Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Taxes, or lack thereof, only have a minimal effect on employment. The Bush tax cuts, like some claim here, did not cause the employment crisis currently underway - but lowering taxes is going to do nothing to solve it either. For example, in 2006 Denmark's unemployment was 3.7%, yet taxes were 50% of GDP - it was the most highly taxed country in the world. Switzerland, with barely half of Denmark's taxes, had virtually the same level of unemployment.
A plan that relies on tax cuts to "stimulate" the economy is going to fail for a number of reasons. 1) There has never been any evidence to support that tax cuts alone stimulate employment growth, and 2) tax cuts heighten, not lessen, the possibility of default on the medium term and thereby contribute to uncertainty: less revenue means less possibility of paying down the debt means more uncertainty means less investment to create jobs.
Some might claim that tax cuts would stimulate the demand side of the equation, but this may not be the case for the following reason: there would be a transfer of purchasing power from the government to individuals and businesses, which under normal circumstances would spike demand, consumption, and employment. Under an uncertain climate, however, it makes infinitely more sense for individuals and corporations to save their money. It makes more sense for people to save their purchasing power rather than to utilize it; the economy remains in the tank because demand is not stimulated and unemployment remains high and even higher, because the government would have an incentive to keep spending - so that unemployment stabilizes. It does not mean that government knows hows to spend money better than people, it's simply a matter of the incentives they face. For people and businesses, what makes sense is to save their money, it's not up to them to bring down the unemployment rate by spending and creating demand - it does not make sense for the individual to do this under the current circumstances. But it does make sense for the government to do so - because otherwise, if unemployment is high or rising, it gets voted out of office.
As long as there's the looming uncertainty of a US default, businesses are not going to invest in job creation. One way to reduce this uncertainty would be by raising taxes, not lowering them. The other side would be to cut spending, but then the problem arises as to what spending items should be cut and what effect is this going to have? Regardless of what gets cut, what will result is in less demand and less employment, at the least in the short term, but some mild cutting would work to appease investors (maybe). Dismantling things like Medicare, Medicaid, or social security would likely have the effect to frighten them more and keep them from investing, considering the unrest that would ensue.
Let's say that a potential republican plan involves the two main things: cutting taxes and cutting spending. For this to make any sense in the context of deficit reduction, spending cuts will need to be considerably larger so that it can cut the current budget deficit and the further fall in revenue from any decrease in taxes - this will require at least halving government spending. This would ostensibly include dismantling of Medicare and Medicaid (ie, like the Ryan plan) and lying off a considerable portion of the 2.8 million federal government employees (not counting the further 5 million state employees and 12 million local government employees)
Like I said above, no matter what way you look at it, what this results in, in the short run, is a gigantic fall in demand and a sharp increase in employment. Tax receipts will go down further, necessitating greater cuts in spending and virtually gutting the federal government entirely. This works really well if that is what the end goal of the Conservative agenda is - no taxes, no spending, no government. Should work just swell. The question is only a matter of time - will the magic of the newly "liberated" markets readjust to the massive contraction in GDP in long run, when we're all dead, or sooner? Will employment recover after 5 years, 10 years or 50 years of the economic catastrophe? Nobody knows, but one can always be willing to take a good gamble on it. Because the point is that it would be a catastrophe, and nobody can deny that it would be - what conservatives could argue, however, is that after the earth-shattering collapse a new society of liberated markets and rugged individualism will arise to lead America down a path of eternal glory and freedom. All Americans have to do is trust them.
It doesn't even matter, democrat "spending" measures are useless if their programs are not being funded by the House..
Thats why this economy is not as fucked as it could be. Democrats would tax and spend until income tax is 95% if they had it their way...
Wait until Republicans/libertarians take the senate in 2012 and destroy all of Pelosi and Obamafucks spending bills...
I don't believe democrats comprehend what a private sector actually is - to them our economy is public sector....
tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
The Republicans use this stick to beat away any hint of buying down the deficit. Why?
It does create jobs, it did create jobs...
But how can you really cut taxes when libfucks do absolutely NOTHING but SPEND MONEY ON THEIR VOTING BASE???
Every fucking time libs get power they spend and spend and spend... Republicans fix it then democrats destroy the republican progress...
Of course Bush pretty much destroyed all his progress when he started signing progressive spending bills....
