Arnold "Claims" 150,000 Stimulus Jobs Created in Cali

[Onceler]

If you personally know three there must be others. I hope it will work. Tax incentives are what were needed from the beginning.

You do understand that various tax breaks & incentives comprised over one third of the original package, correct?

 

[Damocles]

You do understand that various tax breaks & incentives comprised over one third of the original package, correct?

I understand that they were improperly applied and were most often things like the breaks if you buy something rather than breaks for corps who we need to start hiring things.

Do you understand the difference? This one was aimed at jobs because they suddenly realized that actually trying to get private companies to start hiring people through direct incentive was a good idea. I think that they weren't aggressive enough even with this one, but it will be more effective than the entire stimulus.

The attempt to make sure no "rich" people got any of the breaks were backasswardly applied. Thankfully this delve into Reaganomics and "trickle-down" logic that employers are where most people get money finally, though in miniature, got into their lexicon.

There were two provisions in the original stimulus package that applied to businesses.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=183867,00.html

1. The first provision increases the limit up to which a business can expense property purchased and placed in service during its 2008 tax year.

2. The second provision provides an additional 50 percent special depreciation allowance for property acquired and placed in service during calendar year 2008.

Neither incentivized businesses to HIRE PEOPLE.

The tax breaks were things like $8000 credit to buy a house and things like that, none of which incentivized businesses to actually take on new employees.

These kinds of tax breaks utilized Bush Logic in "stimulus" and gave money to people who would "spend" it, but not directly first you had to spend the money they didn't just send you a check.

 

[Onceler]

I understand that they were improperly applied and were most often things like the breaks if you buy something rather than breaks for corps who we need to start hiring things.

Do you understand the difference? This one was aimed at jobs because they suddenly realized that actually trying to get private companies to start hiring people through direct incentive was a good idea. I think that they weren't aggressive enough even with this one, but it will be more effective than the entire stimulus.

The attempt to make sure no "rich" people got any of the breaks were backasswardly applied. Thankfully this delve into Reaganomics and "trickle-down" logic that employers are where most people get money finally, though in miniature, got into their lexicon.

There were two provisions in the original stimulus package that applied to businesses.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=183867,00.html

1. The first provision increases the limit up to which a business can expense property purchased and placed in service during its 2008 tax year.

2. The second provision provides an additional 50 percent special depreciation allowance for property acquired and placed in service during calendar year 2008.

Neither incentivized businesses to HIRE PEOPLE.

The tax breaks were things like $8000 credit to buy a house and things like that, none of which incentivized businesses to actually take on new employees.

These kinds of tax breaks utilized Bush Logic in "stimulus" and gave money to people who would "spend" it, but not directly first you had to spend the money they didn't just send you a check.

You need to look through what actually passed.

Every time you talk about the 1st stimulus, it's pretty clear that you don't know what was in it. It sounds more like you read a TEA party flyer on what it contains.

 

[Damocles]

You need to look through what actually passed.

Every time you talk about the 1st stimulus, it's pretty clear that you don't know what was in it. It sounds more like you read a TEA party flyer on what it contains.

Link me up, please. Since you have so clearly studied it with a fine-toothed comb you must have links saved so you could return to it and finish reading about it. I linked to the IRS website, genius, your turn. Please tell me who is more expert in the tax breaks in the stimulus than the IRS oh great guru of all things Obama.

 

[KingCondanomation]

Setting aside the numbers debate, job creation for government jobs financed off borrowed money is never a net gain, either it is temporary jobs that will be gone once the government reins in deficit spending or (more likely) it will bring about tax increases that will suck more private equity that formerly would have gone to direct or indirect job creation from private businesses.
1 in 4 jobs in France are government jobs and their unemployment rate has always been high and that's even with artificial measures like a 4 day work week which forces more jobs to exist (and boosts the cost yet more of all goods and services).