IF higher taxes will create jobs, why did the stimulus fail?

[traveler52]

I cannot put it any better

IF the the shrub's tax cuts to the rich worked, why were over Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Jobs lost in the Quarter of 2008?

 

[The Rabbi]

I cannot put it any better

IF the the shrub's tax cuts to the rich worked, why were over Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Jobs lost in the Quarter of 2008?

BEcause the tax cuts were 7 years earlier and the Dems controlled Congress from 06 on?

 

[8537]

I cannot put it any better

IF the the shrub's tax cuts to the rich worked, why were over Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Jobs lost in the Quarter of 2008?

BEcause the tax cuts were 7 years earlier and the Dems controlled Congress from 06 on?

2008-2003 = 5.

So, we need continual tax cuts in order to sustain the economy?

 

[editec]

IF higher taxes will create jobs, why did the stimulus fail?

It did what it was designed to do.

Do you have any idea how many Banksters jobs were saved by the Bush II/Obama Stimulus Package?

At least 14 CEOs.

Bush had nothing to do with this failed stimulus
NOTHING

You have tragically been misinformed.

Start reading

 

[JRK]

oh, you want some specifics? Here ya go:



a tax increase and a spending increase have the exact opposite effect on the economy, perfectly backwards to what you said. Now again, it could be your own ignorance - but either way, it's not true. It's a lie.



6 Million jobs have not been lost since the stimulus passed. That's a lie.



The recession you attribute to Clinton started in March of 2001 and ended in October of that year - Bush was not "fighting back" a recession from Clinton.



The protection of private intellectual and physical property is the most basic function of government and the most critical component of wealth creation.

It's possible you were just misinformed the first time you made the claim. When the facts were demonstrated and you continued to repeat it, you lied.

.

That is sheer folly. The other entities impacted include:

The government budget, which must reduce spending, increase other revenues or borrow funds when tax receipts decline.

Other private entitities, which respond when changes in taxes change consumption patterns.



Far less than 700B was ever distributed through TARP and as of late 2009, the total fiscal impact was about 80B including repayments (with interest) by most parties involved.


This is just a flat-out, no-question lie.


There is a way - and that way involves requiring recipients to track the number of jobs saved.


Pure folly. in the last two months of 2000, the economy created 231,000 and 138,000 jobs respectively. In the year 2000, it created 1,953,000 jobs.

job loss: end of 2008 thru the end of 2010, 7 million jobs were lost
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

In case you are unaware:

A. You're using annual figures.
B. The stimulus was passed in late March 2009. In the first three months of 2009, the economy shed about 1.9M jobs.



all but 80B has been "put back in the treasury".


No, the 2001 recession had nothing to do with Clinton (or at the most very, very, preciously little).

The 2007 recession had very, very little to do with Bush.

Remember when you were arguing that presidents aren't responsible for the economy?

Ok, every problem Obama faced after 3/01/09 had nothing to do with GWB, fair enough?

No, not fair enough. The President DOES control some things.

2000 job count?
OK, every job lost from 1/01/2009 belongs to BHO and and no time did anything GWB do have anything to do with any job lost after 1/01/2009, fair enough?

Yes, the 2000 job count. Bush took office in Jan of 2001. And no, the president isn't responsible for every job loss - no president is.

Keep lying, JRK. You prove your worth with every post.

I have over 1000 post and this is it?
I mean really,?
Ok there has been 5.5 million jobs lost sense the failed stimulus
that OK with you?
I still am not lying because there are millions that stopped looking and stopped being counted
from last year
It's bad enough that the nation's jobless rate is 9.7%. But the real national employment rate is even higher than the U.S. Department of Labor's May figure shows.
The official unemployment index, based on a monthly survey of sample households, counts only people who reported looking for work in the past four weeks. It doesn't account for part-time workers who want to work more hours but can't, given the tight job market. And it doesn't include those who have given up trying to find work.
When the underemployed and the discouraged are added to the numbers, the unemployment rate rises to 16.6%. The Bureau of Labor Statistics, a unit of the Labor Department, began tracking this alternative measure -- known as the U-6 for its department classification -- in 1995 after economists lobbied for a method comparable to

Real unemployment rate higher than federal figures - MSN Money - New Investor Center



2007? what does that have to do with anything? you claimed I lied because having a recession 60 days after becoming president has nothing to do with the former president, all I said was then Obams has nothing to do with Bush

 

[8537]

I have over 1000 post and this is it?
I mean really,?

I only looked at this thread. And I found almost a dozen in this thread alone.

It's bad enough that the nation's jobless rate is 9.7%.

you seem incapable of a single honest post. The unemployment rate is not 9.7%.

