BROWN TURNS BLUE AS FAST AS THE TEA CHILLS IN MASSACHUSETTS

[JD09]

Why would you need to spend 800 billion dollars to give a tax break? It's like someone saying they need to spend a few million dollars to allow people to drive through the tolls for free.

And why do we need to spend money to provide incentives for business? Isn't the idea of business to produce or provide a service to make your own money? Why is there any other incentive?

But I'm with you in spirit...just not in practice. The best thing the govt can do for our small businesses is to stay the hell out of their way.

You do know that the original "bipartisan" bill co sponsored with Orin Hatch and republucan support was spending $85 billion and this had been cut down to $15 billion. I understand where you are coming from, but I do not understand the "turncoat" criticism of Brown here without specifics

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/11/reid-scales-jobs-eliminates-key-bipartisanship-elements/

"Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who co-sponsored a key part of the initial $85 billion bill to offer a $5,000 payroll tax break to employers who hire new employees, also spoke favorably of the bill."

If the republican "leadership" had been supportive of this would you give brown a pass? I dont think there would be a thread about it.

 

[cekim]

You do know that the original "bipartisan" bill co sponsored with Orin Hatch was pending $85 billion and this had been cut down to $15 biliion. I understand where you are coming from, but I do not understand the "turncoat" criticism of Brown here without
....

If the republican "leadership" had been supportive of this would you give brown a pass?

No, it's RINO garbage. It is "bread and circus" at best and government sanction robbery at worst.

 

[JD09]

No, it's RINO garbage. It is "bread and circus" at best and government sanction robbery at worst.

Well then the whole lot of them needs to be flushed. In the short term, this bill is not horrible and Browns real litmus test will be healthcare. But also I do take a different view between helping small businesses and multi Billion dollar companies. Make it easier and better for individual people who wish to make their own way help themselves. This is different imo than giving tax breaks to global multinationals.

 

[cekim]

Well then the whole lot of them needs to be flushed. In the short term, this bill is not horrible and Browns real litmus test will be healthcare. But also I do take a different view between helping small businesses and multi Billion dollar companies. Make it better for individual people who wish to make their own way help themselves. This is different imo than giving tax breaks to global multinationals.

I have a huge problem with "helping" ANY company. The playing field should be level. No help for ANYONE.

That said, I don't view helping one or the other with any more charity. They both need to be stopped.

Voting to allow the measure to go forward with a Democrat majority sufficient to pass it would be the OPPOSITE of stopping it...

This is the crux of our political problem. We keep choosing between greasing one palm or the other. The hand holding the grease needs to be cuffed regardless of its party.

 

[Underwhere]

You do know that the original "bipartisan" bill co sponsored with Orin Hatch and republucan support was spending $85 billion and this had been cut down to $15 biliion. I understand where you are coming from, but I do not understand the "turncoat" criticism of Brown here without specifics

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/11/reid-scales-jobs-eliminates-key-bipartisanship-elements/

"Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who co-sponsored a key part of the initial $85 billion bill to offer a $5,000 payroll tax break to employers who hire new employees, also spoke favorably of the bill."

If the republican "leadership" had been supportive of this would you give brown a pass?

No. I don't care whether it came from Republicans or Democrats. I don't vote by party nor do I care which idiot wrote the thing.

To me the tax break was thrown in there to distract you from the real point of the bill.
The tax break is a blowjob before she tells you "Hey I cheated on you with your best friend. Sorry but wasn't that a nice blowjob? Let's go out for dinner. By the way I lost my purse...and I'm pregnant"

It's not a complete tax break. It's a temporary break from the requirements to pay social security tax until the end of 2010...for ONLY new hires.
Again, just social security tax, not all taxes...and only for 10 months..and only for new hires.

So...if you owned a business and you hired 2 new employees at 50k each, you would save $5166.66 as a result of this bill. During the 10 month period you would have spent $83333.33 on your employee salary, not to mention other costs associated with maintaining that employee for the current year and for years to come because you can't simply let them go after this tax break is over. (Even if you did you'd still have to pay unemployment for them). Would any business ever take those odds?

