Why tax cuts DO create jobs!

You will notice, this thread doesn't begin with a cut-n-paste 'ope-ed' from some partisan internet source, like those on the left typically give us. My threads tend to come from me, and my thoughts, and if there is information online to support what I am saying, I may or may not reference it. Unlike mot pinheads, I have enough competency to articulate my own thoughts, and can compose a fairly decent thread without the inclusion of the work of others. But... I understand, it has become a kind of internet tradition, to post a 'cite' to illustrate how your point is valid, because you need support for things that are otherwise insane. If you didn't post those links, people might have you committed or something.

I saw desh's thread entitled; why tax cuts do not create jobs, and I resisted the urge to click it, I knew what was in there already! Yet another piss-pants liberal blogger opinion, rooted and steeped in left-wing myopic idiocy and total misconception of reality. But it's important I resisted the urge to click the link... for a week! That's progress for me!

The very idea that lowering tax rates on the people who would create a private sector job, wouldn't cause conditions more favorable for them to create a job, is incomprehensible. It defies any reasonable logic. Instead of relying on logic and reality, this viewpoint must rely on incompetent analysis of the information at hand. A presumption that defies reality, and maintains that all rich people will behave in a particular way, all the time. This, of course, is a incoherent thought that is enabled through a developed class envy, which dictates that all rich people will always do and behave in the same manner, regardless of the circumstance. Therefore, in the mind of a pinhead, it makes perfect sense.

In reality, there is no true definition of "the rich" ...it's a label. Some people have great assets, but are not rich. Some people are very rich, yet have very few material assets. Some people are wealthy and don't consider themselves wealthy, others are not wealthy, but think they are. And wealth itself, comes in many different forms. Some pinhead will chortle out the stupidity that 40% of rich people inherited their wealth and didn't earn it...but that means 60% of them earned their wealth, every penny of it!

In all of my years of being a jack of all trades, master of none... (I have held about 100 different job titles in my life) I have never once been offered a job by a poor person. The people in our society, who create the jobs and hire the people for those jobs, are not poor, and mostly not even middle class, they are wealthy. To people with millions or billions of dollars, a 3% increase in tax rate is a pretty big deal. And pinheads can parade around with stupid little numbers trying to show where it doesn't amount to all that much cash to a rich person, but the point is not the cash. There is a cumulative effect when taxes are lowered, it helps promote and create optimism, and encourages those with wealth to become prospective again. Sure, it only means a few more dollars in a rich man's pocket, but he is motivated by things other than money. Knowing the tax rates are lower, he also knows tax rates are lower for his competitors, from the others at the top of the food chain, and realizing this, coupled with the drive and determination that brought wealth in the first place, the rich person acts on this impulse.

Oh, but Dixie.... 1% of the people controls 85% of the wealth!! ....Then you'd think it would behoove us to treat them a little nicer!
 
You will notice, this thread doesn't begin with a cut-n-paste 'ope-ed' from some partisan internet source, like those on the left typically give us. My threads tend to come from me, and my thoughts, and if there is information online to support what I am saying, I may or may not reference it. Unlike mot pinheads, I have enough competency to articulate my own thoughts, and can compose a fairly decent thread without the inclusion of the work of others. But... I understand, it has become a kind of internet tradition, to post a 'cite' to illustrate how your point is valid, because you need support for things that are otherwise insane. If you didn't post those links, people might have you committed or something.

I saw desh's thread entitled; why tax cuts do not create jobs, and I resisted the urge to click it, I knew what was in there already! Yet another piss-pants liberal blogger opinion, rooted and steeped in left-wing myopic idiocy and total misconception of reality. But it's important I resisted the urge to click the link... for a week! That's progress for me!

The very idea that lowering tax rates on the people who would create a private sector job, wouldn't cause conditions more favorable for them to create a job, is incomprehensible. It defies any reasonable logic. Instead of relying on logic and reality, this viewpoint must rely on incompetent analysis of the information at hand. A presumption that defies reality, and maintains that all rich people will behave in a particular way, all the time. This, of course, is a incoherent thought that is enabled through a developed class envy, which dictates that all rich people will always do and behave in the same manner, regardless of the circumstance. Therefore, in the mind of a pinhead, it makes perfect sense.

In reality, there is no true definition of "the rich" ...it's a label. Some people have great assets, but are not rich. Some people are very rich, yet have very few material assets. Some people are wealthy and don't consider themselves wealthy, others are not wealthy, but think they are. And wealth itself, comes in many different forms. Some pinhead will chortle out the stupidity that 40% of rich people inherited their wealth and didn't earn it...but that means 60% of them earned their wealth, every penny of it!

In all of my years of being a jack of all trades, master of none... (I have held about 100 different job titles in my life) I have never once been offered a job by a poor person. The people in our society, who create the jobs and hire the people for those jobs, are not poor, and mostly not even middle class, they are wealthy. To people with millions or billions of dollars, a 3% increase in tax rate is a pretty big deal. And pinheads can parade around with stupid little numbers trying to show where it doesn't amount to all that much cash to a rich person, but the point is not the cash. There is a cumulative effect when taxes are lowered, it helps promote and create optimism, and encourages those with wealth to become prospective again. Sure, it only means a few more dollars in a rich man's pocket, but he is motivated by things other than money. Knowing the tax rates are lower, he also knows tax rates are lower for his competitors, from the others at the top of the food chain, and realizing this, coupled with the drive and determination that brought wealth in the first place, the rich person acts on this impulse.

