Why tax cuts DO create jobs!

[Cancel 2016.2]

Here's what we know. Government spending increased in the period from 1933 through 1936. During the same period the economy grew. Government spending was cut in 1937 and 1938. Unemployment increased and economic growth stalled during this period. From 1939 through 1945 government spending increase exponentially. During that period the economic grew at an unprecedented rate and unemployment dropped significantly.

Government spending has gone up every year since 1965, yet we have had both booms and recessions. You are trying to force the correlation with just that period. You ignore all the other factors. Such as the fact that FDR also RAISED taxes in 1937.

Hey Henny Penny, can you post the latest numbers for the long bonds as compared to, say, one year ago?

sure, if you can let me know what the long bond pricing one year ago signifies.

Cutting rates can promote economic growth, but tax cuts simply do not increase revenue. At least not where tax rates are right now.

Again, if tax cuts stimulate the economy to create REAL jobs, then you are putting more people back to work. Guess what those workers have to pay?

I was speaking of the 10 year note. On Monday, December 6, the 10 year note rate was 2.95%. Obama announced the tax cut compromise that night. By Friday, December 10, the rate was at 3.32%, the highest it has been since April.

and two months ago the 10 year was at 2.38%
and one month ago it was at 2.73%

It started jumping long before the compromise. So again, do show us what evidence you have that suggests the trend continuing was suddenly due to the compromise. You again are trying to force causation.

Again, they earn a whole hell of a lot more income. And the rich don't have to benefit substantially more than others. The Democratic plan had the super rich benefiting equally with those earning $250,000.

Yes, very good, you are catching on. They earn more. Thus they get taxed A LOT more and when there are breaks they get more in real dollars back because they pay more in real dollars.

The one factor you and your Dem masters keep forgetting is that the wealthy also invest in new technologies, new companies, new ideas.... their investments help create jobs. If you stifle that due to excessive taxation, you are going to kill jobs.

Yes, I am obviously correct. Thank you.

No you are 100% wrong, which is why you resorted to such a ridiculous reply.

I'm not pretending anything. I'm simply choosing an metric that you don't like to use. You don't have to. We can agree to disagree on which metric is better.

Quite wrong. You are indeed pretending. Just as your Dem masters have for the past 8 years. The Bush tax cuts if extended go primarily to the lower and middle class families in terms of total percentage of the extension in real dollars. You try to spin it into a per capita argument because you believe in class warfare.

 

[Canceled.LTroll.27]

Most amusing.

The foreign ministers of the United States, Mexico and Canada met in the tiny resort village of Wakefield, Quebec, about 35 kilometers north of Ottawa.

Canadian and U.S. companies, especially in the automobile manufacturing sector, complain that the security forces at the Canada-U.S. border have slowed down the movement of car parts.

Some factories have had to abandon "just in time" manufacturing and have had to build warehouses to hold parts.

Soon China will enter the USA automobile market and you will all buy Chinese cars, and Chinese banks will lend you the funds.

When you cannot pay, you will see what happens to the ignorant debtor.

 

[Bonestorm]

Government spending has gone up every year since 1965, yet we have had both booms and recessions. You are trying to force the correlation with just that period. You ignore all the other factors. Such as the fact that FDR also RAISED taxes in 1937.

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

sure, if you can let me know what the long bond pricing one year ago signifies.

Just post the data, Henny Penny.

Again, if tax cuts stimulate the economy to create REAL jobs, then you are putting more people back to work. Guess what those workers have to pay?

This isn't even arguable.

and two months ago the 10 year was at 2.38%
and one month ago it was at 2.73%

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

It started jumping long before the compromise. So again, do show us what evidence you have that suggests the trend continuing was suddenly due to the compromise. You again are trying to force causation.

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.

Yes, very good, you are catching on. They earn more. Thus they get taxed A LOT more and when there are breaks they get more in real dollars back because they pay more in real dollars.

Not if the tax cuts do not apply to dollars earned over, say $250,000.

The one factor you and your Dem masters keep forgetting is that the wealthy also invest in new technologies, new companies, new ideas.... their investments help create jobs. If you stifle that due to excessive taxation, you are going to kill jobs.

Pretending that we are anywhere close to "excessive taxation" is laughable.

No you are 100% wrong, which is why you resorted to such a ridiculous reply.

Oh, so when you said I was "quite obviously correct" you meant that I was "100% wrong." That makes lots of sense.

Quite wrong. You are indeed pretending. Just as your Dem masters have for the past 8 years. The Bush tax cuts if extended go primarily to the lower and middle class families in terms of total percentage of the extension in real dollars. You try to spin it into a per capita argument because you believe in class warfare.

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.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

It has everything to do with my "dumbass ideas". I have always cited national security and self reliance concerns as part of my objection to globalization stupidity.

And your rant still had nothing to do with her post. Sorry. You lose again.

I still don't see how this concern is "being japanese" as you stated.

I'm glad that you have finally admitted that your ideas are dumbass and now maybe once your caretaker wipes the drool from your evening meal, you can finally understand that my post had nothing to do with your dumbass idea and was instead a response to her comment of the US being unable to produce what we may need.

 

[apple0154]

gee, their life savings that they should have been working on since entering the workplace, maybe?

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?

 

[apple0154]

Who has job security? Except for union people there is no such thing. Do you know what people do who don't have job security? They have to work their *ss off to keep their job. I worked for years on full commission. Don't tell me people need to know they can not be fired to do a good job. What ass backward logic.

My logic isn't ass backwards. You didn't comprehend what I wrote.

Obviously you earned a profit for the company. That's why they kept you unless...well, we won't go there.

I wrote in msg 119, "In a company the person in charge usually considers the financial benefit of an employee before terminating their employment. Such would not be the case in government."