Basically ask yourself: If I'm not hiring any employees now...I could spend $84k to save $5k for this year, but then would have to spend $100k every year thereafter without any discount? Is $5k discount worth jumping into a recurring $100 expense every year?



THE REAL BILL:
There is a part of the bill which would spend 15 BILLION of our money on supporting social services such as unemployment, paying for people's healthcare etc.

It couldn't be more progressive in my opinion.

If I were in Congress right now I'd write a bill and call it the "Small Business Incentive Act" where I would give businesses who employ exactly 11.5 people a tax credit of $1000 per 10 years for new hires who make a combined salary of over $250,000. Oh and by the way, I would also spend $20 billion dollars on providing mittens for those in cold areas. Distribution of these mittens are projected to begin in June of 2010. Let me re-iterate, it's called the "Small Business Incentive Act". I'm helping job creation.

 

[JD09]

I have a huge problem with "helping" ANY company. The playing field should be level. No help for ANYONE.

That said, I don't view helping one or the other with any more charity. They both need to be stopped.

Voting to allow the measure to go forward with a Democrat majority sufficient to pass it would be the OPPOSITE of stopping it...

This is the crux of our political problem. We keep choosing between greasing one palm or the other. The hand holding the grease needs to be cuffed regardless of its party.

Yes but there is not a level playing field between small businesses and Large companies. You know this. If you really want a level playing field then it needs to be across every aspect of business and govt. It is not.


Well the Govt Taxes companies. You imply that taking less is charity? Were you as vehemently opposed when you got your individual tax break check under the Bush Administration?

 

[JD09]

No. I don't care whether it came from Republicans or Democrats.

To me the tax break was thrown in there to distract you from the real point of the bill.
The tax break is a blowjob before she tells you "Hey I cheated on you with your best friend. Sorry but wasn't that a nice blowjob?"

It's not a complete tax break. It's a temporary break from the requirements to pay social security tax until the end of 2010...for ONLY new hires.
Again, just social security tax, not all taxes...and only for 10 months.

So...if you owned a business and you hired 2 new employees at 50k each, you would save $5166.66 as a result of this bill. During the 10 month period you would have spent $83333.33 on your employee salary, not to mention other costs associated with maintaining that employee for the current year and for years to come because you can't simply let them go after this tax break is over. (Even if you did you'd still have to pay unemployment for them). Would any business ever take those odds?

Basically ask yourself: If I'm not hiring any employees now...I could spend $84k to save $5k for this year, but then would have to spend $100k every year thereafter without any discount? Is $5k discount worth jumping into a recurring $100 expense every year?



THE REAL BILL:
There is a part of the bill which would spend 15 BILLION of our money on supporting social services such as unemployment, paying for people's healthcare etc.

It couldn't be more progressive in my opinion.

The whole tax thing and the provisions of this bill are two different arguements.

Well I think it should be permanent beyond 2010....but that isn't going to happen at them moment (and it wasnt wether Demo or Republican) is it and it isn't forcing anyone to hire. That will be a business decision for the owner.

Also "Reid threw out the extension of some tax breaks included to win Republicans, but also some items popular with Democrats, including extension of unemployment benefits and subsidies to help the jobless keep their health insurance. "

Unemployment extension was in the original bill and COBRA extension....not in this one.

 

[cekim]

Yes but there is not a level playing field between small businesses and Large companies. You know this. If you really want a level playing field then it needs to be across every aspect of business and govt. It is not.

It isn't going to get level stuffing paper under the legs either...

The hard choice everyone is going to have to make to save our nation and economy is "ask not what your country can do for you".

We are all going to have to turn down offers of candy and toys from .gov and elect people who will go to DC to cut the other 3 legs on the table rather than wadding up $100's under the fourth leg.

