Austerity and tax cuts create jobs????

[NYcarbineer]

Please go get your example in history where this has born out as true?

Here ya go, turd:

The Depression You’ve Never Heard Of: 1920-1921 | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

It's been brought up 3 times already. She can't see it, and they won't accept it as precisely what destroys their argument.

It doesn't destroy any argument because it doesn't fit the criteria of the OP and the 1920's in no way compare to the present economy.

 

[editec]

Austerity and tax cuts create jobs????

Under certain marco-economic cicumstances tax breaks might create more jobs.

When the supply side is lacking dough, and the demand side is awash with it, for example.

In this current economic circumstance case, however, I do not see how tax increases are going to help put people back to work.

They MIGHT help the deficiet, of course, but that won't address the lack of jobs one bit.

In fact, tax increases right now, are more likely to hurt the job picture.

 

[Full-Auto]

There has been loss of something like 600,000 public sector jobs since the recession began, owing to cutbacks in government spending.

You're joking, right?

No.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...rugman-says-government-jobs-have-fallen-half/

Half a million public sector jobs lost JUST since January 2009, VERIFIED AS TRUE AT POLIFACT,

and that doesn't even include a full year of the recession, i.e., 2008.

So how does all this relate to Krugman’s comment? The fact that federal employment outside the Postal Service has risen by 6.7 percent in the past two and a half years is an important point to recognize for anyone studying employment trends

 

[NYcarbineer]

You're joking, right?

No.

PolitiFact | Paul Krugman says government jobs have fallen by half million since January 2009

Half a million public sector jobs lost JUST since January 2009, VERIFIED AS TRUE AT POLIFACT,

and that doesn't even include a full year of the recession, i.e., 2008.

So how does all this relate to Krugman’s comment? The fact that federal employment outside the Postal Service has risen by 6.7 percent in the past two and a half years is an important point to recognize for anyone studying employment trends

If you knew how to read you wouldn't need me to explain it to you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Austerity and tax cuts create jobs????

Under certain marco-economic cicumstances tax breaks might create more jobs.

When the supply side is lacking dough, and the demand side is awash with it, for example.

In this current economic circumstance case, however, I do not see how tax increases are going to help put people back to work.

They MIGHT help the deficiet, of course, but that won't address the lack of jobs one bit.

In fact, tax increases right now, are more likely to hurt the job picture.

If tax increases will hurt the economy, and spending cuts will hurt the economy,

and the fiscal situation only gets worse by doing nothing,

what's the sensible answer?

 

[saveliberty]

The first problem with your case NYC, is most of the losses were NOT on the federal or state levels.

"But the biggest declines in the government sector came in local government. Local government -- which accounts for 64 percent of all government employment -- fell by 443,000 workers, or 3 percent. That accounts for a huge portion of the half-million decrease in jobs that Krugman cited.

Education workers at the local level fared worse than those at the state level. Local education workers declined by 204,800, or 2.5 percent."

Most of these jobs were lost as a result of property tax decreases from lower housing values and closed manufacturing plants.

 

[Full-Auto]

No.

PolitiFact | Paul Krugman says government jobs have fallen by half million since January 2009

Half a million public sector jobs lost JUST since January 2009, VERIFIED AS TRUE AT POLIFACT,

and that doesn't even include a full year of the recession, i.e., 2008.

So how does all this relate to Krugman’s comment? The fact that federal employment outside the Postal Service has risen by 6.7 percent in the past two and a half years is an important point to recognize for anyone studying employment trends

If you knew how to read you wouldn't need me to explain it to you.

So the point went sailing over your head.

I hate to say it but that is not a shocker.

Meanwhile in the real world the EPA is about to unleash another trillion dollars worth of regulation, expected to cost up to 7 million additional jobs.

Your side doesnt come more clueless.

 

[saveliberty]

If tax increases will hurt the economy, and spending cuts will hurt the economy,

and the fiscal situation only gets worse by doing nothing,

what's the sensible answer?

Well, Obama should remind us of those pesky Medicare fraud billions any day now. How about actually stopping it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So how does all this relate to Krugman’s comment? The fact that federal employment outside the Postal Service has risen by 6.7 percent in the past two and a half years is an important point to recognize for anyone studying employment trends

If you knew how to read you wouldn't need me to explain it to you.

So the point went sailing over your head.

I hate to say it but that is not a shocker.

You didn't make a point. Over half a million public sector jobs have been lost because of reduced government spending, mostly at the LOCAL level.

Local governments have been doing what the GOP in Washington wants to do at the federal level. CUTTING SPENDING.

The result is that hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost their jobs. Cutting spending will not create jobs it will KILL jobs. How many times have I told you people that?

The GOP is LYING when they say that cutting spending is good for JOBS. LYING. It is terrible for jobs.

It may be the fiscally responsible thing to do, but austerity puts people out of work.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The first problem with your case NYC, is most of the losses were NOT on the federal or state levels.

"But the biggest declines in the government sector came in local government. Local government -- which accounts for 64 percent of all government employment -- fell by 443,000 workers, or 3 percent. That accounts for a huge portion of the half-million decrease in jobs that Krugman cited.

Education workers at the local level fared worse than those at the state level. Local education workers declined by 204,800, or 2.5 percent."

Most of these jobs were lost as a result of property tax decreases from lower housing values and closed manufacturing plants.

I never said they were.

I'm proving that cutting government spending causes unemployment. The GOP wants to drastically cut federal spending.

It will cause unemployment. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

 

[Too Tall]

There was no austerity in the '00's.

true...

So I inadvertantly went off topic....

But I noticed how I many times brought it up how tax cuts DID create jobs...citing the examples I cited above...yet no one on the left ever responds....yet I still see the left continually post threads and comments about how the Bush tax cuts did absolutely nothing to promote hiring.....

But whatever....

Maybe it was the deficit spending that created jobs in the '00's. Maybe it was ramping up to fight 2 wars, without extracting any money from the economy to pay for them that created jobs in the '00's.

If 2 wars were fought without taking any money out of the economy, who paid for them?

 

[saveliberty]

The first problem with your case NYC, is most of the losses were NOT on the federal or state levels.

"But the biggest declines in the government sector came in local government. Local government -- which accounts for 64 percent of all government employment -- fell by 443,000 workers, or 3 percent. That accounts for a huge portion of the half-million decrease in jobs that Krugman cited.

Education workers at the local level fared worse than those at the state level. Local education workers declined by 204,800, or 2.5 percent."

Most of these jobs were lost as a result of property tax decreases from lower housing values and closed manufacturing plants.

I never said they were.

I'm proving that cutting government spending causes unemployment. The GOP wants to drastically cut federal spending.

It will cause unemployment. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

We want to shrink government. Of course that means fewer government jobs. At some point the tax dollars saved by employers will generate jobs. When will that happen? When demand for a business' product or services is greater than the ability to supply it without more workers. Apparently the Fed sees this as a problem until at least 2013.

Unemployment did NOT start with cuts to government spending. It started with the housing crisis and spread throughout the economy. Slow downs in construction and then the auto industry moved to other sectors. Your statement is inaccurate. Cuts in government spending causes government job cuts. We need private sector jobs.

 

[Big Fitz]

Here ya go, turd:

The Depression You’ve Never Heard Of: 1920-1921 | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

It's been brought up 3 times already. She can't see it, and they won't accept it as precisely what destroys their argument.

It doesn't destroy any argument because it doesn't fit the criteria of the OP and the 1920's in no way compare to the present economy.

Then the question is invalid if there is no permissible way to answer it. If it was rhetorical, it should be more clearly shown as such. The 1920 "Depression" is an excellent example, but you want to play "no true scotsman' with something that answers successfully and debunks the entire premise of the question at hand.

I guess if the presupposition being unchallengeable is the goal, you shouldn't have made the challenge, or accept the fact that your presupposition is wrong and easily disproved.