Why tax cuts DO create jobs!

[cawacko]

Apple, I am sorry, but I can't have a serious conversation with you. When I read your idiocy, it frustrates me that people are as stupid as you are. With all the money we've poured in to education, it hurts me to see people as pathetically dumb as yourself. I know that you think you are a smart person, and I know you seem to get a kick out of talking down to people here, as if you believe yourself to be above average intelligence, but you are a moron. Not just a slight moron, not just borderline moronic, but full-fledged, nothing can be done to save you, kind of moron. Frankly, I just have better things to do with my time than talk to morons.

You have to remember he's Canadian. Very different mindset coming from up there.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You have to remember he's Canadian. Very different mindset coming from up there.

Maybe he spent too much time outside and got frostbite on the brain?

 

[Canceled.LTroll.27]

Is there anything particularly unusual about Chinese cars vs American cars?

Yes.

We will undercut the bloated prices of your vehicles severely.

Your desire for "savings" will impel you to shun higher-priced offerings, and what is left of your manufacturing base will disappear forever.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Life savings? Considering the beating investments took along with the current savings interest rate their nest egg has shrunk.

Assuming they worked and saved for 40 years, retire at 65 and live another 20 years, how many can save enough money to cover that? How many people earn enough money in two years to be able to take the third year off?

If we removed ourselves from a debt based economy and avoided the credit enticement, all of our savings would be real wealth, not paper/digital wealth and not subject to the whims of a capricious government who feels they know best how to spend your money. In doing so, we would create a more stable economy where bubbles wouldn't be created and therefore no bursting, thus very little investment risk.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Your desire for "savings" will impel you to shun higher-priced offerings, and what is left of your manufacturing base will disappear forever.

LOL. Not. You wish.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm not forcing anything. Government spending can create economic growth. Very very few people would dispute that.

Yes you are moron. You are saying that it was the spending cuts that caused the economy to fall in 37/38. You ignore the fact that he also RAISED taxes. You ignore the business environment. You ignore the rise of the unions. You simply say 'spending went down so that is why the economy fell'. That is complete bullshit.

and YES, government spending CAN (this is the key word) create economic growth. But only if it is done in a manner that CREATES JOBS. Otherwise it is nothing more than a stop gap that pushes the problem into the future.

Just post the data, Henny Penny.

Just answer the question dumbass or google the info yourself. It is easy to find.

This isn't even arguable.

I know, yet you continue to try and argue.

Which were historical lows. Now we're still looking at relatively low rates, hardly the doom and gloom you are predicting, Henny Penny.

The point dumbass is that the rates were spiking back up long before the tax cut compromise to which YOU attribute the rise.

When you see a rapid rise in rates at the same time the Fed is BUYING Treasuries, that tells you the outlook people have for rates in the future. It is a signal of inflationary concerns.

Not really. Check out the a six month chart on the rate and you'll see a sharp uptick following the 6th. There's no harm in acknowledging it.

Again, you are trying to force a causation. The rates were already climbing. Saying the spike was due to the announcement is nothing more than your 'wishing' it were so. If you happen to look at the technicals for the ten year, it broke down on the 5th. Which is going to cause the technical traders to bail. Want to guess what happens to price and yield when that happens?

Not really. You prefer your metric for your purposes and I prefer my metric for my purposes. People can either agree that my metric makes more sense or that your metric makes more sense. No need to get your panties in a wad about it. I just don't see much merit in the argument that 95% of the people got to share more than the 5% got to share. I would hope so.

Yes, you don't see any sense in it, because it goes against the bullshit your masters have been feeding you for the past 8 years. The tax cuts went overwhelmingly to the lower and middle classes. Period. No matter how you want to try and spin it. In total dollars that is where the bulk went and is going. But since it doesn't fit into your class warfare bullshit, your masters have you spinning just as hard as you can to try and support their moronic line of crap.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

You ignore the business environment.

You neocon fucks are ignoring the business environment, pretending everything has to do with taxes, oversimplifying. The fact is that even lower taxes cannot fix the economy when that extra money is mostly invested overseas. YOU are reducing the argument to a single factor currently.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yes you are moron. You are saying that it was the spending cuts that caused the economy to fall in 37/38. You ignore the fact that he also RAISED taxes. You ignore the business environment. You ignore the rise of the unions. You simply say 'spending went down so that is why the economy fell'. That is complete bullshit.

I don't think I ever attributed the economic decline to cuts in spending or anything else for that matter. My only assertion was that government spending can lead to economic growth and did so from 1933 through 1936 and during WWII. It's not really that controversial of a thing to say.

Just answer the question dumbass or google the info yourself. It is easy to find.

I guess I'll just accept that, as usual, you refuse to retract your bullshit statements when faced with direct evidence to the contrary. Keep up the Henny Penny.

I know, yet you continue to try and argue.

The point dumbass is that the rates were spiking back up long before the tax cut compromise to which YOU attribute the rise.

When you see a rapid rise in rates at the same time the Fed is BUYING Treasuries, that tells you the outlook people have for rates in the future. It is a signal of inflationary concerns.

Your argument that rates are high is nonsense. Rates aren't high. They just aren't the lowest that they've ever been, which was the case when they were a 2.5%. The current rates are extraordinarily low by historical standards.

Again, you are trying to force a causation. The rates were already climbing. Saying the spike was due to the announcement is nothing more than your 'wishing' it were so. If you happen to look at the technicals for the ten year, it broke down on the 5th. Which is going to cause the technical traders to bail. Want to guess what happens to price and yield when that happens?

So your story is that the "technicals" for the 10 year broke down on the 5th, a Sunday. That the market reacted to this not on the 6th, a Monday, but on Tuesday the 7th, two days later?

