs ($40 bn/yr) (because you know anyone making over $200k is very wealthy)

(2) Taxing Carried Interest as Ordinary Income ==> will raise $18 bn over 10yrs ($1.8 bn / yr)

(3) Removing Oil & Gas Industry tax breaks ==> $40 bn over 10yrs ($4 bn / yr)

(4) Removing the favorable depreciation for Corp Jets (currently 5 yr depreciation) so it is the same as Commercial Jets (7yr depreciation) ==> $3 bn over 10yrs ($300 mm per yr)

So, Keynesian effiency aside where the IRR on any new job creation is so negative our excel #Refs out, our far more important question is... how does anyone think this proposal has any hope of passage in a Republican controlled House?

Courtesy of John Poehling

Average:
4.95
Your rating: None Average: 5 (20 votes)

www.zerohedge.com

dario73 · « **Reply #51 on:** September 13, 2011, 08:46:15 AM »

Quote from: Necrosis on September 12, 2011, 12:14:27 PM

you clearly don't know economics, most countries follow it's outline and it is probably the most reviewed economic theory in history.

Quote from: 333386 on September 12, 2011, 12:17:14 PM

Show me one country where this type of idiocy is working. just one.

No answer yet?

By the way, Keynesian economic theory has been reviewed and it has been shown many times to be nothing but crap.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #52 on:** September 13, 2011, 09:03:10 AM »

Source: Bloomberg

President Barack Obama proposed curbing the amount of interest from municipal bonds that top earners can exclude from their taxable income, a step that may diminish demand for state and local-government securities.

The president’s $447 billion job-creation plan would pare the tax break for municipal-bond interest to 28 percent for couples earning more than $250,000 a year. Such tax-exempt interest is currently worth 35 percent for earners in the top tax bracket because that’s the amount they would otherwise have to pay on their income.

Any move to limit the tax advantage for municipal securities would face resistance from local-government officials because the break bolsters demand for their debt, lowering the interest rates they pay when borrowing for public works. Investors in the $2.9 trillion market for municipal bonds are willing to accept lower returns because the income isn’t taxed.

“We’re very much opposed” to limiting the tax exemption, said Mike Nicholas, chief executive of the Bond Dealers of America, a Washington-based lobbying group for banks that underwrite municipal bonds. “You’re going to end up punishing state and local governments.”

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-12/obama-jobs-pla...

________________________ ________________

This farce of a bill is going nowhere.

225for70 · « **Reply #53 on:** September 13, 2011, 09:46:20 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on September 13, 2011, 08:33:23 AM

The Cost Of Obama's Stimulus Plan: $312,500 Per Job (Vote) Created Or Saved (And Guess Who Is Paying It)
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/12/2011 20:19 -0400

Gross Domestic Product White House

For those eager to put some math to the rhetoric coming from the White House over the president's jobs creation plan, and that should be everyone, here is a quick and dirty estimate based on the numbers being thrown around of a 2% GDP increase in year 1 and 1.9 million jobs created or saved... most saved, as in those you can't really quantify. Said otherwise, roughly a $300 billion increase in GDP yields 1.9 million jobs. So far so good. Now since the president is proposing to pay for the program over 10 years, let's assume the $475 billion in direct expenses is financed for 10 years at 2.5% which adds roughly $120 billion to the total cost of the program. In other words, as the calculations detailed and show below elaborate, the overall AJA plan will cost $250,000 per job created (excluding the interest expense) and $312,500 per union job, er job created (including interest). And that's how much it costs for Obama to purchase one vote... created or saved. Keynesian efficiency strikes like a Swiss watch yet again.

As for the just as troubling question of who ends up footing the bill of this "fully paid" for stimulus act, here are the details.

Earlier today, the OMB director Jack Lew gave some so far largely missing information when he laid out how the president plans on paying for the Stimulus Act (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/WhiteHouseDailyBriefing1719). Specifically, Obama and his advisors believe they are "over achieving" by raising more ($467 bn) over 10yrs to pay for the jobs package now.

