SENATE BILL: Jobs Now Act of 2012 (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Scott

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Scott you have 24 hours to advocate for this bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Damn it, 13 seconds too late.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Pic doesn't work at least on my machine.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It sounds promising but we would need some raw data from the Game Moderator to move forward.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senator, has any success been had in establising a line of communications with the Game Moderator on the matter discussed Saturday last.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The amendment under consideration has been adopted.

Is that a new amendment you are offering there, Scott?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amendment passed.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A long winded set of restrictions, maybe?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A long winded set of restrictions, maybe?

I'm not sure what those restrictions would be.  There'd have to be a certain criteria we could use to determine if a business is truly struggling and would therefore need to resort to layoffs.

It is the only to do it though. My suggestion would be to just start writing down standards and think of as many continencies for abuse as possible so as to address them.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Fine, then.

Amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

EDIT: RESCINDED

I object, I think this is a crucial part of the bill.

Are you objecting to thin air or something? That amendment was withdrawn, I think.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

A long winded set of restrictions, maybe?

I'm not sure what those restrictions would be.  There'd have to be a certain criteria we could use to determine if a business is truly struggling and would therefore need to resort to layoffs.

It is the only to do it though. My suggestion would be to just start writing down standards and think of as many continencies for abuse as possible so as to address them.

Can other Senators try contributing even a little bit? It's like the same three or four people doing everything, I don't imagine that can be very fun.

It is not, but I doubt very much that they give a damn, really.

The first thing I would do in your place is to think of the most obvious scenario in which a business man would try and cash in on this. If this is aimed at struggling businesses, perhaps you might want to link assistance to a certain set of indicators on the cash-flow or balance sheets. Of course then you run into the risk that they may manipulate data illegally or just do less well based on what the incentives look like.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What if we create a ten-person board and prosecute any business that attempts to bribe its members?

It would still need a set of standards or it could get out of control very fast.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible.

Well, if you mean 'regulation' as in 'standards to prevent abuse,' then yes.

I wanted to give Shua the bottom line.

Speaking of bottom lines, how about a net loss of a certain size and a certain duration. You would need others as well, because you can easily manipulate a financial statement if the monetary incentive is strong enough.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Basically he wants to give business tax breaks and other subsidies that have a substantial moral hazard attached to them and thus he is in desperate need of regulations, restrictions and other statist measures to reduce that downside risk as much as possible.

Well, if you mean 'regulation' as in 'standards to prevent abuse,' then yes.

I wanted to give Shua the bottom line.

Speaking of bottom lines, how about a net loss of a certain size and a certain duration. You would need others as well, because you can easily manipulate a financial statement if the monetary incentive is strong enough.

Financial statements could easily be checked for any kind of manipulations, in my opinion.  But what do you mean by net loss of size and duration?  Could you be more specific?

Yes they could, but you would have to know what to look for.   

You want to aim these are struggling businesses, correct? So you could put in a minimum net loss for a minimum amount of time as being the primary standard for which the aid is given out.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well it wouldn't sound it exactly like that. Typically net profit is between 2%-8%. If you have a net loss of 40% of revenue it is far too late for any relief to help. Unless it is a one time thing imposed like a fine or something and the company has the reserves to absorb it.


It thought this was being aimed at the employees of such companies? Is that not so?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I need to check some resources of mine that I have first. I would like to know what shua thinks. First about the idea in general then how best to implement it.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor Feedback: Origination
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amendment has passed.


Scott, would the text you added be read the same as a "17% decline in Net Income"?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well not even that, it brings back my point from before about needing multiple criteria or something.

The implication of a 17% decline in net income is that they are still profitable and have a positive net income.

So you could be allowing Exxon-Mobile to cut their employees pay, and get the Gov't to pick up the tab all by virtue of shifting activities accounting for 17% of their net income from one accounting period to another.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

"Just nod if you can here me. Is there anyone home?"

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well not even that, it brings back my point from before about needing multiple criteria or something.

The implication of a 17% decline in net income is that they are still profitable and have a positive net income.

So you could be allowing Exxon-Mobile to cut their employees pay, and get the Gov't to pick up the tab all by virtue of shifting activities accounting for 17% of their net income from one accounting period to another.

Wouldn't any malicious shifts in income be detected by the department that's overseeing the businesses?

Yes, if the bill directs them to check for a specific secondary or subsequent criteria, which would clue them in as to the shift. Just assuming they will know what to look for and when could lead to them not looking at all.