Do you know about - Obama's Jobs Plan: Troubling Questions Galore
Teacher Supplies! Again, for I know. Ready to share new things that are useful. You and your friends.The written details of Obama's jobs plan are discouraging. They make it clear that the plan is not about serious business growth and long-term sustainable job creation.
What I said. It isn't outcome that the true about Teacher Supplies. You see this article for home elevators anyone need to know is Teacher Supplies.How is Obama's Jobs Plan: Troubling Questions Galore
It's all about politics. The plan calls for more big spending in the short-term to pander to Obama's base and hype class warfare. Sure, dumping big money into the economy will likely trigger some synthetic short-term momentum that will give Obama something to talk about over the next 14 months as he seeks to verbalize his own job. But as we have seen with Obama's last stimulus bill, near zero interest rates, the Fed's Qe2 program, and unprecedented government spending, more money, at best, creates only a false sense of improve in the short-term. Ultimately, it leads to more debt, a weaker dollar, fewer jobs, and a scared, paralyzed business community.
The specifics of the plan raise a slew of troubling questions. Here's my take on many of the big ones, segregated into ten topics.
1. How long does Obama categorically want the 2011 payroll tax holiday to continue?
Wasn't this payroll tax holiday just a last exiguous increasing to the eleventh hour 2010 negotiations to expand the Bush tax cuts, a costly 0 billion item (per year) that Obama demanded to help appease his base?
Hasn't the payroll tax holiday been a complete failure at creating jobs?
How can Obama maybe now claim that letting this short-term holiday expire on schedule is an unfair tax increase?
Wouldn't extending the tax holiday into the future just make it harder to get rid of this perk in the future?
Is Obama's real intention to make this payroll tax holiday permanent?
Doesn't this holiday rob from collective protection and Medicare and make these programs progressively weaker by stripping away big dollars that are earmarked for these programs?
Is the real objective of the extended payroll tax holiday to set Obama up so that he can campaign that he has delivered a tax break for middle- and lower- revenue Americans, albeit at the cost of senior entitlement programs?
2. Has unemployment guarnatee now come to be the extreme welfare program?
Is there any limit on future extensions of the unprecedented benefit extensions that already exist?
Isn't it now clear that these extensions do nothing to originate jobs?
Weren't more than 10 percent of the unemployment benefits paid last year classified as "improper payments," the bulk of which were paid to habitancy who had already returned to work?
Isn't it true that thousands now opt to stay out of the workforce because the marginal yield over their unemployment benefits isn't worth the effort?
3. Is there any evidence to advise that short-term, make-work, government building jobs, funded with borrowed dollars, substantially lead to subsidy-free, long-term job growth?
Wasn't that the failed objective of Obama's first weighty stimulus schedule that sprouted costly building signs all over the country but did nothing to help with long-term job growth?
Wasn't that prior stimulus schedule the runaway spending spree that Biden was supposed to carefully manage?
Wasn't that prior stimulus schedule going to fund shovel-ready jobs that Obama laughingly acknowledged didn't exist after the fact?
How can we maybe believe a repeat schedule will be any different?
How can Obama maybe advocate such a course simply because there are projects and habitancy who want to do them?
Doesn't that over-simplistic logic ignore all economic consequences and assume a limitless contribute of money?
Is that logic any distinct that a bankrupt join claiming that they should get their house remodeled because they categorically want it and others can use the work?
4. Why would any business hire a new employee to regain a peanut tax prestige that, at best, covers only a fraction of the cost of the fringe benefits offered to the new employee?
Isn't this just a useless gimmick designed to originate an illusion, and a associated campaign claim, that businesses are being offered meaningful pro-growth tax incentives?
5. Why should a business that hires a veteran or a long-term unemployed man be given an extra tax credit?
How does this growth uncut job creation?
Doesn't it just favor clear classes of employees over others?
Won't businesses be stronger by hiring the most fine persons?
Should the federal government be earmarking beloved candidates in the hiring game?
Why can't veterans play on a level playing field with others?
Why should persons receive a preferential hiring status just because they remain on the unemployment rolls for a long time?
6. Shouldn't individual states be responsible for resolving their present educational challenges, including dealings with teacher unions?
Didn't the last stimulus bill prove that short-term federal subsidies, funded with borrowed dollars, promote a misguided dependence, originate expectations that can't be sustained long-term, and contribute an excuse for states to not take aggressive, strategic actions?
