GOP's Plan to Create Jobs: Do Nothing

Quote from Arnie:

The Democrats control the White House, the House and the Senate.

What is their plan to create jobs?
More...

Borrow and print billions - spend trillions, mostly on repaying political favors and pork.
 
Quote from Ricter:

Disagree about job creation through tax relief. Would have made no difference to me, there were simply not sales enough to justify hiring (or even retention, unfortunately).
More...

They could have set it up in a way where businesses were fully subsidised for the full amount for their net job creation to a certain point, so if a company hired on more people then they fired they were paid the full amount of the employees wages through tax breaks, even if the demand for whatever product a company was selling was not there at first, it would have been way more efficient, and demand/consumption would have caught up quicker, as the money was going directly into peoples pockets as opposed to this 5-600k per job B.S. I understand there was no sales for you to justify hiring employees, I dont need to hire a single employee to keep my business (trading) going, but if i was offered tax incentives to hire people on for no cost to me, i would defiately figure out ways to expand, or track new things which might have the potential to work, and if i got anyone who was a worthwhile employee i sure as hell would not fire them. You cant tell me you couldnt find something for an employee who costs you nothing to do.

Here is an example, if a business had a net job growth of three jobs, subsidise the business for the full amount of the jobs, who in their right mind would not take the three new employees on if they were going to get a tax break for the entire amount of what the people were getting paid?

In this scenario a business could hire on three new employees for something around the private sector average of 40k per employee, which would go directly into the employees pocket, this would bring the total to 120k for three jobs as opposed to 600k for one, and these people would eventually be on private sector payrolls where they actually raise the tax base, as opposed to raising the yearly cost of government.

Obviously there would have to be all sorts of stipulations on this sort of deal so that people didnt simply abuse it for free labour, but you get the gist of the idea.
 
Quote from Mnphats:

More word vomit.......


Not necessarily raise healthcare costs was not the question, I will post it again.


Again, tell us how giving a new entitlement to 10s of millions of people in the U.S. will bring healthcare costs down?
More...

Why dont you ask that to the Conservative think tank whose 'Health Care Proposal had not only a required benefit package, an individual mandate, exclusion of pre-existing conditions, but also a public plan'

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...Credits-to-Create-an-Affordable-Health-System
 
Quote from Hello:

They could have set it up in a way where businesses were fully subsidised for the full amount for their net job creation to a certain point, so if a company hired on more people then they fired they were paid the full amount of the employees wages through tax breaks, even if the demand for whatever product a company was selling was not there at first, it would have been way more efficient, and demand/consumption would have caught up quicker, as the money was going directly into peoples pockets as opposed to this 5-600k per job B.S. I understand there was no sales for you to justify hiring employees, I dont need to hire a single employee to keep my business (trading) going, but if i was offered tax incentives to hire people on for no cost to me, i would defiately figure out ways to expand, or track new things which might have the potential to work, and if i got anyone who was a worthwhile employee i sure as hell would not fire them. You cant tell me you couldnt find something for an employee who costs you nothing to do.

Here is an example, if a business had a net job growth of three jobs, subsidise the business for the full amount of the jobs, who in their right mind would not take the three new employees on if they were going to get a tax break for the entire amount of what the people were getting paid?

In this scenario a business could hire on three new employees for something around the private sector average of 40k per employee, which would go directly into the employees pocket, this would bring the total to 120k for three jobs as opposed to 600k for one, and these people would eventually be on private sector payrolls where they actually raise the tax base, as opposed to raising the yearly cost of government.

Obviously there would have to be all sorts of stipulations on this sort of deal so that people didnt simply abuse it for free labour, but you get the gist of the idea.
More...

Forget it, Repubs are not interested in job creation, Bush had the worst record ever among Presidents and the current crop is only interested in repeating his failed policies.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/
 
Quote from Mnphats:

That link is 20 years old.

Feel free to answer the question though.
More...

Yes, thats the point, they were for it as long as they were doing it but when the other side does it - its entitlement and socialism.
 
Quote from Hello:

1.) This is absolutely the right move, if you believe soaking big business for higher taxes to give money/benefits to people who dont work is a good solution perhaps you should work in a third world country.
More...

Yeah, a third world country like Japan, Switzerland, Canada, Germany, Australia, Sweden...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top