What did the rich do with their Bush tax cuts?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I know there haven't been enough jobs created in the past 4 years, but are you claiming there weren't any jobs created between 2009 and 2012?

I think it's about 1/2 as many in those 4 as in the 8 under Bush. Most are government jobs we can't afford to sustain, so they will be gone eventually. Still more are jobs created as 'make work' under the stimulus, which will also evaporate in time. The last period of REAL private sector job growth, was under Bush in 2001-04, where we created about 6 million new jobs.

 

[Damocles]

Which charts are those? Link up.

You mean you can't remember thread after thread with the charts showing from the end of 2007 to now with the drop then the rise at the end? Those charts ignore the first recession in 2001, the job growth afterward (during which democrats were often saying it was the worst recovery since the Great Depression, that is overshadowed by Obama's growth now though)... Basically they show a chart with job losses at the end of Bush's term and compare it to "growth" by Obama.

This chart: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davecjohnson/6088811219

It begins in 2008 and ignores 7 years of Bush's terms.

 

[Timshel]

I think it is likely because the charts shown by the Ds only include that last year of Bush's terms.

So you believe it is best to fight lies with lies. And you wonder why I am not pleased with your presentation?

Some people seem to think you are a libertarian and so long as you insist on toting the Republicans water you distort the message.

Ron Paul may use the letter, but he does not endorse them. Even Rand, got up there to show a difference from the other speakers.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

eyeroll...

This so obvious. Why on earth would you go a year into Bush's term as your start and then stop a year short of it's end. This is no different than the garbage used by Dems to make FDR look like some great leader.

Well I have no problem comparing from 2000-2008, if you like... it still beats the pants off Obama's 4 years. I started with 2001 because that was when the first Bush tax cuts went into effect, and those didn't actually create any jobs in 2000, I don't imagine. I also didn't include 2008, because that was his last year and when we elected Obama, and the nation suffered a major financial collapse, which didn't have anything to do with Bush's policies or the jobs created under them. But again, if you wish to count those two years, go for it... still beats what we've had the past 4 years, by a long shot.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I suppose you'll decline to prove your claim, as usual...

What would be the point? Are you going to change your mind if I do? Are you going to admit defeat? I sincerely doubt it, so I will decline. I don't have time to waste on you. What I said is true, and if you want to go run find some propaganda to dispute it, be my guest!

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

This chart: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davecjohnson/6088811219

You said it was "shown by the Ds".

Where's that link?

 

[Damocles]

So you believe it is best to fight lies with lies. And you wonder why I am not pleased with your presentation?

I believe it is best to go step by step bringing information in small pieces that people can understand rather than just jumping to the end and proclaiming something correct without showing your work. Likely because I was a math major in college.

Some people seem to think you are a libertarian and so long as you insist on toting the Republicans water you distort the message.

Ron Paul may use the letter, but he does not endorse them. Even Rand, got up there to show a difference from the other speakers.

I am more libertarian than republican.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So I was right. You made a claim, and can't prove it?

No, you are wrong, I did make a claim and can prove it, I just choose to not prove it here.

 

[Timshel]

So back to the op's q, and away from the irrelevant noise of Big Endian vs Little Endian.

Does anyone truly doubt my explanation? This is EXACTLY what happened and why it could not lead to REAL and sustainable growth. I have explained this many times and did so years ago on this site.

Tax cuts accompanied by spending increases lead to debt. Where do the savings from the tax cuts go? To buy the debt. Keynes explained this! But remember his most famous quote, "in the long run we'll all be dead." Well, Keynesianism is dead.

The tax cuts are not being invested in productive lines. Not in the aggregate. They will not lead to job growth. The government does sometimes spend the proceeds on productive lines (i.e., human capital and infrastructure) but it is mostly spent on consumption (i.e., welfare and warfare). More guns (this a VERY poorly chosen label but meant... capital investments which guns are not) less butter (consumption).

The middle class is leading the way. If we follow, in every facet, we will be in for a golden era of prosperity. If we don't they might not be able to save us again.

Please, read Economics in One Lesson. Heck, just read the chapter explaining Bastiat's broken window pain fallacy. That alone explains the error of the Classical economists (hint: it is in their old saw quoted above) and Keynes together and is worth than an entire library of economic books.

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

No, you are wrong, I did make a claim and can prove it, I just choose to not prove it here.

LOL, don't ever change, Dix.

 

[Timshel]

I believe it is best to go step by step bringing information in small pieces that people can understand rather than just jumping to the end and proclaiming something correct without showing your work. Likely because I was a math major in college.


I am more libertarian than republican.

I have shown my work. Ron Paul has shown his. You are getting hung up on the language and symbols used, much like Dixie with his misundertanding of base 10.

Again, listen CLOSELY.

Taxes means "burden." I can tax my engines. That does not mean I am charging it based on its income level. It means I am burdening it.

Income taxes, sales taxes, value added taxes, tariffs, inflationary spending and debt are ALL forms of TAXES. The government cannot SPEND a nickel without taxing. If SPENDING increases than so do TAXES. If SPENDING decreases then so do TAXES. There is no magic. Keynes, himself, did not even claim there was. He claimed he could pull the levers in such a way that would make the engine run at more optimum levels than the free market. But his tricks have run their course.

He also distorted the immediate effects of debt and was wrong about the multiplier effect. We have no time machines. You cannot borrow from the resources of the future because they do not exist and there is no guarantee that they will. Government spending creates a negative multiplier. At least, now it does.