Don't states ultimately end up weaker as a result?
Don't these short-term subsidies ultimately hurt long-term, self-sustaining job creation?
7. Why should the federal government even reconsider creating a new corporation, wholly-owned by the government, that would be staffed by individuals appointed by the President and that would spend tens of billions of dollars each year by making direct loans and loan guarantees to finance "economically-viable" transportation, water and power projects?
Wouldn't such a corporation ultimately lead to the same impossible problems that Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae have created?
Why should the federal government be in the business of financing inexpressive businesses?
Given the Solyndra debacle and scandal (which cost taxpayers a half of billion dollars) and similar failed government-funded projects, why should anyone think that government bureaucrats have the capacity to conclude either a scheme is "economically viable"?
Wouldn't such a government-owned corporation encourage ugly crony capitalism and (as in the case of Solyndra) come to be a tool for using taxpayer dollars to reward campaign donors and finance wasteful projects for political purposes?
By throwing big taxpayer dollars at marginal projects, wouldn't such a government-owned corporation disrupt the normal discipline of the capital markets?
8. Why should the employment discrimination laws be extended now to make unemployed persons a new protected class under such laws?
How will such a change maybe result in the creation of more jobs?
Wouldn't such a change contribute a disincentive for businesses to hire?
Wouldn't such a change just encourage more businesses to outsource their needs, often to associates covering of the U.S.?
Isn't the fact that a man has been out of work a long-time a relevant factor for an boss to reconsider in the hiring process?
Wouldn't such a change in the law lead to wasteful, job-destroying litigation where unemployed persons, armed with their tenacious attorneys, will verbalize that they were victims of discrimination, claiming liquidated damaged and attorney fees (all authorized by Obama's plan)?
What supplementary steps will a business need to take in the hiring process to safe against potential discrimination claims?
How much energy, time and money will be spent by businesses to safe themselves (on training programs, extra procedures and the like), all of which will result in less job creation?
Wouldn't such a change in the law result in the Eeoc, the Justice group and other agencies hassling businesses even more because of their hiring practices?
Wouldn't such a change in the law originate a mindset in many unemployed persons that they are "victims"?
Isn't such a mindset destructive to many by creating an entitlement hope and subordinating the point of personal responsibility?
Wouldn't such a change in the law just spawn weighty new government regulations that will slow down and hurt all businesses?
Isn't this proposed law change just an additional one example of Obama-style, job-killing legislation?
9. Wouldn't fewer jobs be created by increasing taxes on those who make over 0,000 a year and on oil-drilling activities?
Don't many successful owners of pass-through business entities (S corporations, Llcs and partnerships) make over 0,000 a year?
Isn't it a given that increasing their taxes will result in fewer jobs being created?
Wouldn't limiting the benefit of any charitable deduction to 28 percent just result in less charitable deductions?
Wouldn't drops in charitable deductions lead to fewer jobs in charitable organizations?
Wouldn't limiting the benefit of the home mortgage interest deduction to 28 percent result in permanent damage to the housing industry, make it much tougher from that business to recover, and lead to many fewer building jobs?
Wouldn't increasing taxes on oil-drilling operations supplementary discourage oil drilling, make us more dependent on offshore oil sources, and continue to kill oil-related jobs in the U.S.?
Is Obama's plan just an attempt to redistribute wealth under the guise of job creation, when in fact it will lead to less long-term, sustainable job creation?
10. What is Obama's hope in providing that the proposed tax increases will not happen if the Super Committee of 12 can find sufficient future spending cuts?
Is this a ploy to force the Super Committee of 12 to find more illusory future spending cuts?
Is this a ploy to force the Super Committee of 12 to join the proposed tax increases into their final proposal?
Is this a ploy to hold out some temporary uncertainty with respect to the tax increases to help with an immediate duct of Obama's plan?
Doesn't this just confirm the stupidity of the whole Super Committee idea?
Is the whole plan just a gimmick to give Obama something to campaign about when Congress shoots down the plan because good answers to the foregoing questions and many others don't exist?
I hope you get new knowledge about Teacher Supplies. Where you can put to use in your evryday life. And most of all, your reaction is Teacher Supplies.Read more.. Obama's Jobs Plan: Troubling Questions Galore. View Related articles associated with Teacher Supplies. I Roll below. I have recommended my friends to help share the Facebook Twitter Like Tweet. Can you share Obama's Jobs Plan: Troubling Questions Galore.
No comments:
Post a Comment