So on an annual basis, tax increases will be as follows: (86% limit of itemized deductions, 4% hedge fund managers, 8.6% oil & gas, 0.6% Corp Jets)

Per Year (Beg Jan 2013)
1) Itemized Deductions (ie $250k or higher income $40.0 bn
2) Hedge Fund managers $ 1.8 bn
3) Oil & Gas Industry $ 4.0 bn
4) Corp Jet Depreciation $ 300 mm

The answer: THE JOBS BILL WILL BE PAID FOR EXCLUSIVELY BY TAX INCREASES (NO SPENDING CUTS)

(1) Limit on Itemized Deductions for those making above $200k & Families above $250 k ==> will raise $400 bn over 10yrs ($40 bn/yr) (because you know anyone making over $200k is very wealthy)

(2) Taxing Carried Interest as Ordinary Income ==> will raise $18 bn over 10yrs ($1.8 bn / yr)

(3) Removing Oil & Gas Industry tax breaks ==> $40 bn over 10yrs ($4 bn / yr)

(4) Removing the favorable depreciation for Corp Jets (currently 5 yr depreciation) so it is the same as Commercial Jets (7yr depreciation) ==> $3 bn over 10yrs ($300 mm per yr)

So, Keynesian effiency aside where the IRR on any new job creation is so negative our excel #Refs out, our far more important question is... how does anyone think this proposal has any hope of passage in a Republican controlled House?

Courtesy of John Poehling

Average:
4.95
Your rating: None Average: 5 (20 votes)

www.zerohedge.com

LMAO..

Quite sad how low this fucktard obama has fallen

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #54 on:** September 13, 2011, 10:39:02 AM »

Obama's Jobs Spending Plan: $250,000 Per Job
CNBC ^ | 09/13/2011 | John Carney

________________________ ________________________ _______

Barack Obama's jobs plan may be one of the worst policy proposals I've ever seen.

As I pointed out last week, the plan to "pay for" the jobs proposal with tax hikes is just lunacy. It eliminates every bit of stimulus effect that could possibly come from additional government spending.

Over at Zero Hedge, John Poehling has run the numbers on the American Jobs Act (AJA).

Even if you take very optimistic figures, the jobs bill turns out to be unbelievably costly.

For those eager to put some math to the rhetoric coming from the White House over the president's jobs creation plan, and that should be everyone, here is a quick and dirty estimate based on the numbers being thrown around of a 2 percent GDP increase in year 1 and 1.9 million jobs created or saved...most saved, as in those you can't really quantify. Said otherwise, roughly a $300 billion increase in GDP yields 1.9 million jobs. So far so good.

Now since the president is proposing to pay for the program over 10 years, let's assume the $475 billion in direct expenses is financed for 10 years at 2.5 percent which adds roughly $120 billion to the total cost of the program. In other words, as the calculations detailed and show below elaborate, the overall AJA plan will cost $250,000 per job created (excluding the interest expense) and $312,500 per union job created (including interest). And that's how much it costs for Obama to purchase one vote...created or saved. Keynesian efficiency strikes like a Swiss watch yet again.

So that's $250,000 per job, before interest expense.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #55 on:** September 13, 2011, 10:52:48 AM »

Obama, shovel this
By JOHN CRUDELE
Last Updated: 1:21 AM, September 13, 2011

This is a shovel-ready column. And by that I don’t mean you should go in the yard and bury it immediately.

This column is about the notion that “shovel-ready” jobs really exist. That’s the infamous phrase President Obama used in 2009 when he pushed through a $787 billion stimulus package.

In March of that year -- only two weeks after the stimulus was passed -- the president said that jobs were already being created or “saved.”

The idea of “saving” jobs is, of course, a convenient dodge because it defies being verified -- just the kind of gobbledygook that politicians love.

The president put the saved-or-created total at 400,000 jobs.

Well, President Obama was wrong -- and he admitted it early this summer.

Speaking before the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in Durham, NC, in June the president went off script and said “shovel-ready was not as... uh ... shovel-ready as we expected.”