How we convince people to think long term and do this is a mystery I have yet to solve.

 

[Underwhere]

The whole tax thing and the provisions of this bill are two different arguements.

Well I think it should be permanent beyond 2010....but that isn't going to happen at them moment (and it wasnt wether Demo or Republican) is it and it isn't forcing anyone to hire. That will be a business decision for the owner.

Also "Reid threw out the extension of some tax breaks included to win Republicans, but also some items popular with Democrats, including extension of unemployment benefits and subsidies to help the jobless keep their health insurance. "

Unemployment extension was in the original bill and COBRA extension....not in this one.

I stand corrected on the unemployment and COBRA.
So what is 15 billion dollars being spent on?

And I still stand by my statement that this Tax Credit is totally useless (and designed to be that way) as a guise for them to spend 15 billion dollars how they see fit.

 

[Underwhere]

Yes but there is not a level playing field between small businesses and Large companies. You know this. If you really want a level playing field then it needs to be across every aspect of business and govt. It is not.


Well the Govt Taxes companies. You imply that taking less is charity? Were you as vehemently opposed when you got your individual tax break check under the Bush Administration?

The level playing field = no incentives or breaks for anyone.
I don't know how clearer that can be.

As far as the checks some people received under the Bush Administration?
Don't be confused. THAT IS YOUR OWN MONEY. It wasn't a payroll check.

If every week I stole $50 bucks from you, and then one day came and gave you $10 bucks am I a saint or still a thief?

 

[Admin]

As far as the checks some people received under the Bush Administration?
Don't be confused. THAT IS YOUR OWN MONEY. It wasn't a payroll check.

+1

 

[cekim]

I stand corrected on the unemployment and COBRA.
So what is 15 billion dollars being spent on?

And I still stand by my statement that this Tax Credit is totally useless (and designed to be that way) as a guise for them to spend 15 billion dollars how they see fit.

How about just cut payroll taxes for everyone?

 

[Underwhere]

How about just cut payroll taxes for everyone?

I think that is long overdue

 

[JD09]

The level playing field = no incentives or breaks for anyone.
I don't know how clearer that can be.

As far as the checks some people received under the Bush Administration?
Don't be confused. THAT IS YOUR OWN MONEY. It wasn't a payroll check.

It isn't that your viewpoint it is not clear, it is that is not reality on either the political or economic level.

If you own a business you earn it...if you are the owner it is YOUR money is it not? Where do you think payroll comes from? If I own a small business I can reinvest money, pay myself or keep it as cash in the company basically. But If I am the owner...is it not my money?

payroll....money you earn paid to you for service provided = your money

Revenue...money the company earns for services or products provided... and if I am the owner ...whose money is it?

 

[arlow]

He doesn't support the current bill.
He'll vote for a modified one in the near future that is still "socialized medicine" but with a nicer name.

If you're not familiar with the one implemented in 2006, it requires all MA residents to purchase health insurance or incur a fee penalty.
Those fees are supposedly used to pay for other people's healthcare costs.

Direct from his website:

You still can't grasp it can you???? All he has done is buy us f-ing time until November when the (R)'s take back both the house and senate. Then it WON'T F-ING MATTER!

Ding ding ding, bingo we have a winnah!!!

 

[Underwhere]

If you own a business you earn it...if you are the owner it is YOUR money is it not? Where do you think payroll comes from? If I own a small business I can reinvest money, pay myself or keep it as cash in the company basically. But If I am the owner...is it not my money?

payroll....money you earn paid to you for service provided = your money

Revenue...money paid to the company for services provided and if I am the owner ...whose money is it?

I think you've misinterpreted because I have no clue what you're getting at.

My point was that those tax break checks that some people got: they weren't payroll checks (from the US Govt to citizens). They were refunds of money the US Govt took from them.
The money was theirs (citizens) to begin with. They only decided that year that they would give a little of it back. Even if I had gotten a check, I would not feel as if I "owed" the Govt anything. In fact I would feel that they owed me a bigger refund.

