Consumers create jobs.

[LilOlLady]

CONSUMERS CREATE JOBS.

When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion. Unemployment was at 4.0% in January 2001. Unemployment was at 7.85 when Obama took office in January 2009. Bush’s Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 cut taxes by $1.35 trillion over 10 years by making many changes. Did not create one job but cause Government $1.35 trillion in lost revenue, resulting in Government jobs lost. Especially in government that create jobs. If big and small businesses did not pay any taxes at all they still would not create any jobs. 11 years after Bush’s tax cuts unemployment is at 8.2% down because of Obama’s stimulus and because tax cuts do not create jobs. Like it or not, Radical Right Wing Extremists, government spending and government created jobs got us out of the great depression and will get us out of this recession. Stimulus money lowered unemployment down to 8.2%. If not for the stimulus ti would be well over 8.2%. But RRWE have cut government spending and cut Government jobs.

Government spending and government jobs will put people to work, create revenue and the employed will spend money on products and services and business will sell more products and services and will need to hire more people. Result. A growing economy out of the recession. A 5th grader figured this out.

Government can create jobs because Government do not have to make an immediate profit. Profit will come later in the form of taxes that will pay for the jobs Government create.
Consumers create jobs and not big or small businesses. Bush tax cut create this recession by cutting tax revenue by $1.35 trillion. It took money out of the hands of government and Government had to cut spending and cut government jobs, cutting more revenue and taking money out of the hands of consumers. Consumers having no money to buy big and small business’s products and services caused businesses to lay of employees and some went bankrupt. Results in no money in anyone’s hands. Resulting in a great recession.
Private sector cannot create jobs without consumers.

If RRWE know how to create jobs and healthcare for all, they had 10 years of Bush to do it and they didn’t.

 

[expat_panama]

...Government spending and government jobs will put people to work... ...Consumers create jobs and not big or small businesses...

Words mean things (from here):

job

n.
1. A regular activity performed in exchange for payment, especially as one's trade, occupation, or profession.
2. A position in which one is employed.​

​

In real life the federal government hires one person for every 35 people that business hire. The federal government does in fact hire millions of people --4,443,000!. Seriously though, let's keep in mind that total employment in the US is 142,415,000 --35 private jobs for every individual gov't job. Kind of like mommy washing Thanksgiving dishes and the 3-year old comes in to 'help'. Mommy puts the kid on a chair and lets him rinse a saucer, and the rest of the day the kid says "I did the dishes today!". Everyone smiles and looks at mommy. In the same way I have to smile when you point out that gov't creates jobs that I voted for and I paid for. Same for consumers creating jobs --only happens when someone hires a full time babysitter, maid, or other kind of regular help.

Back in the adult world it's businesses that hire people.

 

[The Rabbi]

Gov't could "hire" people to sit around all day and do nothing. That would get millions of dollars in the hands of consumers. According to Little Old Fraud that would grow the economy massively.
In real life it matters what kind of job people do. People employed in the private sector are contributing to the economy. People employed in the public sector are a drag on the economy.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Unemployment stood at 4.6 when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (The Democrats) took over control of the purse strings in 2007...an astonishing slide in the economy then followed.

 

[expat_panama]

Unemployment stood at 4.6 when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (The Democrats) took over control of the purse strings in 2007...an astonishing slide in the economy then followed.

That's how it's worked for decades...

Congress passes laws, and raises taxes. Bases on how things work, Republican control of both houses should return unemployment back to 4%.

 

[editec]

Consumers create DEMAND.

Capitalists respond to DEMAND by creating or increasing the PRODICTIVE CAPACITY to respond to this perceived DEMAND.

 

[PredFan]

...Government spending and government jobs will put people to work... ...Consumers create jobs and not big or small businesses...

Words mean things (from here):

job

n.
1. A regular activity performed in exchange for payment, especially as one's trade, occupation, or profession.
2. A position in which one is employed.​

​

In real life the federal government hires one person for every 35 people that business hire. The federal government does in fact hire millions of people --4,443,000!. Seriously though, let's keep in mind that total employment in the US is 142,415,000 --35 private jobs for every individual gov't job. Kind of like mommy washing Thanksgiving dishes and the 3-year old comes in to 'help'. Mommy puts the kid on a chair and lets him rinse a saucer, and the rest of the day the kid says "I did the dishes today!". Everyone smiles and looks at mommy. In the same way I have to smile when you point out that gov't creates jobs that I voted for and I paid for. Same for consumers creating jobs --only happens when someone hires a full time babysitter, maid, or other kind of regular help.

Back in the adult world it's businesses that hire people.

And that's the end of this thread.

 

[uscitizen]

Consumers create DEMAND.

Capitalists respond to DEMAND by creating or increasing the PRODICTIVE CAPACITY to respond to this perceived DEMAND.