The problem lies in the fact that the central planners cannot possibly handle the same amount of information as the millions of actors in the market. We must empower the line. This lesson has to be repeated over and over and over again.

Using the buzzwords of charlatans like BushCo will distort the message.

I have heard you loud and clear. I never stopped listening. You are not hearing me.

There is no tax cut without a reduction in spending. That's my line and I am sticking to it. Anything else increases the noise and distorts the signal. Ron Paul has repeated the same, over and over and over again. You don't have to agree with him on every single issue. I don't. But the man is absolutely correct on economics. He even stated that we could afford Obamacare flatly, which brings on attacks from libertarians that don't listen well. We can easily. We will have to cut other things, though. Opportunity costs cannot be avoided.

 

[Damocles]

I have shown my work. Ron Paul has shown his. You are getting hung up on the language and symbols used, much like Dixie with his misundertanding of base 10.

Again, listen CLOSELY.

Taxes means "burden." I can tax my engines. That does not mean I am charging it based on its income level. It means I am burdening it.

Income taxes, sales taxes, value added taxes, tariffs, inflationary spending and debt are ALL forms of TAXES. The government cannot SPEND a nickel without taxing. If SPENDING increases than so do TAXES. If SPENDING decreases then so do TAXES. There is no magic. Keynes, himself, did not even claim there was. He claimed he could pull the levers in such a way that would make the engine run at more optimum levels than the free market. But his tricks have run their course.

He also distorted the immediate effects of debt and was wrong about the multiplier effect. We have no time machines. You cannot borrow from the resources of the future because they do not exist and there is no guarantee that they will. Government spending creates a negative multiplier. At least, now it does.

The problem lies in the fact that the central planners cannot possibly handle the same amount of information as the millions of actors in the market. We must empower the line. This lesson has to be repeated over and over and over again.

Using the buzzwords of charlatans like BushCo will distort the message.

I have heard you loud and clear. I never stopped listening. You are not hearing me.

There is no tax cut without a reduction in spending. That's my line and I am sticking to it. Anything else increases the noise and distorts the signal. Ron Paul has repeated the same, over and over and over again. You don't have to agree with him on every single issue. I don't. But the man is absolutely correct on economics. He even stated that we could afford Obamacare flatly, which brings on attacks from libertarians that don't listen well. We can easily. We will have to cut other things, though. Opportunity costs cannot be avoided.

The point is it isn't in digestible bits, the OP shows that the person posting it doesn't have this level of understanding and I believe it is best to bring it through smaller more digestible bits. First show that the original premise is wrong, and why, then the next step is to begin explaining Economics 101 and why people who claim to be Keynesians are not. In some threads you will see that portion of this going on, in those I will point out that Keynes said to spend on infrastructure not on "anything" and that we are not doing that.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I have shown my work. Ron Paul has shown his. You are getting hung up on the language and symbols used, much like Dixie with his misundertanding of base 10.

Again, listen CLOSELY.

Taxes means "burden." I can tax my engines. That does not mean I am charging it based on its income level. It means I am burdening it.

Income taxes, sales taxes, value added taxes, tariffs, inflationary spending and debt are ALL forms of TAXES. The government cannot SPEND a nickel without taxing. If SPENDING increases than so do TAXES. If SPENDING decreases then so do TAXES. There is no magic. Keynes, himself, did not even claim there was. He claimed he could pull the levers in such a way that would make the engine run at more optimum levels than the free market. But his tricks have run their course.

He also distorted the immediate effects of debt and was wrong about the multiplier effect. We have no time machines. You cannot borrow from the resources of the future because they do not exist and there is no guarantee that they will. Government spending creates a negative multiplier. At least, now it does.

The problem lies in the fact that the central planners cannot possibly handle the same amount of information as the millions of actors in the market. We must empower the line. This lesson has to be repeated over and over and over again.

Using the buzzwords of charlatans like BushCo will distort the message.

I have heard you loud and clear. I never stopped listening. You are not hearing me.

There is no tax cut without a reduction in spending. That's my line and I am sticking to it. Anything else increases the noise and distorts the signal. Ron Paul has repeated the same, over and over and over again. You don't have to agree with him on every single issue. I don't. But the man is absolutely correct on economics. He even stated that we could afford Obamacare flatly, which brings on attacks from libertarians that don't listen well. We can easily. We will have to cut other things, though. Opportunity costs cannot be avoided.

You are 100% correct but most would rather play the "my side is better than your side". That is why I am voting for Calvin Coolidge.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

So did the rich create any jobs with their tax cuts?

You ask an irrelevant question based on a flawed premise

 

[canceled.2021.1]

I do?

Won't tax cuts for "job creators" create jobs?

Yes you do. I told you. I don't argue for tax cuts based on whether or not jobs will be created and neither should anyone else

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

So rightwingers who do are lying?

No, peanut brain, "lying" is when you deliberately tell something you know is not true. Rightwingers who argue tax cuts create jobs have an opinion, they aren't lying. What the fuck is wrong with you, and why do you spend every second of your existence here, posting non-stop troll shit? Is your life REALLY this bad?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Rightwingers who argue tax cuts create jobs have an opinion, they aren't lying.

So rightwingers who claim that tax cuts create jobs are wrong?

 

[canceled.2021.1]

No they are not lying.

 

[canceled.2021.1]

So tax cuts create jobs?

I'm not saying that

 

[canceled.2021.1]

Do tax cuts create jobs, or not?

Did I say they did?