You know what the reaction to libfuck congress' is??? layoff employees because these motherfuckers are going to spend us into oblivion - we're going to need to pay some hefty taxes...
Don't you fucking get it??? you tax businesses they lay employees off to pay those taxes..
Are democrats fucking retarded????
I swear the concept isn't that fucking hard to understand...
I blame this economy almost entirely on libfucks based on that notion alone. If you don't understand that businesses lay employees off when libfucks start spending money, then that means in your personal lives when you don't have any money, you just borrow some and don't pay it back. Because you obviously have no concept of money or how to manage it whatsoever...
Its very simple - the more money you have the more you have to spend or invest, the less money you have the less you have to spend or invest...
Its not that fucking difficult to understand..
If it isn't that difficult to understand then why don't you understand that despite 2 huge tax cuts the Bush administration created less jobs then any president going back to Harry S. Truman, 1939? You can rant and rave all you want and tell us how stupid we are, but I am posting real numbers from the WSJ and CNNMoney, not just pulling them out of my ass.
It's amazing how you throw the retard name around, when you are the one that is so obviously wrong.
tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
The Republicans use this stick to beat away any hint of buying down the deficit. Why?
Taxes, or lack thereof, only have a minimal effect on employment. The Bush tax cuts, like some claim here, did not cause the employment crisis currently underway - but lowering taxes is going to do nothing to solve it either. For example, in 2006 Denmark's unemployment was 3.7%, yet taxes were 50% of GDP - it was the most highly taxed country in the world. Switzerland, with barely half of Denmark's taxes, had virtually the same level of unemployment.
A plan that relies on tax cuts to "stimulate" the economy is going to fail for a number of reasons. 1) There has never been any evidence to support that tax cuts alone stimulate employment growth, and 2) tax cuts heighten, not lessen, the possibility of default on the medium term and thereby contribute to uncertainty: less revenue means less possibility of paying down the debt means more uncertainty means less investment to create jobs.
Some might claim that tax cuts would stimulate the demand side of the equation, but this may not be the case for the following reason: there would be a transfer of purchasing power from the government to individuals and businesses, which under normal circumstances would spike demand, consumption, and employment. Under an uncertain climate, however, it makes infinitely more sense for individuals and corporations to save their money. It makes more sense for people to save their purchasing power rather than to utilize it; the economy remains in the tank because demand is not stimulated and unemployment remains high and even higher, because the government would have an incentive to keep spending - so that unemployment stabilizes. It does not mean that government knows hows to spend money better than people, it's simply a matter of the incentives they face. For people and businesses, what makes sense is to save their money, it's not up to them to bring down the unemployment rate by spending and creating demand - it does not make sense for the individual to do this under the current circumstances. But it does make sense for the government to do so - because otherwise, if unemployment is high or rising, it gets voted out of office.
As long as there's the looming uncertainty of a US default, businesses are not going to invest in job creation. One way to reduce this uncertainty would be by raising taxes, not lowering them. The other side would be to cut spending, but then the problem arises as to what spending items should be cut and what effect is this going to have? Regardless of what gets cut, what will result is in less demand and less employment, at the least in the short term, but some mild cutting would work to appease investors (maybe). Dismantling things like Medicare, Medicaid, or social security would likely have the effect to frighten them more and keep them from investing, considering the unrest that would ensue.
Let's say that a potential republican plan involves the two main things: cutting taxes and cutting spending. For this to make any sense in the context of deficit reduction, spending cuts will need to be considerably larger so that it can cut the current budget deficit and the further fall in revenue from any decrease in taxes - this will require at least halving government spending. This would ostensibly include dismantling of Medicare and Medicaid (ie, like the Ryan plan) and lying off a considerable portion of the 2.8 million federal government employees (not counting the further 5 million state employees and 12 million local government employees)
Like I said above, no matter what way you look at it, what this results in, in the short run, is a gigantic fall in demand and a sharp increase in employment. Tax receipts will go down further, necessitating greater cuts in spending and virtually gutting the federal government entirely. This works really well if that is what the end goal of the Conservative agenda is - no taxes, no spending, no government. Should work just swell. The question is only a matter of time - will the magic of the newly "liberated" markets readjust to the massive contraction in GDP in long run, when we're all dead, or sooner? Will employment recover after 5 years, 10 years or 50 years of the economic catastrophe? Nobody knows, but one can always be willing to take a good gamble on it. Because the point is that it would be a catastrophe, and nobody can deny that it would be - what conservatives could argue, however, is that after the earth-shattering collapse a new society of liberated markets and rugged individualism will arise to lead America down a path of eternal glory and freedom. All Americans have to do is trust them.