Yesterday Obama sent another jobs bill to Congress. He didn’t use the words “shovel-ready” in a speech last Thursday laying out this bill.

Wise choice.

The latest bright idea to create jobs will be a bargain at just $447 billion. The president promised last Thursday when the bill was publicly announced that it would be paid for ahead of time and not add to the budget deficit

Back in 2009 I wrote about my gut feeling: if a project was truly shovel-ready -- meaning, on the verge of hiring workers -- it would already be funded. So federal money would only be replacing funds already allocated by the states for a project.

In the end, there would be no net gain in jobs -- just a shifting around of dough from state to federal budgets.

But let’s look at the 2009 stimulus in another way: did it create any jobs?

In 2010 we created 940,000 jobs. .

So far this year the number is 872,000.

So those 1.83 million jobs created in 2009 and 2010 ended up costing -- in stimulus terms -- about $430,000 per job.

Worse, this perpetually weak economy could cause companies to begin a new round of layoffs.

Bank of America, for instance, just yesterday announced that it would eventually let 30,000 workers go in order to save $5 billion. The troubled bank blamed over-regulation by Washington.

But we wouldn’t even be at this point if Washington had spent wisely in 2009. What’s the president shoveling these days?

john.crudele@nypost.com

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/obama_shovel_this_hMNRlwAPfMUdladOsDYywI#ixzz1Xr8xZkJe

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #56 on:** September 13, 2011, 02:23:44 PM »

Obama: Ventilation In Some Schools "Make Students Sick"
Related Videos | expand Playing obama ventilation in some schools make students sick

________________________ ________________________ _

President Obama told an audience in Ohio that poor ventilation systems that make students sick is a reason to pass his jobs plan, the "American Jobs Act."

"Some of the schools, the ventilation is so poor it could make students sick," Obama claimed.

"How do we expect our kids to do their very best in a situation like that? The answer is we can't," Obama said.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/13/obama_ventilation_in_some_schools_make_students_sick.html

________________________ ______

LMAO - The harvard genius on display.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #57 on:** September 13, 2011, 02:27:35 PM »

Obama to speak at NC company that’s shipping jobs to Costa Rica
The Daily Caller ^ | 9/13/11 | Matthew Boyle -

President Barack Obama will present his “jobs plan” on Wednesday at a company that’s shipping jobs overseas.

Obama is scheduled to present his “jobs plan” in Apex, N.C., on Wednesday at the headquarters of WestStar Precision.

WestStar Precision is a high-end, specialty manufacturer that just opened a new facility in San Jose, Costa Rica, creating many new jobs there, but not in the United States.

“Our main office and manufacturing facility near Research Triangle Park in the Raleigh/Durham area has approximately 11,000 sq. ft. of office space, production area and warehouse,” the company says on its website. “This facility has more than doubled in size from inception. Equipment includes precision CNC Machining centers, water jet cutter and CAD-CAM design stations.”

On the same page, WestStar Precision describes its new location, which is almost as big, in Costa Rica: “Our new office and manufacturing facility in San Jose, Costa Rica, also has approximately 10,000 sq. ft. with similar equipment as the main office. This facility is designed for high volume production to support our international and domestic clients.”

(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ObamaFail #3,456,789

Fury · « **Reply #58 on:** September 13, 2011, 03:59:43 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on September 12, 2011, 12:17:14 PM

Show me one country where this type of idiocy is working. just one.

Derp, derp, Europe! Oh wait, all but a few of the Northern countries are bankrupt...even with the US picking up their defense bill. Socialism ROCKS!

Fury · « **Reply #59 on:** September 13, 2011, 06:41:03 PM »

tonymctones · « **Reply #60 on:** September 13, 2011, 08:49:02 PM »

Quote from: GigantorX on September 13, 2011, 05:49:15 AM

BUMP

Why thank you kind sir, bump for 240

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #61 on:** September 14, 2011, 06:08:43 AM »

Source: Politico

President Barack Obama’s new jobs plan is hitting some unexpected turbulence in the halls of Congress: lawmakers from his own party.