And on a sidenote, I love when so-called conservatives want to start including people who aren't even looking for work in the UE figures. Not even looking! but we should count them b/c it makes Obama look bad.

Let me ask ya: Did you talk about Bush's 10% unemployment rate when he was in office?

2007? what does that have to do with anything?

That's when the recession started.

you claimed I lied because having a recession 60 days after becoming president has nothing to do with the former president,

I said nothing of the sort. I said you lied because...you lied. You said that Bush was "fighting back from Clinton's recession. (1) that's a lie because the recession started after Clinton left office. and (2) you at once claim that presidents aren't responsible and that Clinton and Obama ARE responsible.

That's because you lie.

 

[The Rabbi]

IF the the shrub's tax cuts to the rich worked, why were over Three Million Five Hundred Thousand Jobs lost in the Quarter of 2008?

BEcause the tax cuts were 7 years earlier and the Dems controlled Congress from 06 on?

2008-2003 = 5.

So, we need continual tax cuts in order to sustain the economy?

No. We need tax increases to sustain the economy. That's what the Dems all say.

 

[JRK]

I have over 1000 post and this is it?
I mean really,?

I only looked at this thread. And I found almost a dozen in this thread alone.

It's bad enough that the nation's jobless rate is 9.7%.

you seem incapable of a single honest post. The unemployment rate is not 9.7%.

And on a sidenote, I love when so-called conservatives want to start including people who aren't even looking for work in the UE figures. Not even looking! but we should count them b/c it makes Obama look bad.

Let me ask ya: Did you talk about Bush's 10% unemployment rate when he was in office?

2007? what does that have to do with anything?

That's when the recession started.

you claimed I lied because having a recession 60 days after becoming president has nothing to do with the former president,

I said nothing of the sort. I said you lied because...you lied. You said that Bush was "fighting back from Clinton's recession. (1) that's a lie because the recession started after Clinton left office. and (2) you at once claim that presidents aren't responsible and that Clinton and Obama ARE responsible.

That's because you lie.

I have posted 1111 times
in that you claim that a recession in 2001 that began 2 months after Clinton left office, had nothing to do with Clinton
I claimed presidents are not responsible for what?
I do not recall that one.
You know what, your making yourself look good here

Concern yourself with the things to believe in. You cannot change the facts young man
If your a big supporter of Obama, then you have to live with the bad decisions he has made. Thats not my fault

 

[8537]

I have over 1000 post and this is it?
I mean really,?

I only looked at this thread. And I found almost a dozen in this thread alone.



you seem incapable of a single honest post. The unemployment rate is not 9.7%.

And on a sidenote, I love when so-called conservatives want to start including people who aren't even looking for work in the UE figures. Not even looking! but we should count them b/c it makes Obama look bad.

Let me ask ya: Did you talk about Bush's 10% unemployment rate when he was in office?




That's when the recession started.

you claimed I lied because having a recession 60 days after becoming president has nothing to do with the former president,

I said nothing of the sort. I said you lied because...you lied. You said that Bush was "fighting back from Clinton's recession. (1) that's a lie because the recession started after Clinton left office. and (2) you at once claim that presidents aren't responsible and that Clinton and Obama ARE responsible.

That's because you lie.

I have posted 1111 times

I have no interest in reading all 1111 posts in order to demonstrate the repeated lies.

in that you claim that a recession in 2001 that began 2 months after Clinton left office, had nothing to do with Clinton
I claimed presidents are not responsible for what?
I do not recall that one.
You know what, your making yourself look good here

You claim in some posts that presidents are responsible for the economy / recessions....and in others claim otherwise. it's convenient because you always seem to hold Dems accountable for bad economies (Obama) and never give them credit for good ones. Funny observation.

Concern yourself with the things to believe in. You cannot change the facts young man

I don't concern myself with what to believe in. That's your role. I believe in facts. I concern myself with the facts.

Your silly condescending makes you look smart big guy.

 

[JRK]

Liberals it has come time for each of you to live with the person you voted for as our president

The real number of jobs lost since 2009 could be as much as 8 million, does it matter if it was 5?
3?
Our president said he could stop it with HIS stimulus
Not I
Not W
Not any-one but HIM and Pelosi and Reid

Does it matter if by definition the recession started in 07?, or 08?
I mean really. Do you as a liberal really want to hang your hat on this economy? is this as good as it gets?
I mean lets not fool our selves here. Gm gets 50 billion
Chrysler, hell who knows
GMAC
Unions, from teachers to who knows who knows who else
The money runs out, the jobs are gone
Stimulus-Funded Teachers to be Laid Off | MacIver Institute

In California, the stimulus was credited with saving or creating 62,000 jobs in public schools and state universities. Utah reported saving about 2,600 teaching jobs. In both states, education jobs represented about two-thirds of the total stimulus job number. Missouri reported more than 8,500 school jobs, Minnesota more than 5,900. In Michigan, where officials said 19,500 jobs have been saved or created, three out of four were in education.