It doesn't even matter, democrat "spending" measures are useless if their programs are not being funded by the House..
Thats why this economy is not as fucked as it could be. Democrats would tax and spend until income tax is 95% if they had it their way...
Wait until Republicans/libertarians take the senate in 2012 and destroy all of Pelosi and Obamafucks spending bills...
I don't believe democrats comprehend what a private sector actually is - to them our economy is public sector....
Well, I don't share your optimism that the Republicans are going to do any of that, especially if a republican is elected president.
If they did do that, though, as perfectly reasonable as it might be, it's not going to solve your economic crisis.
you must have missed the 6 years of full employment. Convenient to ignore those isnt it?
you must have missed the 6 years of full employment. Convenient to ignore those isnt it?
Except it wasn't "full employment". There were massive layoffs..and the jobs went overseas.
It's just that it hit a sector that didn't go on unemployment.
Wonder why?
you must have missed the 6 years of full employment. Convenient to ignore those isnt it?
Except it wasn't "full employment". There were massive layoffs..and the jobs went overseas.
It's just that it hit a sector that didn't go on unemployment.
Wonder why?
you must have missed the 6 years of full employment. Convenient to ignore those isnt it?
US Unemployment Rate by Year
2001 4.76
2002 5.78
2003 5.99
2004 5.53
2005 5.08
2006 4.63
2007 4.61
2008 5.76
2009 9.26
The United States Unemployment Rate By Year
Notice when it started to change? After Democrats took over! Thank you Obama!
When Bush was in office, here in Ohio, we had reports about businesses paying two dollars over minimum wage, because they were trying to attract new workers.
Now, you're lucky if you can find a job.
Liberals can push this pap, but the facts are too easy bring into evidence.
Republicans were busy, busy, moving millions of jobs to China. Chinese were brought here and workers here had to "train them" or lose their jobs with no unemployment. Then when the job was moved to China, the workers here lost their jobs. Takes years. Like from 2001 to 2008. Doesn't happen overnight.
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011he...ies/11_03_30_wrt/11_03_30_scott_testimony.pdf
2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008
"US" Chamber of Commerce hosts seminars with Chinese gov officials to teach American firms how to outsource
Millions of jobs moved to China 2001 to 2008
The chambers increasingly aggressive role including record spending in the midterm elections that supports Republicans more than 90 percent of the time
U.S. Chamber of Commerce - The New York Times
Why don't Republicans bother to find out what their party leadership is doing?
tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
The Republicans use this stick to beat away any hint of buying down the deficit. Why?
Its the trickle down theory; you put more money into the hands of business owners and they will create more jobs. Here is the theory in action:
Notice when it started to change? After Democrats took over! Thank you Obama!
When Bush was in office, here in Ohio, we had reports about businesses paying two dollars over minimum wage, because they were trying to attract new workers.
Now, you're lucky if you can find a job.
Liberals can push this pap, but the facts are too easy bring into evidence.
Republicans were busy, busy, moving millions of jobs to China. Chinese were brought here and workers here had to "train them" or lose their jobs with no unemployment. Then when the job was moved to China, the workers here lost their jobs. Takes years. Like from 2001 to 2008. Doesn't happen overnight.
http://www.uscc.gov/hearings/2011he...ies/11_03_30_wrt/11_03_30_scott_testimony.pdf
2.4 million jobs lost due to China from 2001-2008
"US" Chamber of Commerce hosts seminars with Chinese gov officials to teach American firms how to outsource
Millions of jobs moved to China 2001 to 2008
The chambers increasingly aggressive role including record spending in the midterm elections that supports Republicans more than 90 percent of the time
U.S. Chamber of Commerce - The New York Times
Why don't Republicans bother to find out what their party leadership is doing?
In what universe is every employer a republican??
How the fuck did republicans "move jobs to China."