Yeah but the new twist in the game is that productive capacity is increased in Chana and such places, not much at all in the USA.

 

[onecut39]

Unemployment stood at 4.6 when Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (The Democrats) took over control of the purse strings in 2007...an astonishing slide in the economy then followed.

roflmao!!!!

 

[expat_panama]

...Government spending and government jobs will put people to work... ...Consumers create jobs and not big or small businesses...

Words mean things (from here):

job

n.
1. A regular activity performed in exchange for payment, especially as one's trade, occupation, or profession.
2. A position in which one is employed.​

​

In real life the federal government hires one person for every 35 people that business hire. The federal government does in fact hire millions of people --4,443,000!. Seriously though, let's keep in mind that total employment in the US is 142,415,000 --35 private jobs for every individual gov't job. Kind of like mommy washing Thanksgiving dishes and the 3-year old comes in to 'help'. Mommy puts the kid on a chair and lets him rinse a saucer, and the rest of the day the kid says "I did the dishes today!". Everyone smiles and looks at mommy. In the same way I have to smile when you point out that gov't creates jobs that I voted for and I paid for. Same for consumers creating jobs --only happens when someone hires a full time babysitter, maid, or other kind of regular help.

Back in the adult world it's businesses that hire people.

And that's the end of this thread.

Thanks, I'd been wondering if there was anything else to this.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Consumers create DEMAND.

OMG!!!!they don't create demand they are born demanding things like air, food, clothing, shelter, water as a necessity of survival. Giving them credit for breathing is a disgustingly low standard that only an deadly uber stupid liberal could imagine.

Life on the planet changed when Republicans invented or supplied a plow to till or bucket to carry water. Those rare geniuses supplied life on this planet and need to be encouraged in every conceivable way.

Consumer demand we can take for granted like the air we breath. Millions of people can look at a field and demand wheat for millions of years (and the did) but the Republican supply-sider who finally came along to make the field supply wheat literally saved milions and millions of lives from starvation and made millions and millions of more lives possible.

Now even a liberal can understand what Republican supply-side ecopnomics is.

 

[Norman]

Employers create jobs, not consumers (or they do if they are also employers).

This really should not be so hard.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Employers create jobs, not consumers (or they do if they are also employers).

This really should not be so hard.

Consumers are our heros because they demand food, clothing, and water to survive!! Consuming is so creative!! We must nurture this rare skill or it will slip away as mysteriously as it appeared.

 

[Rshermr]

Employers create jobs, not consumers (or they do if they are also employers).

This really should not be so hard.

Consumers are our heros because they demand food, clothing, and water to survive!! Consuming is so creative!! We must nurture this rare skill or it will slip away as mysteriously as it appeared.

Ed, you are an idiot. I have asked you a number of times to show where a tax decrease has ever increased jobs in a bad economy. Still ignoring the question, aren't you, ed. Try a little economics, ed, and you will see, as has been true in our history, that increasing spending (consumer spending, you twit) actually does increase demand for products and services. And, we have proven,over and over, that decreasing taxes to provide more revenue to suppliers does no good. It is simple to understand, should you want to, which you do not. It is because increasing revenue for the "job creators" does not cause them to increase production, because there are not sufficient buyers (insufficient demand).
I know, ed, that you will not ever consider this because your job is to push the con dogma, and be damned with the middle class.

 

[Rshermr]

Employers create jobs, not consumers (or they do if they are also employers).

This really should not be so hard.

So, what a profound statement. Then what would you suggest to decrease unemployment?? Can you show that what you may suggest, if you are capable, has ever worked before in a bad economy. My guess is you can not, and that you do not have a clue.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

And, we have proven,over and over, that decreasing taxes to provide more revenue to suppliers does no good.

so then why merely allude to this ?? Why be so afraid to give your proof for all to see? What does your fear tell us about your IQ and character?

Also why not tell us why in theory supply side economics does not work rather than pretend you have some numerical proof somewhere that you mysteriously can't never show.

 

[Rshermr]

And, we have proven,over and over, that decreasing taxes to provide more revenue to suppliers does no good.

so then why merely allude to this ?? Why be so afraid to give your proof for all to see? What does your fear tell us about your IQ and character?

Also why not tell us why in theory supply side economics does not work rather than pretend you have some numerical proof somewhere that you mysteriously can't never show.

Ed, you are a consummate liar. You say that you want me to prove it to you, but you know full well that I have numerous times. Lets take Reagan, again, ed. I know you will pretend you do not remember this, but I am sure you do.
Reagan introduced a massive federal income tax decrease in 81. By late 82. the unemployment rate had reached 10.8% from 7% when the decrease was signed into law. The deficit went through the roof as well. To bring things into order, he borrowed more than all presidents prior to him combined, and tripled the national debt. In addition, he increased taxes 11 times. He then set about stimulus spending, and the economy improved.

So, there is a historical example of supply side failing. After all the hoopla about how much revenue would be raised due to the great increases in business from the tax decrease, and how employment would be improved, just the opposite occurred. It was indeed, as Bush 1 said, voodoo economics.

If you do not believe me, then perhaps you can explain why Reagan decided to increase taxes 11 times and triple the national debt. Any ideas, ed me boy, or have you lost your memory again.

So, now ed, when have you seen supply side economics work??? Again I challenge you to show when decreasing taxes and gov spending have helped a bad economy. Can't do it, can you, ed.

Ed, lets see if you can actually come up with a rational answer, instead of your normal con dogma.

So what is the theory behind supply side not working. Take any econ class and you would run into the saying that you can not push on a string. Which is to say, ed, me boy, that giving money to the corporations does not create demand (a concept I know you have trouble with).

 

[The Rabbi]

And, we have proven,over and over, that decreasing taxes to provide more revenue to suppliers does no good.

so then why merely allude to this ?? Why be so afraid to give your proof for all to see? What does your fear tell us about your IQ and character?

Also why not tell us why in theory supply side economics does not work rather than pretend you have some numerical proof somewhere that you mysteriously can't never show.

Ed, you are a consummate liar. You say that you want me to prove it to you, but you know full well that I have numerous times. Lets take Reagan, again, ed. I know you will pretend you do not remember this, but I am sure you do.
Reagan introduced a massive federal income tax decrease in 81. By late 82. the unemployment rate had reached 10.8% from 7% when the decrease was signed into law. The deficit went through the roof as well. To bring things into order, he borrowed more than all presidents prior to him combined, and tripled the national debt. In addition, he increased taxes 11 times. He then set about stimulus spending, and the economy improved.

So, there is a historical example of supply side failing. After all the hoopla about how much revenue would be raised due to the great increases in business from the tax decrease, and how employment would be improved, just the opposite occurred. It was indeed, as Bush 1 said, voodoo economics.

If you do not believe me, then perhaps you can explain why Reagan decided to increase taxes 11 times and triple the national debt. Any ideas, ed me boy, or have you lost your memory again.

So, now ed, when have you seen supply side economics work??? Again I challenge you to show when decreasing taxes and gov spending have helped a bad economy. Can't do it, can you, ed.

Ed, lets see if you can actually come up with a rational answer, instead of your normal con dogma.

So what is the theory behind supply side not working. Take any econ class and you would run into the saying that you can not push on a string. Which is to say, ed, me boy, that giving money to the corporations does not create demand (a concept I know you have trouble with).

You are either a liar or an ignoramus. Probably both.
Reagan's tax cuts were phased in over 3 years. The Act was signed in AUgust '81 so not much effect was felt in 1982. After the law fully took effect in '83 the UE rate declined finally down to about 7.25% by July '84.
So Reagan's policies worked (I wouldnt necessarily call them supply side economics). Obama's have failed. More people were working on Bush's last day in office than any day in Obama's term.

 

[expat_panama]

...what would you suggest to decrease unemployment?....

The obvious solution is for us to simply hire more people. That's what I do and you can too. The more people we hire the lower the unemployment rate falls.

(Stop me if there's something you can't follow or disagree with.)

As far as politics go, the only question is which policy changes would permit more of our hiring. In my case I can tell you that if less of my money went to taxes I could hire more people. Bureaucratic red tape slows me down too. How about you?

 

[Rshermr]

...what would you suggest to decrease unemployment?....

The obvious solution is for us to simply hire more people. That's what I do and you can too. The more people we hire the lower the unemployment rate falls.

(Stop me if there's something you can't follow or disagree with.)

As far as politics go, the only question is which policy changes would permit more of our hiring. In my case I can tell you that if less of my money went to taxes I could hire more people. Bureaucratic red tape slows me down too. How about you?

So, let me understand this. The dem plan is to raise the taxes on those making over $250K. Making, by the way, means taxable income. So, no change at all in taxes for the first $250K. So, if you had to pay on the margin an extra 3%, you would be damaged so badly that you would not be able to hire employees to address additional demand created by the increased spending of the gov?? Demand created, say, for hiring people to work on infrastructure projects, causing them to spend on things that they could not buy when they were unemployed?
Maybe that is your case. Seems unlikely, but what the hell. I do not know your specific situation. But I do know that when such deficit spending has occurred in past high unemployment times, that the net overall spending has caused unemployment to decrease.

What I here cons doing is parroting the con dogma of no new taxes. Blindly. With no effort to understand the reasons for it. And, again, we are talking about 3% ON THE MARGIN.