 

[Underwhere]

Ding ding ding, bingo we have a winnah!!!

Scott Brown has a big R next to his name.
If we con't care what he does and not hold him accountable, are we going to continue doing the same when the rest of them are elected?

For many of us, he is from our state. WE literally helped him get there. His position is not a place holder. He is a Senator. Out of the 300 million legal citizens in the US, he is 1 of 100 that represent them. In that situation there are no place holders and we need to hold them accountable.

 

[ochmude]

Scott Brown has a big R next to his name.
If we con't care what he does and not hold him accountable, are we going to continue doing the same when the rest of them are elected?

No.

 

[JD09]

I think you've misinterpreted because I have no clue what you're getting at.

My point was that those tax break checks that some people got: they weren't payroll checks (from the US Govt to citizens). They were refunds of money the US Govt took from them.
The money was theirs (citizens) to begin with. They only decided that year that they would give a little of it back. Even if I had gotten a check, I would not feel as if I "owed" the Govt anything. In fact I would feel that they owed me a bigger refund.

Correct. And money taken from small businesses from the government in the form of taxes is the companies money (and the owner of the companies money(Equity) ) I agree. My point is this is a whole separate discussion about the system of the Govt taking your individual money or your money from your company. Give a tax break, make it permanent...and actually cut spending to account for the loss of tax revenue. BUT this thread was about how Scott Brown was a turncoat because of the vote on this bill. Given the system, is it really that bad a vote to crucify him on, and furthermore...I hear (not on this board) staunch republicans complaining about him when the Republican co sponsored bill would have been $70 billion more. I don't think you would have heard a peep out of these people about Scott Brown then if it was a $85 billion Republican supported bill.

 

[arlow]

Scott Brown has a big R next to his name.
If we con't care what he does and not hold him accountable, are we going to continue doing the same when the rest of them are elected?

For many of us, he is from our state. WE literally helped him get there. His position is not a place holder. He is a Senator. Out of the 300 million legal citizens in the US, he is 1 of 100 that represent them. In that situation there are no place holders and we need to hold them accountable.

Derek is right you dont get it at all..

If your gonna stand on "he must represent the voters that put him in office" you might do well to remember that as many or more democrats and independents voted for him than republicans in the election. We just dont have that many republicans in this state. If you didnt understand he was a moderate republican at best you didnt look very hard.


He has accomplished the immediate goal we needed by forcing a halt to the healthcare bill they were poised to shove down our throats. This is Massachussetts, a true republican would not have a chance at getting elected. We are far better with a moderate like Scott than a pinko like Martha.

 

[Underwhere]

Correct. And money taken from small businesses from the government in the form of taxes is the companies money (and the owner of the companies money(Equity) ) I agree. My point is this is a whole separate discussion about the system of the Govt taking your individual money or your money from your company. Give a tax break, make it permanent...and actually cut spending to account for the loss of tax revenue. BUT this thread was about how Scott Brown was a turncoat because of the vote on this bill. Given the system, is it really that bad a vote to crucify him on, and furthermore...I hear (not on this board) staunch republicans complaining about him when the Republican co sponsored bill would have been $70 billion more. I don't think you would have heard a peep out of these people about Scott Brown then if it was a $85 billion Republican supported bill.

Personally I don't care who complains, whether it be Democrats or Republicans.
To me this is a bad bill, one that does not actually create jobs and does not provide tax breaks to really anyone.

He ran for office saying he would help out business, not pass bills which sounded like they would yet provided no realistic method to do so.
Anyone who thinks they can "generate" employment and then expect it to maintain itself is just crazy in my opinion (R or D)

 

[JD09]

Personally I don't care who complains, whether it be Democrats or Republicans.
To me this is a bad bill, one that does not actually create jobs and does not provide tax breaks to really anyone.