Thats one of the most illogical assertions ever.... What, democrats business owners didn't send any jobs to China or even stimulate the sale of products manufactured in China???
Your fallacy is laughable...
you must have missed the 6 years of full employment. Convenient to ignore those isnt it?
Except it wasn't "full employment". There were massive layoffs..and the jobs went overseas.
It's just that it hit a sector that didn't go on unemployment.
Wonder why?
Yeah, and in what universe were those jobs "sent overseas" sent by "republicans?"
Oh yeah, another baseless emotional libfuck assertion...
Thanks for sharing your input...
It's no surprise that jobs were a huge issue in Campaign 2004. The debate is hottest around the issue of American jobs heading overseas or offshoring. Loaded terms such as "protectionism," and "Benedict Arnold CEOs" have made it into the discourse. Even though the election is over the debate is still raging on the Hill and in the media.
In February 2004, President Bush faced harsh questioning from both sides of the aisle when N. Gregory Mankiw, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers and a prominent Harvard University economist, released a report which spoke favorably of some aspects of the offshoring of jobs. "When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than make or provide it domestically." The President quickly countered by pointing to job retraining programs and a new bill forbidding the outsourcing of federal jobs overseas. In recent speeches, President Bush has defended his administration's policy while balancing it against concern for domestic jobs. In May, the President spoke to this point at the "Ask President Bush Event" in Dayton, Ohio:
We care about outsourcing in America. We want people working here. But the wrong policy would have been, let's go through economic isolationist policy, let's wall us off from the world. Instead the right policy was to stimulate growth at home . My point is, let us be confident about ourselves. Let's put the right policies in place that encourage growth at home.
NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. America and Jobs. The Outsourcing Debate | PBS
Except it wasn't "full employment". There were massive layoffs..and the jobs went overseas.
It's just that it hit a sector that didn't go on unemployment.
Wonder why?
Yeah, and in what universe were those jobs "sent overseas" sent by "republicans?"
Oh yeah, another baseless emotional libfuck assertion...
Thanks for sharing your input...
Sorry? There were massive shifts of IT jobs from America, offshore. IT stands for Information Technology.
The "Job Creation Act of 2004" moved a great number of those jobs overseas.
It's no surprise that jobs were a huge issue in Campaign 2004. The debate is hottest around the issue of American jobs heading overseas or offshoring. Loaded terms such as "protectionism," and "Benedict Arnold CEOs" have made it into the discourse. Even though the election is over the debate is still raging on the Hill and in the media.
In February 2004, President Bush faced harsh questioning from both sides of the aisle when N. Gregory Mankiw, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers and a prominent Harvard University economist, released a report which spoke favorably of some aspects of the offshoring of jobs. "When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than make or provide it domestically." The President quickly countered by pointing to job retraining programs and a new bill forbidding the outsourcing of federal jobs overseas. In recent speeches, President Bush has defended his administration's policy while balancing it against concern for domestic jobs. In May, the President spoke to this point at the "Ask President Bush Event" in Dayton, Ohio:
We care about outsourcing in America. We want people working here. But the wrong policy would have been, let's go through economic isolationist policy, let's wall us off from the world. Instead the right policy was to stimulate growth at home . My point is, let us be confident about ourselves. Let's put the right policies in place that encourage growth at home.
NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. America and Jobs. The Outsourcing Debate | PBS
The right has certain faith based myths that do not work but they support them anyway.
you must have missed the 6 years of full employment. Convenient to ignore those isnt it?
Except it wasn't "full employment". There were massive layoffs..and the jobs went overseas.
It's just that it hit a sector that didn't go on unemployment.
Wonder why?
Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, the BLS "Unemployment rate" numbers are NOT calculated by the number of people who file for Unemployment Insurance.
How the Government Measures Unemployment
tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
The Republicans use this stick to beat away any hint of buying down the deficit. Why?
It does create jobs, it did create jobs...
But how can you really cut taxes when libfucks do absolutely NOTHING but SPEND MONEY ON THEIR VOTING BASE???
Every fucking time libs get power they spend and spend and spend... Republicans fix it then democrats destroy the republican progress...
Of course Bush pretty much destroyed all his progress when he started signing progressive spending bills....
You know what the reaction to libfuck congress' is??? layoff employees because these motherfuckers are going to spend us into oblivion - we're going to need to pay some hefty taxes...
