(08-05-2011 06:35 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 06:18 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 05:50 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 05:48 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 05:45 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I could be wrong but I dont think that is the case. Once again, I could be wrong.

It was called the HIRE Act...March 18, 2010

I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.



EDIT: Looking at the details, it looks like the HIRE Act expired December 31, 2010. Why not reinstate it?

Because it prompted some companies to lay off employees and then rehire at a later date to get the tax break, sometimes rehiring the same employees at lower wages.

Mmmmmm, I've been reading the actual legislation over the last hour and it doesnt look like that is possible. It specifically states that those are ineligible are 1)re-hires of employees that have worked with the company at time since january 2009, 2)employees over $106,000/year, 3)household employees, 4)those people who haven't been unemployed for at least 60 days, 5)employees with family relations to the employer.

Maybe there was another piece of legislation that caused what you are talking about.

Not possible? It's possible it you do not get caught. You do realize that Medicare/Medicaid loses billions in fraud yearly.

(08-05-2011 06:38 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 06:35 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 06:18 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 05:50 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 05:48 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  It was called the HIRE Act...March 18, 2010

I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.



EDIT: Looking at the details, it looks like the HIRE Act expired December 31, 2010. Why not reinstate it?

Because it prompted some companies to lay off employees and then rehire at a later date to get the tax break, sometimes rehiring the same employees at lower wages.

Mmmmmm, I've been reading the actual legislation over the last hour and it doesnt look like that is possible. It specifically states that those are ineligible are 1)re-hires of employees that have worked with the company at time since january 2009, 2)employees over $106,000/year, 3)household employees, 4)those people who haven't been unemployed for at least 60 days, 5)employees with family relations to the employer.

Maybe there was another piece of legislation that caused what you are talking about.

Not possible? It's possible it you do not get caught.

Then the IRS should be paying them a visit.

(08-05-2011 06:40 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 06:38 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 06:35 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 06:18 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 05:50 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I stand corrected. Thanks for the info.



EDIT: Looking at the details, it looks like the HIRE Act expired December 31, 2010. Why not reinstate it?

Because it prompted some companies to lay off employees and then rehire at a later date to get the tax break, sometimes rehiring the same employees at lower wages.

Mmmmmm, I've been reading the actual legislation over the last hour and it doesnt look like that is possible. It specifically states that those are ineligible are 1)re-hires of employees that have worked with the company at time since january 2009, 2)employees over $106,000/year, 3)household employees, 4)those people who haven't been unemployed for at least 60 days, 5)employees with family relations to the employer.

Maybe there was another piece of legislation that caused what you are talking about.

Not possible? It's possible it you do not get caught.

Then the IRS should be paying them a visit.

It's called gaming the system. There are illegal immigrant people who change SS# and ID every couple of years when the IRS sends notices that names and numbers do not match. The SS money collected is then never paid out, so the IRS is all too happy to let it go on.

(08-05-2011 06:44 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 06:40 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 06:38 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 06:35 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 06:18 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Because it prompted some companies to lay off employees and then rehire at a later date to get the tax break, sometimes rehiring the same employees at lower wages.

Mmmmmm, I've been reading the actual legislation over the last hour and it doesnt look like that is possible. It specifically states that those are ineligible are 1)re-hires of employees that have worked with the company at time since january 2009, 2)employees over $106,000/year, 3)household employees, 4)those people who haven't been unemployed for at least 60 days, 5)employees with family relations to the employer.

Maybe there was another piece of legislation that caused what you are talking about.

Not possible? It's possible it you do not get caught.

Then the IRS should be paying them a visit.

It's called gaming the system. There are illegal immigrant people who change SS# and ID every couple of years when the IRS sends notices that names and numbers do not match. The SS money collected is then never paid out, so the IRS is all too happy to let it go on.

I know. I didnt say they will get a visit from the IRS, but that they should.

(08-05-2011 01:16 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 01:11 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 12:59 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  It's been a tough few months and I'm just looking for good news on the employment front. I understand you guys enjoy the gloom and doom so I'll try to be more pessimistic on my next post.

Don't enjoy gloom and doom, just lived through Mr. Jimmy's one term and I know the liberal economic policy didn't work then and they won't work now. Gubment doesn't create wealth only redistributes it. Gubment doesn't create jobs it creates dependencies.

Speaking of dependencies, 45.8 million people on food stamps in May. But alas, i.e. Roberta's dependencies stem from his stupidity. He will complain about his situation and denies he has anything to do with it.

I really don't know how that many people can be on food stamps. Must be made up of lots of unemployed workers(many of which have college degrees) and those only working part time since many/most will qualify due to the lack of income. Btw, you have to make less that $1174 gross to be eligible. Working at $5.15/hour full time barely qualifies you.

