Latest credible poll at 63%

[tom barry]

Driving home this evening I heard on the radio(and I thought earlier in the day I had seen the same number(s) on TV) that the Presidents latest Job's bill proposal was favored by 63% of the country.

I can't quite figure this (favorability) number out. Can anyone else ?

TB

 

[Dog Wonder]

Trying something is preferred to trying to make sure nothing is done.

 

[delldude]

Driving home this evening I heard on the radio(and I thought earlier in the day I had seen the same number(s) on TV) that the Presidents latest Job's bill proposal was favored by 63% of the country.

I can't quite figure this (favorability) number out. Can anyone else ?

TB

Don't you mean the presidents tax bill?

The 63% they refer to are the dead people who voted in the last election.

Trying something is preferred to trying to make sure nothing is done.

But hasn't it been tried quite unsuccessfully twice now by Bush and Obama?

Oh....how stupid of me.....this is only half of what the last one was....its sure to work then.

 

[Ms Tree]

What part of the Jobs Bill are you guys against?

The two things I am unsure about is the web access portion and the prohibition against employers from discrimination against the unemployed. Internet access is nice but not critical as far as I can tell. The unemployed thing baffles me. If I'm an employer looking for an employee, I'll hire the best I can find regardless of their current work status. What is the benefit against showing bias against a person who is unemployed?

 

[delldude]

What part of the Jobs Bill are you guys against?

The two things I am unsure about is the web access portion and the prohibition against employers from discrimination against the unemployed. Internet access is nice but not critical as far as I can tell. The unemployed thing baffles me. If I'm an employer looking for an employee, I'll hire the best I can find regardless of their current work status. What is the benefit against showing bias against a person who is unemployed?

How about the taxation?

 

[jimntx]

The unemployed thing baffles me. If I'm an employer looking for an employee, I'll hire the best I can find regardless of their current work status. What is the benefit against showing bias against a person who is unemployed?

I worked for the Texas Employment Commission (now called the Texas Workforce Commission) for 7 years. I don't understand it either, but the reality is that it is easier to get a job if you already have a job. I don't know if it is bias/discrimination against the unemployed. In fact, I doubt it.

My personal opinion (and, of course, I may be wrong, but I doubt that also) is that this phenomenom has two components.

1. If you already have a job, and the (mortgage payment/child's surgery/car repair bill) is not dependent upon whether or not you get the job for which you are interviewing, you probably are more relaxed and you interview better.
2. Employers love to steal employees from each other--particularly, from a competitor in the same field.

 

[delldude]

What is the benefit against showing bias against a person who is unemployed?

Real easy........dude who sucked it up for 99 weeks isn't worried about finding a job until the luck runs out.

And I'm sure you'll come back with he can't find a job......but I know he could get a lower paying job no doubt...

 

[tech2101]

How about the taxation?

Be more specific.

No, is an easy answer that does not provide any solutions.

In my opinion, that will harm the (R) party if it continues.

 

[delldude]

Be more specific.

No, is an easy answer that does not provide any solutions.

In my opinion, that will harm the (R) party if it continues.

The tax the rich BS that is Obama's class warfare envy........how you figure it will harm GOP?

DNC won't vote for increased taxes so WTF?

Rich pay 35% ....why don't we share the pain and all pay 35%

That's a shared sacrifice if I ever saw one.

 

[Ms Tree]

Real easy........dude who sucked it up for 99 weeks isn't worried about finding a job until the luck runs out.

And I'm sure you'll come back with he can't find a job......but I know he could get a lower paying job no doubt...

The problem with the lower paying job is they usually do not want you for another reason. If you have been job hunting lately because you were out of a job then you will know why they don't want you. If you have not been job hunting lately then I guess you just don't get it.

 

[Ms Tree]

The tax the rich BS that is Obama's class warfare envy........how you figure it will harm GOP?

DNC won't vote for increased taxes so WTF?

Rich pay 35% ....why don't we share the pain and all pay 35%

That's a shared sacrifice if I ever saw one.

The rich pay 35%? Hee hee. Now that's funny. Buffet made $62.9 million last year but his taxable income was only $39.8 million. His tax bill was $6.9 million. You do the math.

 

[xUT]

I worked for the Texas Employment Commission (now called the Texas Workforce Commission) for 7 years. I don't understand it either, but the reality is that it is easier to get a job if you already have a job. I don't know if it is bias/discrimination against the unemployed. In fact, I doubt it.

My personal opinion (and, of course, I may be wrong, but I doubt that also) is that this phenomenom has two components.

1. If you already have a job, and the (mortgage payment/child's surgery/car repair bill) is not dependent upon whether or not you get the job for which you are interviewing, you probably are more relaxed and you interview better.
2. Employers love to steal employees from each other--particularly, from a competitor in the same field.

Are you trying to be funny again?
Really hard to tell with you...

 

[jimntx]

Rich pay 35% ....why don't we share the pain and all pay 35%

What a crock! The top rate is 35% on earned income--as in wages and salary. The rich, particularly the super-rich, don't have earned income or only a small percentage of their income is earned. Their income is from dividends and long-term capital gains--both of which are taxed at 15%.

It was the point that Warren Buffett was trying to make. IIRC, he draws no salary at all from his company. His payment is in dividends made by the company. 15%!

Oh, and xUT, no, I was not trying to be funny. If you talk with anyone who in the business of helping people find jobs--whether govt. agency or private employment agency, they will all tell you the same. It is easier to get a job if you have a job.

 

[xUT]

Oh, and xUT, no, I was not trying to be funny. If you talk with anyone who in the business of helping people find jobs--whether govt. agency or private employment agency, they will all tell you the same. It is easier to get a job if you have a job.

Just pulling your chain.
Cool EH!
B) xUT

 

[7days]

What a crock! The top rate is 35% on earned income--as in wages and salary. The rich, particularly the super-rich, don't have earned income or only a small percentage of their income is earned. Their income is from dividends and long-term capital gains--both of which are taxed at 15%.

It was the point that Warren Buffett was trying to make. IIRC, he draws no salary at all from his company. His payment is in dividends made by the company. 15%!

Of which dividend income comes from money invested that has already been previously taxed. You seem to have a very thin grasp of investment income and taxes. Your talking points fall flat.

The democrats have had the chance for over 30+ years to change the tax code. And haven't. Why is that?