That means anyone could be replaced by anyone else. Without some sort of job security the employee "works at the pleasure of the boss".

Simply stated, in a non-unionized government job, if the boss doesn't like the employee he'd get rid of him. In private business as long as the employee is bringing in money the boss is happy whether or not he personally likes the guy.

See the difference?

And students who work summer jobs don't belong to unions.

Not sure your point here. I knew that.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I'm glad that you have finally admitted that your ideas are dumbass and now maybe once your caretaker wipes the drool from your evening meal, you can finally understand that my post had nothing to do with your dumbass idea and was instead a response to her comment of the US being unable to produce what we may need.

But your comment was not a response to her concerns. It was just some wild assertion that she was "being japanese".

Please try clarifying your apparent absurdities.

 

[apple0154]

funny thing about company owners, when their business actually starts losing money because a family member is non-productive, they generally take corrective action. Now, that's not always the case, but there it is.

Exactly. It's different in government.

 

[apple0154]

This thread is a trip! I can't figure out who is more of a bonehead, apple or desh? On one hand, we have apple telling us you have to belong to a union to work, and desh telling us we don't have to work to boost the economy, we just need unemployment and food stamps! I'm wondering, if we put them both in the same room together... I bet scientists could answer a lot of questions about anti-matter, dark energy, and black holes!

Dixie, Dixie, Dixie. You must have driven your teachers crazy.

 

[apple0154]

too bad you whole fucking mind set is based on lies and what people didnt say.

Maybe Dixie is dyslexic.

Dyslexia: any of various reading disorders associated with impairment of the ability to interpret spatial relationships or to integrate auditory and visual information.

He definitely has difficulty integrating information.

 

[cawacko]

My logic isn't ass backwards. You didn't comprehend what I wrote.

Obviously you earned a profit for the company. That's why they kept you unless...well, we won't go there.

I wrote in msg 119, "In a company the person in charge usually considers the financial benefit of an employee before terminating their employment. Such would not be the case in government."

That means anyone could be replaced by anyone else. Without some sort of job security the employee "works at the pleasure of the boss".

Simply stated, in a non-unionized government job, if the boss doesn't like the employee he'd get rid of him. In private business as long as the employee is bringing in money the boss is happy whether or not he personally likes the guy.

See the difference?



Not sure your point here. I knew that.

I got let go in Feb 2009. I was part of the acquisition team and when the credit market dried up we quit buying. They let the head of our group go along with all three acquisition people and three analysts. They weren't going to keep us on the payroll when we weren't buying.

Even if you aren't working to make a profit in government you still have a job to do. If you don't perform your job well and it affects how your boss's boss views him then you'll have a problem. And just because you make the company money doesn't guarantee a company will never let you go. There are plenty of politics involved within companies where someone may piss off the wrong person and be told their gone to bosses not liking someone's attitude even if they produce.

 

[apple0154]

Uhm, I am not sure how to break this to ya, I know it will come as a total shock, but there is not an endless pile of money in Washington. If there were such a pile, we wouldn't need to do a budget each year, and we would never have a deficit. We also wouldn't need to ever tax anyone, we could just get all of our money from the endless pile. No one would need to work, unless they belonged to a union and just wanted to work, but there would be no need for unions, we could just pay everyone whatever they wanted from the endless pile of money. Maybe we would need a union and union workers to take wheelbarrows of money from the pile to go stimulate the economy, but that would probably be the only job.

Food stamps and unemployment stimulate the economy like airplane peanuts sustain life following a plane crash! Technically speaking, yes... they stimulate the economy! So would, dumping bales of currency from low-flying planes! In fact, I bet that idea would probably work even BETTER at stimulating the economy! So why don't we do that desh? Let's just have the government fly around dumping money on us! Hey... it would stimulate the economy!!

Actually, you're not too far from the truth.

Have you ever filled out an application for a credit card and noticed they asked what the "household income" was? Why do you think they ask that?

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Money is made out of thin air. There is an endless supply. but it's just the people that make it only make it for their friends, and use it to sculpt society according to their vision. And their vision is a dark one.

Their power needs to be taken away, before they kill us all.

 

[apple0154]

our older son runs his own business and employs 30 people

a tax cut would not cause him to hire more people because he does not need more people right now tax cut or not

I regret to inform you that common sense and logic has no place in this thread. :lol:

 

[Canceled2]

I regret to inform you that common sense and logic has no place in this thread. :lol:

So what he is saying is that thanks to Bush's earlier tax cuts he can operate at full staff...

 

[apple0154]

Most amusing.

The foreign ministers of the United States, Mexico and Canada met in the tiny resort village of Wakefield, Quebec, about 35 kilometers north of Ottawa.

Canadian and U.S. companies, especially in the automobile manufacturing sector, complain that the security forces at the Canada-U.S. border have slowed down the movement of car parts.

Some factories have had to abandon "just in time" manufacturing and have had to build warehouses to hold parts.

Soon China will enter the USA automobile market and you will all buy Chinese cars, and Chinese banks will lend you the funds.

When you cannot pay, you will see what happens to the ignorant debtor.

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

 

[apple0154]

So what he is saying is that thanks to Bush's earlier tax cuts he can operate at full staff...

A most unusual take on his post.

 

[Canceled2]

A most unusual take on his post.

Not at all. His son sounds as though those Bush tax cuts he got have served him well...so let's not take his money away from him, but let him keep a full staff for his business.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

But your comment was not a response to her concerns. It was just some wild assertion that she was "being japanese".

Please try clarifying your apparent absurdities.

Where in the fuck do you get these asinine conclusions??
Just because you have voices in your head, does not mean you have to listen or answer them.

You need to go back and reread what I posted and then eliminate what ever in the fuck you thought I said.

You are an idiot.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

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.