(08-05-2011 01:39 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 01:32 PM)Mr. Peanut Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 01:26 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Salaries from government jobs still pay for **** at your local ford dealership and HEB. We have a demand crisis. I'm getting to the point where I dont care where that demand comes from.

This hatred of the government and it's employees is out of control.

Says who? With what evidence?

Just watch Fox, read Pajamasmedia, READ YOUR OWN DMAN POSTS MORON.

(08-05-2011 01:42 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 01:26 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  Salaries from government jobs still pay for **** at your local ford dealership and HEB. We have a demand crisis. I'm getting to the point where I dont care where that demand comes from.

Keeping people employed thru the gov't in order to increase demand is like spending a lot on your credit card because you need a big cash back bonus.

Get those people off the rolls, reduce the burdensome regulatory requirements (and associated paperwork) and start reducing taxes...and you'll get your consumer demand back.

Pretty stupid aren't ya Torchy? Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be cuts in government jobs. It is that nutjobs like yourself think we need to cut them all at once leaving the economy in shambles.

(08-05-2011 04:26 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 04:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Companies don't even want to hire people that are currently unemployed. How do you get them to hire people that are long-term unemployed?

You can use the Tax Code as an incentive. We already do it for certain groups of people. Why not the long term unemployed? or for veterans?

Wasn't this tried? I believe it was. Maybe filibustered by Republicans?

(08-06-2011 04:25 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 04:26 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 04:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Companies don't even want to hire people that are currently unemployed. How do you get them to hire people that are long-term unemployed?

You can use the Tax Code as an incentive. We already do it for certain groups of people. Why not the long term unemployed? or for veterans?

Wasn't this tried? I believe it was. Maybe filibustered by Republicans?

Is it really that hard to read the rest of the thread. It is discussed in depth.

(08-06-2011 04:38 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-06-2011 04:25 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 04:26 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 04:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Companies don't even want to hire people that are currently unemployed. How do you get them to hire people that are long-term unemployed?

You can use the Tax Code as an incentive. We already do it for certain groups of people. Why not the long term unemployed? or for veterans?

Wasn't this tried? I believe it was. Maybe filibustered by Republicans?

Is it really that hard to read the rest of the thread. It is discussed in depth.

Yeah, I did it again. I read the thread post by post and commenting on specific posts as I go instead of reading the whole thing and going back and commenting.

(08-06-2011 04:20 PM)RobertN Wrote:   Pretty stupid aren't ya Torchy? Nobody is saying that there shouldn't be cuts in government jobs. It is that nutjobs like yourself think we need to cut them all at once leaving the economy in shambles.

So, the economy isn't in shambles already?

What you seem to want and cheer for is more stupid ideas like cash for clunkers, or the government mortgage deals for 1st time homebuyers. Those idiotic ideas just prolong the pain and kick the can down the road, not allowing the MARKET to correct itself.

When our government finally defaults or, worst case scenario, the dollar crashes, the pain will be infinitely worse for this country. Yet it could have been dealt with and wasn't. Instead of looking for things to cut, one party will not allow their favorite socialist programs to be touched. They don't want anything cut and want to continue spending us into oblivion.

You may say that they (dems) offered X, Y, and/or Z but NOBODY ever saw any proposal in writing, so to me that is pure fantasy talking points for the sympathetic media.

Tell me Rob, what does all the $$ spent on government bureaucracy PRODUCE for this country? My answer - nothing of value. Business produces things of value, be it products or services. Not so for government. These people and agencies must justify their budgets and their very existence. They do it by ............. writing more and more regulations and rules (laws). They are a money pit that produce little to no value to anybody but themselves. Taxpayer $$ gets collected and sent to D.C. where a bunch is skimmed off the top to feed the beast, then the state gets SOME of it back - and ALWAYS with strings attached.

Anybody else notice the Postal Service lost another $3bn and is in crisis mode? Ought to make all of us anxious to turn over our healthcare to an outfit (government) with that kind of track record and/or business model.

Just a note to those just now awakening from a long, long nap. When the Obama administration touts their latest jobs figures, you can probably guess that the majority of them were government jobs. He's great at growing government, not so much at understanding or creating conditions to grow the private sector.

Obama Money... right.....

Beneath the jobs report surface lie some ugly truths

Quote:According to a Bureau of Labor Statistics breakdown, there were 139,296,000 people working in July, compared to 139,334,000 the month before, or a drop of 38,000.

Fewer people actually working in July than June...hmmm.... how does that work voodoo economics?