If Tax cuts create jobs

[ChesusRice]

Where are the fucking jobs?

 

[NLXSK1]

Where are the fucking jobs?

Where are the fucking tax cuts?

If raising taxes creates jobs, why dont we tax everyone at 100% ?

 

[ink the world]

Where are the fucking tax cuts?

If raising taxes creates jobs, why dont we tax everyone at 100% ?

You been out of the country for the better part of the last decade?

We had this president named Bush a little while back and......

 

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

Tax cuts causes companies to hoard money, whereas higher taxes causes them to look for write offs, whether that be buying more equipment, hiring more people,etc. It is one of the big reasons the economy took off after Clinton raised taxes.

 

[ink the world]

Tax cuts causes companies to hoard money, whereas higher taxes causes them to look for write offs, whether that be buying more equipment, hiring more people,etc. It is one of the big reasons the economy took off after Clinton raised taxes.

Bingo!

It's part of current GOP "logic". Just completely ignore history and campaign on expanding a failed policy. Like I said a long time ago after the GOP tidal wave.

They would see it as a mandate to push their real agenda. It's not jobs or economic recovery for the country. It's about abortion, gay rights and upwards economic wealth redistribution. Now with the Ryan selection it's all out there. Finally a battle of the 2 very different approaches from both sides.

 

[ginwilly]

Where are the fucking jobs?

If stimulus packages and 0% interest rates created jobs where are they?

Im glad you are finally admitting what a failure Obama's policies have been (the same as bush). Remember when he said you can't raise taxes on people during a recession? What's changed?

 

[ink the world]

What's changed?

We went from hemorrhaging jobs at a rate of 700,000 lost a month to actually gaining jobs. The recovery is slow, but to say it isn't happening is wrong. Even more wrong would be to return to the same approach that hit us into the mess.

So happy this has turned into an election that is a choice between the 2 different approaches. Good luck selling the American people middle class tax increases to fund tax cuts for the wealthy and austerity. Way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory GOP

 

[FlyLikeAnEagle]

If stimulus packages and 0% interest rates created jobs where are they?

Were you living in a cave the months before Obama took office and we were losing 700,000 jobs a month?

 

[canndo]

If stimulus packages and 0% interest rates created jobs where are they?

Im glad you are finally admitting what a failure Obama's policies have been (the same as bush). Remember when he said you can't raise taxes on people during a recession? What's changed?

\What then, Gin, do you suggest be done?

 

[ginwilly]

Were you living in a cave the months before Obama took office and we were losing 700,000 jobs a month?

Were you living in a cave when we told building turtle tunnels would keep UE under 8%? We've borrowed over 5T and increase GDP by a little over 1T, that's poor investment.

The repeal of Glass-Steagel had a lot to do with the financial shenanigans that exacerbated the meltdown. I'm a free market guy, but if you are guaranteeing the tax payer covers losses, you can't gamble with my money.

What has changed about too big to fail since then other than they are bigger? I would like to bend these guys over and roto rooter the crap out of them. Raising income taxes actually helps these guys more than it hurts because they'll get to loan more money.

 

[Canna Sylvan]

If the people got a nickel for every time Obama made a speech lauding his job creation scams, we'd be out of debt and all have a drug dealer on speed dial.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

How could you guys possibly argue that tax increases create jobs? Please, enlighten me on how that is economically possible? When you tax to redistribute wealth or drone children in Afghanistan you are creating a third party in government, which is less efficient. Funneling money through government by taxation is always less efficient than the free market because you have to create bureaucracies to spend the revenue for whatever purpose.

 

[canndo]

How could you guys possibly argue that tax increases create jobs? Please, enlighten me on how that is economically possible? When you tax to redistribute wealth or drone children in Afghanistan you are creating a third party in government, which is less efficient. Funneling money through government by taxation is always less efficient than the free market because you have to create bureaucracies to spend the revenue for whatever purpose.

Thanks Life, you just made a good argument for single payer.

Ryan and Romney's voucher system - and in fact all voucher systems incorporate the worst of government and private institutions. Why would it be "better" for seniors to get money from the government in order to pay private insurance companies.

But back to your question, aren't bureaucracies composed of people who collect a paycheck and eat and pay morgages and drive cars?

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

Thanks Life, you just made a good argument for single payer.

Ryan and Romney's voucher system - and in fact all voucher systems incorporate the worst of government and private institutions. Why would it be "better" for seniors to get money from the government in order to pay private insurance companies.

But back to your question, aren't bureaucracies composed of people who collect a paycheck and eat and pay morgages and drive cars?

Yes but they don't produce anything, therefore it is dead weight loss. What do regulatory agencies produce that would increase GDP?

Single payer is probably better than the obama/romneycare scheme, because this mixed market non sense allows for a lot more corruption.

 

[canndo]

Yes but they don't produce anything, therefore it is dead weight loss. What do regulatory agencies produce that would increase GDP?

Single payer is probably better than the obama/romneycare scheme, because this mixed market non sense allows for a lot more corruption.

Why is it that so many contend that "government doesn't produce anything"? As though government is some sort of manufacturing company that is failing in it's widget assembly line.

As I have said, government produces order. It is hard to know how valuable that order is until it is absent. I lived through two different L.A. riots, this is what a lack of order looks like and the first to rain scalding diatribes over this lack of order is conservatives. They manage usually to blame the "criminals" but those criminals are always there, they don't just spontaneously appear in certain instances, they become evident when there is a state of disorder. Yet they will seldom acknowlege that it is that lack of order that has them so upset. Government does indeed "produce something". You may argue that they are not very efficient and that it costs too much for the order we receive but that is a different argument.

Without order there would be little or no GDP at all, now why do you contend that government has to contribute to GDP?

We agree about single payer but thanks muchly to FOX, single payer was taken off the table early on so we have what we have. This is common with conservatives. They need to prove their basic philosophy, that government doesn't work. If they ever allow it to work, they will be proven to be wrong and conservatives must never be wrong. The best they can to is cripple any prospectivly good program in order to say "there,you see? this doesn't work eitherr".

so we have health care reform that is far from satisfactory.

 

[MuyLocoNC]

Thanks Life, you just made a good argument for single payer.

Ryan and Romney's voucher system - and in fact all voucher systems incorporate the worst of government and private institutions. Why would it be "better" for seniors to get money from the government in order to pay private insurance companies.

But back to your question, aren't bureaucracies composed of people who collect a paycheck and eat and pay morgages and drive cars?

Actually, he made a good argument to get government out of the entire process. Lower taxation paired with tax-free medical funds (if you really MUST have some government involvement) and allowing people to actually shop for their plans anywhere in the country is the intelligent choice. I'll take healthy market competition over government intrusion any day.

I'd much rather pay for my random monthly visits (which those with deductibles end up doing anyways) and buying a far, far less expensive policy to cover major illnesses or injuries. I can choose the level of coverage I want for almost any type of insurance I want to purchase, except health insurance. That option is out there, but most people aren't allowed to make that choice.

Yeah, bureaucracies are people, just like corporations. The difference is a corporation watches the bottom line and only hires employees that serve a necessary purpose. Government does the exact opposite, they fabricate a "department of" to address a non-existent problem, then populate that department with enough workers to spend every penny of their allotted budget, to make sure their budget isn't reduced the next year. I spent 4 years in the Pentagon working side by side with federal employees, went to the meetings and saw them spend like crazy at the end of the year to protect their budget. They replaced equipment that was only a third of the way through it's expected lifespan, gave bonuses to all the civilian employees and bought perishable supplies in quantities we could never use before their expiration dates. I've seen the horror show, up close and personal, these people have NO respect for the taxpayers money.

Single payer, no fucking thank you.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

Why is it that so many contend that "government doesn't produce anything"? As though government is some sort of manufacturing company that is failing in it's widget assembly line.

As I have said, government produces order. It is hard to know how valuable that order is until it is absent. I lived through two different L.A. riots, this is what a lack of order looks like and the first to rain scalding diatribes over this lack of order is conservatives. They manage usually to blame the "criminals" but those criminals are always there, they don't just spontaneously appear in certain instances, they become evident when there is a state of disorder. Yet they will seldom acknowlege that it is that lack of order that has them so upset. Government does indeed "produce something". You may argue that they are not very efficient and that it costs too much for the order we receive but that is a different argument.

Without order there would be little or no GDP at all, now why do you contend that government has to contribute to GDP?

We agree about single payer but thanks muchly to FOX, single payer was taken off the table early on so we have what we have. This is common with conservatives. They need to prove their basic philosophy, that government doesn't work. If they ever allow it to work, they will be proven to be wrong and conservatives must never be wrong. The best they can to is cripple any prospectivly good program in order to say "there,you see? this doesn't work eitherr".

so we have health care reform that is far from satisfactory.

Okay, so do you think that producing massive amounts of "order" is beneficial to our economy? Do you support war spending? Does that produce order or chaos? When you take money from the people of firms to create "order" that money is being taken which could otherwise create demand for things people need or taking away from firms and therefore raising the price of things people need. Firms do not take a loss through increases in their taxes, they simply raise the price of their goods or evade the taxes to prevent losses. Therefore taxation is very bad for demand as all DWL is passed on to the consumers, don't you lefties believe in a demand driven economy?

 

[canndo]

Actually, he made a good argument to get government out of the entire process. Lower taxation paired with tax-free medical funds (if you really MUST have some government involvement) and allowing people to actually shop for their plans anywhere in the country is the intelligent choice. I'll take healthy market competition over government intrusion any day.

I'd much rather pay for my random monthly visits (which those with deductibles end up doing anyways) and buying a far, far less expensive policy to cover major illnesses or injuries. I can choose the level of coverage I want for almost any type of insurance I want to purchase, except health insurance. That option is out there, but most people aren't allowed to make that choice.

Yeah, bureaucracies are people, just like corporations. The difference is a corporation watches the bottom line and only hires employees that serve a necessary purpose. Government does the exact opposite, they fabricate a "department of" to address a non-existent problem, then populate that department with enough workers to spend every penny of their allotted budget, to make sure their budget isn't reduced the next year. I spent 4 years in the Pentagon working side by side with federal employees, went to the meetings and saw them spend like crazy at the end of the year to protect their budget. They replaced equipment that was only a third of the way through it's expected lifespan, gave bonuses to all the civilian employees and bought perishable supplies in quantities we could never use before their expiration dates. I've seen the horror show, up close and personal, these people have NO respect for the taxpayers money.

Single payer, no fucking thank you.

You find an item that is easily corrected (preservation of future budget by exhausting the present one) and claim that this is the reason government is evil.

At the same time you don't mention the fact that health insurance "produces nothing", health insurance companies do nothing but as you said, watch the bottom line - usually at the expense of the people they insure. Now why would I want to have the option of selecting one health insurance company that does nothing productive over another - that does nothing productive? Even if the insurance companies themselves were to encourage that which they do not.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

Actually, he made a good argument to get government out of the entire process. Lower taxation paired with tax-free medical funds (if you really MUST have some government involvement) and allowing people to actually shop for their plans anywhere in the country is the intelligent choice. I'll take healthy market competition over government intrusion any day.

I'd much rather pay for my random monthly visits (which those with deductibles end up doing anyways) and buying a far, far less expensive policy to cover major illnesses or injuries. I can choose the level of coverage I want for almost any type of insurance I want to purchase, except health insurance. That option is out there, but most people aren't allowed to make that choice.

Yeah, bureaucracies are people, just like corporations. The difference is a corporation watches the bottom line and only hires employees that serve a necessary purpose. Government does the exact opposite, they fabricate a "department of" to address a non-existent problem, then populate that department with enough workers to spend every penny of their allotted budget, to make sure their budget isn't reduced the next year. I spent 4 years in the Pentagon working side by side with federal employees, went to the meetings and saw them spend like crazy at the end of the year to protect their budget. They replaced equipment that was only a third of the way through it's expected lifespan, gave bonuses to all the civilian employees and bought perishable supplies in quantities we could never use before their expiration dates. I've seen the horror show, up close and personal, these people have NO respect for the taxpayers money.

Single payer, no fucking thank you.

The increase in healthcare lobbyist and health insurance rates being politicized should work out great. LOL.

 

[londonfog]

years of tax cuts with Bushy and we actually lost jobs doing and after that time