As he demands Congress quickly approve his ambitious proposal aimed at reviving the sagging economy, many Democrats on Capitol Hill appear far from sold that the president has the right anecdote to spur major job growth and turn around their party’s political fortunes.

“Terrible,” Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) told POLITICO when asked about the president’s ideas for how to pay for the $450 billion price tag. “We shouldn’t increase taxes on ordinary income. … There are other ways to get there.”

“That offset is not going to fly, and he should know that,” said Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu from the energy-producing Louisiana, referring to Obama’s elimination of oil and gas subsidies. “Maybe it’s just for his election, which I hope isn’t the case.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63456.html

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #62 on:** September 14, 2011, 06:14:09 AM »

Reid Not Sure if Obama's Jobs Bill Can Pass
Fox News ^ | September 13, 2011 | Trish Turner

As President Obama continued to tout his new jobs bill campaign-style in the battleground state of Ohio, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., focusing instead on a potential disaster relief fight with Republicans, was unable to outline a path forward for the $447 billion plan.

"I don't know exactly what I'm going to do yet with the president's jobs bill, but we're going to have a full caucus meeting on it on Thurs," Reid told reporters, saying merely that he had introduced the bill Tuesday. A number of Democrats have previously opposed some of the ideas in the bill.

When asked if he had the votes to pass the legislation as is, the leader said only, "We'll see probably at later time."

(Excerpt) Read more at politics.blogs.foxnews.c om ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everyone knows this thing is a big fat joke. Obama set this up to fail because he thinks he can make an issue of it.

One and done for this marxist wretch.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #63 on:** September 14, 2011, 09:59:38 PM »

Obama: If you love me, pass my jobs bill
Sep 14 01:54 PM US/Eastern
Comments (0) Email to a friend Share on Facebook Tweet this

US President Barack Obama greets supporters after speaking on his proposed ...

Obama: If You Love Me You Gotta Help Me Pass This Bill

Politics Of Fear: Why Would We Wait To Act Until Another Bridge Falls?

US President Barack Obama told fired up supporters Wednesday that if they loved him, they must help pass his jobs bill, injecting more urgency into his push for key legislation.
Obama hit another key 2012 electoral swing state, North Carolina, to hike pressure on Republicans over his $447 billion American Jobs Act which is designed to jolt the economy and ease 9.1 percent unemployment.

One supporter from the raucous crowd shouted to Obama that they loved him, and in a standard response from his 2008 campaign he replied "I love you back" then added a new twist.

"If you love me, you got to help me pass this bill," Obama said, repeating the line to more cheers.

Obama's appeal may work with his supportive political base, but will cut little ice with Republicans seeking to exploit his diminished job approval ratings which are at 44 percent in a RealClearPolitics average of recent polls.

The president, on the latest leg of what aides say will be a months-long tour to promote the bill, also complained that some Republicans were against the legislation because they wanted to deprive him of a political victory.

"Give me a win? Give me a break" Obama said, during his pared down stump speech which is peppered with demands that Republicans "pass this bill."

Republicans however are increasingly dismissing the jobs plan as a political stunt, complaining Obama proposes to finance it by reducing itemized deductions for Americans earning over $200,000 a year and closing corporate tax breaks.

They have said that they are interested in some aspects of the bill which is weighted towards payroll tax cuts and includes infrastructure spending, but may pass those pieces separately, not in the whole bill as Obama demands.

LMFAO!!!!

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #64 on:** September 14, 2011, 10:05:24 PM »

Free Republic
Browse · Search Pings · Mail News/Activism
Topics · Post Article
Skip to comments.

Some Democrats Are Balking at Obama’s Jobs Bill
New York Times ^ | 9/14/11
Posted on September 14, 2011 10:13:07 PM EDT by Frankusa

President Obama anticipated Republican resistance to his jobs program, but he is now meeting increasing pushback from his own party. Many Congressional Democrats, smarting from the fallout over the 2009 stimulus bill, say there is little chance they will be able to support the bill as a single entity, citing an array of elements they cannot abide.