Don't you fucking get it??? you tax businesses they lay employees off to pay those taxes..
Are democrats fucking retarded????
I swear the concept isn't that fucking hard to understand...
I blame this economy almost entirely on libfucks based on that notion alone. If you don't understand that businesses lay employees off when libfucks start spending money, then that means in your personal lives when you don't have any money, you just borrow some and don't pay it back. Because you obviously have no concept of money or how to manage it whatsoever...
Its very simple - the more money you have the more you have to spend or invest, the less money you have the less you have to spend or invest...
Its not that fucking difficult to understand..
Yeah, and in what universe were those jobs "sent overseas" sent by "republicans?"
Oh yeah, another baseless emotional libfuck assertion...
Thanks for sharing your input...
Sorry? There were massive shifts of IT jobs from America, offshore. IT stands for Information Technology.
The "Job Creation Act of 2004" moved a great number of those jobs overseas.
It's no surprise that jobs were a huge issue in Campaign 2004. The debate is hottest around the issue of American jobs heading overseas or offshoring. Loaded terms such as "protectionism," and "Benedict Arnold CEOs" have made it into the discourse. Even though the election is over the debate is still raging on the Hill and in the media.
In February 2004, President Bush faced harsh questioning from both sides of the aisle when N. Gregory Mankiw, the chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers and a prominent Harvard University economist, released a report which spoke favorably of some aspects of the offshoring of jobs. "When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than make or provide it domestically." The President quickly countered by pointing to job retraining programs and a new bill forbidding the outsourcing of federal jobs overseas. In recent speeches, President Bush has defended his administration's policy while balancing it against concern for domestic jobs. In May, the President spoke to this point at the "Ask President Bush Event" in Dayton, Ohio:
We care about outsourcing in America. We want people working here. But the wrong policy would have been, let's go through economic isolationist policy, let's wall us off from the world. Instead the right policy was to stimulate growth at home . My point is, let us be confident about ourselves. Let's put the right policies in place that encourage growth at home.
NOW with Bill Moyers. Politics & Economy. America and Jobs. The Outsourcing Debate | PBS
So republicans are responsible for this???
I don't understand how you could draw such a conclusion...
Got any evidence to back your bullshit??
You do realize that in the real world its about what you can prove and not what you can claim???
2001-2009: Great fraudulent bubble, worst job creation ever...and a huge worldwide Pop!
tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
The Republicans use this stick to beat away any hint of buying down the deficit. Why?
It does create jobs, it did create jobs...
But how can you really cut taxes when libfucks do absolutely NOTHING but SPEND MONEY ON THEIR VOTING BASE???
Every fucking time libs get power they spend and spend and spend... Republicans fix it then democrats destroy the republican progress...
Of course Bush pretty much destroyed all his progress when he started signing progressive spending bills....
You know what the reaction to libfuck congress' is??? layoff employees because these motherfuckers are going to spend us into oblivion - we're going to need to pay some hefty taxes...
Don't you fucking get it??? you tax businesses they lay employees off to pay those taxes..
Are democrats fucking retarded????
I swear the concept isn't that fucking hard to understand...
I blame this economy almost entirely on libfucks based on that notion alone. If you don't understand that businesses lay employees off when libfucks start spending money, then that means in your personal lives when you don't have any money, you just borrow some and don't pay it back. Because you obviously have no concept of money or how to manage it whatsoever...
Its very simple - the more money you have the more you have to spend or invest, the less money you have the less you have to spend or invest...
Its not that fucking difficult to understand..
If it isn't that difficult to understand then why don't you understand that despite 2 huge tax cuts the Bush administration created less jobs then any president going back to Harry S. Truman, 1939? You can rant and rave all you want and tell us how stupid we are, but I am posting real numbers from the WSJ and CNNMoney, not just pulling them out of my ass.
It's amazing how you throw the retard name around, when you are the one that is so obviously wrong.
2001 to 2006 we where fighting two wars, the Democrats took over the house and senate in 2006 and held it until 2010, most of the damage was done from 2006-2010, you gonna blame Bush for that shit also?
tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
The Republicans use this stick to beat away any hint of buying down the deficit. Why?
Its the trickle down theory; you put more money into the hands of business owners and they will create more jobs. Here is the theory in action:
