Taxes were cut, where are the jobs?

Superfreak said:
Fiscal years 2008/2009 under Bush were under the purse strings of the Dem led Congress.

By the amount of deficit spending... that is the measure.
Click to expand...

According to who?

I measure fiscal irresponsiblity by the nature of the spending, a la the pork-laden energy & transportion bills from Bush's 1st term. Or in a completely unnecessary war that cost over a trillion. Or in a VP saying that deficit spending "doesn't matter." Or in abandoning all balanced-budget efforts of the '90's.

I don't know why, but I have come to expect more from you. You are immersed in koolaid on this thread. You often talk about "leadership." Bush had none on the economy, or on fiscal responsiblity - none.
 
Onceler said:
That isn't how they figured saved jobs.
Click to expand...

It does not matter HOW they figured it! I can pull ANY number out of my ass and CLAIM that I have "saved" that many jobs, and how the hell can you disprove me? The point I made was, when it was Bush, this 'counting jobs saved' thing didn't fly! We counted ACTUAL jobs created, minus new workers... no mention of jobs saved! Obama gets to count these proverbial "jobs saved" which no one can confirm or deny, and then ignore the number of new workers coming into the workforce, as if they simply don't exist.
 
Dixie said:
It does not matter HOW they figured it! I can pull ANY number out of my ass and CLAIM that I have "saved" that many jobs, and how the hell can you disprove me? The point I made was, when it was Bush, this 'counting jobs saved' thing didn't fly! We counted ACTUAL jobs created, minus new workers... no mention of jobs saved! Obama gets to count these proverbial "jobs saved" which no one can confirm or deny, and then ignore the number of new workers coming into the workforce, as if they simply don't exist.
Click to expand...

But you're missing the point - that isn't how they did it. They figured it based on reported data.

You're very poorly informed on this topic. Maybe you should start a thread on evolution & stick w/ that?
 
Superfreak said:
I am sorry that I have confused you. I did not mean to imply that they would never have any cash on hand. They, like individuals will tend to have emergency cash positions. The worse the economic conditions, the more cash they will tend to keep to tide them over during the rougher periods.

Again, sorry to have confused you.
Click to expand...


I wasn't confused. It's just that under a scheme that taxes dividends and capital gains only, you don't tax any undistributed profits. Your counter to that was to claim that corporations don't really sit on cash there isn't much that such a scheme wouldn't reach. But that's just not true. I mean, $1.7T isn't small taters.
 
Dixie said:
It does not matter HOW they figured it! I can pull ANY number out of my ass and CLAIM that I have "saved" that many jobs, and how the hell can you disprove me? The point I made was, when it was Bush, this 'counting jobs saved' thing didn't fly! We counted ACTUAL jobs created, minus new workers... no mention of jobs saved! Obama gets to count these proverbial "jobs saved" which no one can confirm or deny, and then ignore the number of new workers coming into the workforce, as if they simply don't exist.
Click to expand...

AND... EVEN WITH all the finagling on the numbers and bloated claims... Bush STILL managed to create twice as many ACTUAL JOBS than Obama, with a tax cut that cost half of what Obama has spent. It's getting pretty bad when even your SPIN can't bail your ass out.
 
Onceler said:
But you're missing the point - that isn't how they did it. They figured it based on reported data.

You're very poorly informed on this topic. Maybe you should start a thread on evolution & stick w/ that?
Click to expand...

Oh okay... well the number I pulled out of my ass came from "reported data" then! Can you prove me wrong? WTF does that supposed to mean, reported data? Reported data from whom? And why didn't Bush get to use "reported data" and pull numbers out of his ass?

No, I am VERY WELL informed on this topic, as I am with MOST topics I discuss with you, OneCell. The problem is, YOU can't make your points because there are none to make. You are trying to spin a negative into a positive here, by using a complete double standard of measure. If we were to calculate jobs "saved or created" for Bush, it would DWARF anything Obama could even hope to accomplish. But you would have laughed us off the board, had we tried to claim Bush "saved" jobs, and then tried to claim those "saved" jobs count as jobs 'created!'
 
Onceler said:
According to who?

I measure fiscal irresponsiblity by the nature of the spending, a la the pork-laden energy & transportion bills from Bush's 1st term. Or in a completely unnecessary war that cost over a trillion. Or in a VP saying that deficit spending "doesn't matter." Or in abandoning all balanced-budget efforts of the '90's.

I don't know why, but I have come to expect more from you. You are immersed in koolaid on this thread. You often talk about "leadership." Bush had none on the economy, or on fiscal responsiblity - none.
Click to expand...

We can argue what the biggest wasteful spending sectors are till we are blue in the face. Both parties have respective areas that occurs in or that they favor. But the bottom line is always the tell tale.

Now... TRY TO PAY ATTENTION AS YOU SEEM TO BE GETTING LOST TIME AND AGAIN.... Bush was a failure on fiscal policy. I have stated that multiple times on this thread alone. He was one of the most fiscally irresponsible Presidents we have had. Obama is worse. You see the 'Obama is worse' and then pretend I am apologizing for Bush or proclaiming he was responsible. Read what I have written. Perhaps then you won't be so confused and thus we might see you stop with the stupidity of your kool aid comments.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I wasn't confused. It's just that under a scheme that taxes dividends and capital gains only, you don't tax any undistributed profits. Your counter to that was to claim that corporations don't really sit on cash there isn't much that such a scheme wouldn't reach. But that's just not true. I mean, $1.7T isn't small taters.
Click to expand...

They do not sit on EXCESS cash. They, if responsible, are going to maintain emergency cash positions. 10% is not that high of a position given the uncertainty of not only taxation but also of Europe and China. $1.7 Trillion sounds big until you compare it to the size of our markets.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
I wasn't confused. It's just that under a scheme that taxes dividends and capital gains only, you don't tax any undistributed profits. Your counter to that was to claim that corporations don't really sit on cash there isn't much that such a scheme wouldn't reach. But that's just not true. I mean, $1.7T isn't small taters.
Click to expand...

Let's be clear here, there is probably MUCH MORE than $1.7 trillion in capital available from American investors and corporations. If we count foreign investments, it's probably closer to $10 trillion. But no one is "sitting" on money... that doesn't happen with money, because there is nothing to gain and everything to lose in doing that. The money is invested in various things that are relatively secure and will generate some level of return. If that's not the case, and at some big corporation, a fat cat is sitting there smoking his cigar as he sits on a pile of cash, he is STUPID.... just like the assertion that was made here.

IF we were to eliminate cap gains and corporate taxes, America would see an influx of jobs like they haven't seen since WWII. EVERY major international corporation would immediately want to come to the US, build factories, and create new jobs. AND YES... We would miss out on some revenue, but the overwhelming number of new jobs with taxable income, would FAR exceed those losses.
 
Dixie said:
Oh okay... well the number I pulled out of my ass came from "reported data" then! Can you prove me wrong? WTF does that supposed to mean, reported data? Reported data from whom? And why didn't Bush get to use "reported data" and pull numbers out of his ass?

No, I am VERY WELL informed on this topic, as I am with MOST topics I discuss with you, OneCell. The problem is, YOU can't make your points because there are none to make. You are trying to spin a negative into a positive here, by using a complete double standard of measure. If we were to calculate jobs "saved or created" for Bush, it would DWARF anything Obama could even hope to accomplish. But you would have laughed us off the board, had we tried to claim Bush "saved" jobs, and then tried to claim those "saved" jobs count as jobs 'created!'
Click to expand...

Once again - everything crashed under Bush, Dix.

You're praising the leaders of Enron for all of the wonderful growth that occurred up until the company collapsed. It really looks silly.

And you're also discrediting the CBO, without anything to substantiate your claim that it is not reliable. Just your typical wishful thinking. According to your logic, there is no way to corroborate anything - because no data, about anything, can ever be trusted.
 
Superfreak said:
They do not sit on EXCESS cash. They, if responsible, are going to maintain emergency cash positions. 10% is not that high of a position given the uncertainty of not only taxation but also of Europe and China. $1.7 Trillion sounds big until you compare it to the size of our markets.
Click to expand...


$1.7T is a lot of money to not tax at all, regardless of its size relative to our markets.

Again, your claim was that you don't lose anything by not taxing corporations and instead just taxing dividends and capital gains. But you do. Quite a bit actually.
 
General Buck Turgidson said:
$1.7T is a lot of money to not tax at all, regardless of its size relative to our markets.

Again, your claim was that you don't lose anything by not taxing corporations and instead just taxing dividends and capital gains. But you do. Quite a bit actually.
Click to expand...

Again, you do not. That same money sitting in cash under the current system... how is that taxed going forward dung???

Thats right... it isn't. Unless they make money off of that money (via an investment of some nature) they are not going to be taxed on it.
 
Onceler said:
Company X got stimulus money. As a result, Company X was able to retain a division that they were going to eliminate due to lack of funds. Company X reports to the CBO that the stimulus money enable them to save Y # of jobs as a result.

It really coudn't be more simple. And I'm tired of educating you on this; put in your own work.
Click to expand...

school A receives stimulus money to keep a teacher employed for a year......the next year, unless the school gets more money, the teacher gets laid off......is that a job saved or a job lost?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
school A receives stimulus money to keep a teacher employed for a year......the next year, unless the school gets more money, the teacher gets laid off......is that a job saved or a job lost?......
Click to expand...

Jeez, PMP - I'm not sure you could be dumber on this if you tried.

The stimulus was a stop-gap measure; it was intended to stop the bleeding, not fully repair the economy. To answer your question, it's a job saved for a year, which is a good thing. The idea is that the private sector can take over at a certain point.

No offense, but you really don't understand this stuff at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top