He ran for office saying he would help out business, not pass bills which sounded like they would yet provided no realistic method to do so.
Anyone who thinks they can "generate" employment and then expect it to maintain itself is just crazy in my opinion (R or D)

The bill also includes the ability for a company to accelerate depreciation on new equipment purchases. Which helps and is a break monetarily to a company's bottom line. Also the numbers may work that it is better I buy that equipment now versus next year or year after...thus giving other companies business and revenue now that might not have occured or been deferred to later or where I would decide I dont need it at all.

 

[Underwhere]

Derek is right you dont get it at all..

If your gonna stand on "he must represent the voters that put him in office" you might do well to remember that as many or more democrats and independents voted for him than republicans in the election. We just dont have that many republicans in this state. If you didnt understand he was a moderate republican at best you didnt look very hard.


He has accomplished the immediate goal we needed by forcing a halt to the healthcare bill they were poised to shove down our throats. This is Massachussetts, a true republican would not have a chance at getting elected. We are far better with a moderate like Scott than a pinko like Martha.

I understand that and we might be better off with him rather than Martha.

However that does not mean that he is untouchable nor accountable. He still has a job to do and we are watching.

Simply because Brown accomplished the first goal (of not being Martha) it does not mean the he can now do anything he wants without us being upset about it. He doesn't get a "pass" for the rest of his tenure. When he doesn't vote in a way that we agree with, we complain and we should do so.

 

[MaineCWPtraining]

I must admit I appreciate Scott's explanation on the Howie Carr Show today.

 

[Underwhere]

The bill also includes the ability for a company to accelerate depreciation on new equipment purchases. Which helps and is a break monetarily to a company's bottom line. Also the numbers may work that it is better I buy that equipment now versus next year or year after...thus giving other companies business and revenue that might not have occured.

I don't believe this will spur all that much business, nor jobs...but it will cost us 15 billion dollars.

 

[cekim]

I must admit I appreciate Scott's explanation on the Howie Carr Show today.

If it was anything like the many other apologist explanations I've heard today - it was a hand wave - bureaucratic evil never sounds nearly as horrible as it really is when the right words are used.

"Make Germany strong" vs "kill all the weaklings"...

Which one sounds better?

 

[TomH]

How about just cut payroll taxes for everyone?

That made the most sense of anything I've read or heard all day.

If this thing does pass, I'll have to start a business hiring unemployed illegal aliens at around 50cents/hr, part time and seasonal.

 

[theGringo]

The bill also includes the ability for a company to accelerate depreciation on new equipment purchases. Which helps and is a break monetarily to a company's bottom line. Also the numbers may work that it is better I buy that equipment now versus next year or year after...thus giving other companies business and revenue now that might not have occured or been deferred to later or where I would decide I dont need it at all.

Thanks. I feel much better now.

 

[Tara]

I need boots just to wade trough some of the kaka in this thread.

 

[swampy]

There was a certain Republican representative from Shrewsbury that took our(gun owners) money to get elected and with his one and only deciding vote gave America the ill advised Assault Weapon Ban. That one vote was a career ender for him and a PITA for all of us for a long time...and became the model for Massachusetts' ripped off version which still lives for what is likely to be an eternity.

I'm not up to speed on what the jobs bill that Brown voted for does so I'm not ready to spank him yet. I am cracking my knuckles and keeping my spankin paddle at arms length though. I think we all owe him a "WTF?"

In addition there was one more thing that misdirected vote got us: Jim McGovern. The additonal price for turning our back on the turncoat.


QUOTE=depicts;1325534]I'm glad to see he's not sitting on his ass trying not to make ripples.

We sent Scott there to do a big job. Takes some time to build staff and connections and a reputation.

Anyone ready to judge Scott a failure already, after 40 years of Ted Kennedy has got to be a troll. Scott has some learning to do, but his heart is in the right place.

Give me a break people. Get on board for the bigest political ride you will ever take. America makes a right turn. Off the bumper.[/QUOTE]