"They're going to be the biggest driver of jobs from the state side," said Chris Whatley, who tracks stimulus programs for the Council of State Governments.

Construction companies also are expected to report strong job numbers thanks to billions of dollars in highway money, but those figures will vary because some states have spent that money faster than others. Unlike construction jobs, which require bidding and contracting, teaching jobs were relatively quickly saved once billions of dollars in Washington aid arrived.
Job data to show stimulus aided teachers most - SFGate

 

[JRK]

I only looked at this thread. And I found almost a dozen in this thread alone.



you seem incapable of a single honest post. The unemployment rate is not 9.7%.

And on a sidenote, I love when so-called conservatives want to start including people who aren't even looking for work in the UE figures. Not even looking! but we should count them b/c it makes Obama look bad.

Let me ask ya: Did you talk about Bush's 10% unemployment rate when he was in office?




That's when the recession started.



I said nothing of the sort. I said you lied because...you lied. You said that Bush was "fighting back from Clinton's recession. (1) that's a lie because the recession started after Clinton left office. and (2) you at once claim that presidents aren't responsible and that Clinton and Obama ARE responsible.

That's because you lie.

I have posted 1111 times

I have no interest in reading all 1111 posts in order to demonstrate the repeated lies.

in that you claim that a recession in 2001 that began 2 months after Clinton left office, had nothing to do with Clinton
I claimed presidents are not responsible for what?
I do not recall that one.
You know what, your making yourself look good here

You claim in some posts that presidents are responsible for the economy / recessions....and in others claim otherwise. it's convenient because you always seem to hold Dems accountable for bad economies (Obama) and never give them credit for good ones. Funny observation.

Concern yourself with the things to believe in. You cannot change the facts young man

I don't concern myself with what to believe in. That's your role. I believe in facts. I concern myself with the facts.

Your silly condescending makes you look smart big guy.

If you concern yourself with the facts then why is it you never debate about Obama?
every person on this message board can state a simple fact
like we have lost over 5 million jobs, maybe as many as 7 million sense the stimulus began

I can use Govt stats to back that up
or I can use a Gallup link
Gallup Finds U.S. Unemployment Rate at 10.0% in March

Yet you would call people a liar about any of this instead of dealing with the facts
The fact is all of you liberals can not deal with the fact our president is 10 miles over his head
Facts?
ok, Mr Fact
how is Obama going to pay for Obama care and cut Medicare spending 500 billion?
Obamacare Cost | HHS Director Admits Double Counting Funds | The Daily Caller
is this a lie?
Mr Fact you need to be careful, simple questions like these are going to beat Obama in 2012
Your going to have a hard time explaining how GM has paid us back when GMAC gets thrown in there, borrowing more tarp to make the first payment a
Grassley Slams GM, Administration Over Loans Repaid With Bailout Money - FoxNews.com
GMAC to Receive Additional $3.5 Billion TARP Bailout - Money Morning

Mr truth show me where GM has sold anything that adds up to 55 billion, come November that question will be ask, 2012

 

[Rodack]

Remember when President Oprah said he was going to spend 787 Billion to create jobs then turned around and gave it Democrat interests fucking over the American unemployed so they lost their homes?

Was that Before or After Obama said he would "pay as he goes"?

LOL



Democrats destroy, steal and create ghettos

 

[Truthseeker420]

It didn't fail but who said highr taxes create jobs?

 

[The Rabbi]

It didn't fail but who said highr taxes create jobs?

Democrats.

 

[8537]

If you concern yourself with the facts then why is it you never debate about Obama?
every person on this message board can state a simple fact
like we have lost over 5 million jobs, maybe as many as 7 million sense the stimulus began

Because it's a lie. According to the BLS, there were 132,041,000 jobs when the stimulus passed.

There are currently 131,028,000 jobs.

That's a total loss of 1,013,000 jobs.

Yet you would call people a liar about any of this instead of dealing with the facts

That's because your "Facts" are a lie. See above numbers.

how is Obama going to pay for Obama care and cut Medicare spending 500 billion?

All of the various revenue components of health care reform have been laid out in detail and scored by the CBO.

Your going to have a hard time explaining how GM has paid us back when GMAC gets thrown in there, borrowing more tarp to make the first payment a

GM has paid back the debt portion of their loan. They have not paid back the equity portion, obviously, and I don't know why you keep claiming otherwise.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you concern yourself with the facts then why is it you never debate about Obama?
every person on this message board can state a simple fact
like we have lost over 5 million jobs, maybe as many as 7 million sense the stimulus began

Because it's a lie. According to the BLS, there were 132,041,000 jobs when the stimulus passed.

There are currently 131,028,000 jobs.

That's a total loss of 1,013,000 jobs.

You obviously don't know how to count.

 

[8537]

If you concern yourself with the facts then why is it you never debate about Obama?
every person on this message board can state a simple fact
like we have lost over 5 million jobs, maybe as many as 7 million sense the stimulus began

Because it's a lie. According to the BLS, there were 132,041,000 jobs when the stimulus passed.

There are currently 131,028,000 jobs.

That's a total loss of 1,013,000 jobs.

You obviously don't know how to count.

132041000 - 131028000 = 1,013,000

We have obviously not "lost over 5 million jobs, maybe as many as 7 million" between the passage of the stimulus bill and today.

Perhaps you prefer fuzzy math.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you concern yourself with the facts then why is it you never debate about Obama?
every person on this message board can state a simple fact
like we have lost over 5 million jobs, maybe as many as 7 million sense the stimulus began

Because it's a lie. According to the BLS, there were 132,041,000 jobs when the stimulus passed.

There are currently 131,028,000 jobs.

That's a total loss of 1,013,000 jobs.

Yet you would call people a liar about any of this instead of dealing with the facts

That's because your "Facts" are a lie. See above numbers.

how is Obama going to pay for Obama care and cut Medicare spending 500 billion?

All of the various revenue components of health care reform have been laid out in detail and scored by the CBO.

Your going to have a hard time explaining how GM has paid us back when GMAC gets thrown in there, borrowing more tarp to make the first payment a

GM has paid back the debt portion of their loan. They have not paid back the equity portion, obviously, and I don't know why you keep claiming otherwise.

Do not post numbers from a source without a link. Let others see for themselves.
For all we know, those BLS numbers are a raw count of jobs available and not the number of people working. They could be part time. Or seasonal. Agricultural.
For example your side continues to complain about the loss of manufacturing jobs and especially those which used to be union jobs. Yet at the same time you are boasting at how few jobs have been lost.
You can't have it both ways just to suit your political agenda.
So now, where did you get those BLS numbers and since you decided to post them it is your job to post the link to where you got them from.
BTW,, GM has paid back a very small portion of their bailout and had to borrow money form other sources to pay that. GM is still owned by the American taxpayer.
Umm, even if Obamacare survives, medicare will go belly up and the American taxpayer gets stuck with the bill.
Don't tell us that the CBO scored anything. Why don't you explain how Obamacare cuts 500 billion dollars in medicare costs and it what, costs nobody anything? Are you fucking kidding? Do you really expect us to believe that Obamacare just waives a magic wand, half a trillion disappears and everybody gets to be happy? Somebody's got to pay there, buckaroo

 

[8537]

Do not post numbers from a source without a link. Let others see for themselves.
For all we know, those BLS numbers are a raw count of jobs available and not the number of people working. They could be part time. Or seasonal. Agricultural.

Everyone has equal access to the output survey at U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Since it's a custom output you can't link to it.

Of course, if you go to bls.gov you can confirm those nonfarm payroll numbers for yourself.

For example your side continues to complain about the loss of manufacturing jobs and especially those which used to be union jobs. Yet at the same time you are boasting at how few jobs have been lost.
You can't have it both ways just to suit your political agenda.

What the fuck are you talking about?

So now, where did you get those BLS numbers

From the BLS.

BTW,, GM has paid back a very small portion of their bailout and had to borrow money form other sources to pay that. GM is still owned by the American taxpayer.

Did you read what I wrote or are you just making shit up? Let's review what I said:

GM has paid back the debt portion of their loan. They have not paid back the equity portion.

Don't tell us that the CBO scored anything.

Why not? The CBO scored it.

 

[Too Tall]

March of 2009. It was part of the stimulus package.

They cut taxes? I don't recall a tax cut for the wealthy in 2009.

The stimulus package contained around $300B in tax cuts including items such as a payroll tax deduction, sales tax deductions for vehicle purchases and an extension of the AMT patch. All of those, and others, cut taxes for the rich.

So only the rich pay payroll taxes and buy cars. HOT DAMN, I'm rich and didn't even know it.