Oh, but Dixie.... 1% of the people controls 85% of the wealth!! ....Then you'd think it would behoove us to treat them a little nicer!

You make some good points. Class warfare is a dead end, in my opinion.

Why do you think the Bush tax cuts have not generated the expected jobs?
 
With our current scenario of over-globalizaiton, tax cuts no longer create jobs in america; the money just gets spent overseas. The Comparative Advantage Deciders have determined that americans are only allowed to be consumers, and are to be kept out of the supply chain as much as possible. They are the enemies of all americans.
 
Are you willing and able to pay up to ten times more for manufactured goods?

That's what American wage and benefit demands would require of the consumer in many cases.

If so, how many others are willing to join you?
 
Are you willing and able to pay up to ten times more for manufactured goods?

That's what American wage and benefit demands would require of the consumer in many cases.

If so, how many others are willing to join you?

All the people who will now have jobs to pay for the items with will join me.

The fed is bound to print enough money to keep the economy flowing, despite trade policy. And if they are unwilling, they will be oustered by the people and replaced by americans who care about the domestic american economy.
 
All the people who will now have jobs to pay for the items with will join me.

They will? How do you know that?

[/QUOTE=AssHatZombie;741726]The fed is bound to print enough money to keep the economy flowing, despite trade policy.[/QUOTE]

They are? How are they "bound" to do that?

And if they are unwilling, they will be oustered by the people and replaced by americans who care about the domestic american economy.

I don't see a lot of evidence to support that statement. Can you provide any?
 
They will? How do you know that?



They are? How are they "bound" to do that?



I don't see a lot of evidence to support that statement. Can you provide any?


DO you know they won't?

The fed has unemployment as one of the official reasons that cause them to alter policy.

Why do you have such faith in the continuation of globalist stupidity, considering that it is mightily stupid?
 
Last edited:
DO you know they won't?

The fed has unemployment as one of the official reasons that cause them to alter policy.

Why do you have such faith in the continuation of globalist stupidity, considering that it is mightily stupid?

Let's see if I understand.

You made a statement.

I asked for evidence that your statement is true.

Your answer is 'can you prove it's not?'.

Did I get the gist of your argument?
 
Now we're back where we started.

See where your "debating" technique leads?

You went this direction with your "let me see if i got this straight" sophistry.

You could get back on track by answering how tax cuts create a better economy in america, when it just means more money will be sent overseas to hire slaves.
 
You make some good points. Class warfare is a dead end, in my opinion.

Why do you think the Bush tax cuts have not generated the expected jobs?

I think primarily because they weren't made permanent. Ironically, these tax cuts may still fail to produce significant jobs, because they are still not permanent. From every indication of the left, they are being given a two-year reprieve, but then, they're gone. Now think about that in context of your typical tycoon out there... what the hell difference does two more years make? Why is that supposed to motivate me to expand and grow? So that, in two years, you can come back and sock me in the shorts really good? No thanks!

Now, extending the tax cuts will stimulate the economy, and all the indicators will likely start to rise, and some jobs will be created through this, because consumer confidence will begin to come back, and demand increases, the economy flourishes well. The problems with private sector jobs are a little more complicated. One of the key factors killing new private sector jobs right now, is Obamacare. Corporations who are on the hook for providing health care insurance coverage to their employees, not knowing what that is going to cost in the near future. This also puts the kabash on hiring new employees, unless they are essential personnel. We keep seeing labor-union-friendly policies rolled out, one after another, and no indication the next two years won't be more of the same, and we wonder why corporate America isn't producing new jobs? What would be their motivation to produce jobs in this environment?
 
All the people who will now have jobs to pay for the items with will join me.

The fed is bound to print enough money to keep the economy flowing, despite trade policy. And if they are unwilling, they will be oustered by the people and replaced by americans who care about the domestic american economy.

So, you should have no problem presenting evidence to support the above.

While you're orchestrating your global campaign to reverse free trade, you may want to take a moment to compare this [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism"]Solipsism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/ame] with your use if the term.
 
AssHat, when you make a claim it is your responsibility to back it up; your opponent is not obligated to disprove anything. If I were to claim the earth was created by the flying spaghetti monster, would that be automatically true until you're able to disprove it? Nonsense.
 
AssHat, when you make a claim it is your responsibility to back it up; your opponent is not obligated to disprove anything. If I were to claim the earth was created by the flying spaghetti monster, would that be automatically true until you're able to disprove it? Nonsense.

Can you explain how tax cuts create jobs in america, when it's cheaper labor costs that are the reason corporations choose to hire overseas?
 
AssHat, when you make a claim it is your responsibility to back it up; your opponent is not obligated to disprove anything. If I were to claim the earth was created by the flying spaghetti monster, would that be automatically true until you're able to disprove it? Nonsense.

Can you prove the earth WASN'T created by the flying spaghetti monster?
 
Back
Top