Bullshit.

Yes, you don't see any sense in it, because it goes against the bullshit your masters have been feeding you for the past 8 years. The tax cuts went overwhelmingly to the lower and middle classes. Period. No matter how you want to try and spin it. In total dollars that is where the bulk went and is going. But since it doesn't fit into your class warfare bullshit, your masters have you spinning just as hard as you can to try and support their moronic line of crap.

Again, you aren't going to convince me of anything so I don't understand why you keep repeating the same line of bullshit over and over and over and over. I guess I should COUNT myself LUCKY that you DIDN'T use CAPS in this POST, as you are wont to do from time to time.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I don't think I ever attributed the economic decline to cuts in spending or anything else for that matter. My only assertion was that government spending can lead to economic growth and did so from 1933 through 1936 and during WWII. It's not really that controversial of a thing to say.

Yes, you did. You stated that there was spending which led to growth and then you stated that the decline in 37/38 was because FDR cut spending.

I guess I'll just accept that, as usual, you refuse to retract your bullshit statements when faced with direct evidence to the contrary. Keep up the Henny Penny.

LMAO... what evidence? You are trying to spin this into something it is not. I never once stated that rates were at all time highs or whatever you are implying. I stated that contrary to your bullshit.... rates were climbing prior to the compromise announcement.

Which means it is YOUR bullshit that has been laid out for all to see. Your proclamation that rates climbed because of Obama's announcement was nonsense.

Your argument that rates are high is nonsense. Rates aren't high. They just aren't the lowest that they've ever been, which was the case when they were a 2.5%. The current rates are extraordinarily low by historical standards.

You are quite comical. I never said rates are high. Not once.

Also, 2.5% was not the lowest they have ever been. The ten year was at 2% in early 2009. So again you are pulling shit out of your ass.

What I stated was that rates have spiked over the past two months... not just since 12/6 as you claimed. You just want to spin this because you know you are wrong.

So your story is that the "technicals" for the 10 year broke down on the 5th, a Sunday. That the market reacted to this not on the 6th, a Monday, but on Tuesday the 7th, two days later?

Yeah, you busted me, I put the wrong date down. It was November 5th that the technicals were broken. So the run started a full month before Obama's speech. It has had spikes and pull backs consistently since then.

Again, you aren't going to convince me of anything because I only believe what my masters tell me to believe. So instead of refuting anything I am just going to talk about how you use caps for emphasis instead of using bold or underlining to do so. I don't understand why anyone would want to show emphasis on words because quite frankly I am a brain dead lemming who is incapable of forming thoughts. At best I can parrot my masters lines every now and again.

Thanks.

 

[Bonestorm]

Yes, you did. You stated that there was spending which led to growth and then you stated that the decline in 37/38 was because FDR cut spending.

Not so. I merely noted that the decline and cut occurred simultaneously. What you inferred was not implied.

LMAO... what evidence? You are trying to spin this into something it is not. I never once stated that rates were at all time highs or whatever you are implying. I stated that contrary to your bullshit.... rates were climbing prior to the compromise announcement.

Which means it is YOUR bullshit that has been laid out for all to see. Your proclamation that rates climbed because of Obama's announcement was nonsense.

Again, take a look at a six month chart. And I'm not alone in my assessment:

NEW YORK – President Barack Obama's tax-cut proposal spurred a widespread sell-off in Treasurys on Tuesday as traders expected the plan to create deeper budget deficits.

Yields on Treasurys shot higher as their prices fell. The 10-year yield jumped to 3.13 percent from 2.93 percent, its highest level since June 22. The yield traded as high as 3.17 percent in the late afternoon

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101207/ap_on_bi_ge/us_credit_markets

There are plenty of other links if you would like them.

You are quite comical. I never said rates are high. Not once.

Also, 2.5% was not the lowest they have ever been. The ten year was at 2% in early 2009. So again you are pulling shit out of your ass.

What I stated was that rates have spiked over the past two months... not just since 12/6 as you claimed. You just want to spin this because you know you are wrong.

What you stated was that debt is a big concern. I disagreed on the grounds that, if debt were a big concern, treasury rates would be a whole hell of a lot higher than they are now. You want to spin this into an argument about what caused a modest uptick in rates which is beside the point. Rates are low.

Yeah, you busted me, I put the wrong date down. It was November 5th that the technicals were broken. So the run started a full month before Obama's speech. It has had spikes and pull backs consistently since then.

"Run." You crack me up.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Not so. I merely noted that the decline and cut occurred simultaneously. What you inferred was not implied.

That is truly the worst attempt at spin from you.

Again, take a look at a six month chart. And I'm not alone in my assessment:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101207/ap_on_bi_ge/us_credit_markets

There are plenty of other links if you would like them.

Again, if you think the spike in yield from 2.3% to 3.3% and the drop in price of 8% in a two month window is not significant, then you don't understand the bond market.

The truly funny thing is that your link states that people are concerned with the DEFICIT (you know that thing that gets added to debt every year.... that thing you say doesn't matter)

What you stated was that debt is a big concern. I disagreed on the grounds that, if debt were a big concern, treasury rates would be a whole hell of a lot higher than they are now. You want to spin this into an argument about what caused a modest uptick in rates which is beside the point. Rates are low.

Again moron, I am not arguing whether or not rates are closer to long term historical highs or lows. The point is the fact that rates are 50% higher than they were two months ago on the ten year. Prices are 8% lower. That is a dramatic move in the ten year given the announcement that the Fed would be buying $600B in treasuries in an attempt to keep rates low.

"Run." You crack me up.

The fact that you don't know what a run is, cracks me up.

A 100bp move in rates in a two month window with the Fed attempting to push rates in the opposite direction.... yeah, that is a run.