“I think the American people are very skeptical of big pieces of legislation,” Senator Bob Casey, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, said in an interview Wednesday, joining a growing chorus of Democrats who prefer an à la carte version of the bill despite White House resistance to that approach. “For that reason alone I think we should break it up.”...

Democrats... are divided over their objections, which stem from Mr. Obama’s sinking popularity in polls, parochial concerns and the party’s chronic inability to unite around a legislative initiative, even in the face of Republican opposition...

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...

As he barnstormed again on Wednesday, Mr. Obama told voters in North Carolina, “If you love me, you’ve got to help me pass this bill,” but even some members of Congress from that state may prefer to stay just friends.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...

Necrosis · « **Reply #65 on:** September 16, 2011, 11:35:29 AM »

Quote from: dario73 on September 13, 2011, 08:46:15 AM

No answer yet?

By the way, Keynesian economic theory has been reviewed and it has been shown many times to be nothing but crap.

has been reviewed? what does that even mean, it has critics but they are the minority, the theory never called for spending when in surplus, debt reduction was suppose to occur, without adhering to the theory as stated its useless.

show me the criticism and how its nothing but crap, ie your sources.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #66 on:** September 16, 2011, 11:37:24 AM »

Quote from: Necrosis on September 16, 2011, 11:35:29 AM

has been reviewed? what does that even mean, it has critics but they are the minority, the theory never called for spending when in surplus, debt reduction was suppose to occur, without adhering to the theory as stated its useless.

show me the criticism and how its nothing but crap, ie your sources.

Again ASSHOLE - Show us one example in one country where this kenyan economics has ever worked. Just one country will do.

kcballer · « **Reply #67 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:44:01 PM »

John Maynard Keynes was a genius of his time. But like all economic theories the best one depends on which situation you are currently in. Like mainstream political ideologies, each has its merits but not all are going to best in every economic or social circumstance.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #68 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:48:14 PM »

Quote from: kcballer on September 16, 2011, 12:44:01 PM

John Maynard Keynes was a genius of his time. But like all economic theories the best one depends on which situation you are currently in. Like mainstream political ideologies, each has its merits but not all are going to best in every economic or social circumstance.

Keynes never called for tax hikes during a depression / recession.

Keynes also called for scaling back govt spending during robust times.

What we are doing now is pure chaos.

kcballer · « **Reply #69 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:49:33 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on September 16, 2011, 12:48:14 PM

Keynes never called for tax hikes during a depression / recession.

Keynes also called for scaling back govt spending during robust times.

What we are doing now is pure chaos.

You should be quoting the fool who said Keynes was an idiot.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #70 on:** September 16, 2011, 12:52:49 PM »

Quote from: kcballer on September 16, 2011, 12:49:33 PM

You should be quoting the fool who said Keynes was an idiot.

no - I am telling you that those like yourself are lying about what keynes actually believed to justify your ponzinomics.

kcballer · « **Reply #71 on:** September 16, 2011, 03:19:03 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on September 16, 2011, 12:52:49 PM

no - I am telling you that those like yourself are lying about what keynes actually believed to justify your ponzinomics.

This statement has no factual basis regarding my views on Keynesian economics.

GigantorX · « **Reply #72 on:** September 16, 2011, 06:13:27 PM »

Quote from: kcballer on September 16, 2011, 03:19:03 PM

This statement has no factual basis regarding my views on Keynesian economics.

He advocated (not just this) using government intervention/spending etc to stimulate aggregate demand.

Keynes is really an economist who England and the West used during WWI and after for his policies and such. He was actually against deficit spending for the most part, wasn't a fan of returning to the gold standard post WWI, was wary (And rightly so) of gigantic reparation payments that Weimar Germany couldn't pay without printing.... blah blah blah.

As with all things, his actual idea and theory were/are misquoted, misused and misrepresented. Same can be said for Milton Freidman and just about every other things ever.