Obama proposes tax cut - will they create jobs?

Yup. The Reagan tax cuts created the longest economic expansion in American history and at the same time the federal government collected nearly double the revenue.

That's a joke, right?

Yup, it's a joke.
And the joke's on you because that is 100% correct.

I see all of you are just saying this hoping it will stick. So where's your proof? There is none, because it's false.
 
:
No, it's called reality.

Jeezus, were you born yesterday? Reagan tripled the deficit and left Bush 41 to clean it up; 41 only lasted one term because he couldn't do it.

:cuckoo:

Both statements are facts

1) The longest peace time expansion under Reagan

2) The federal government nearly doubled the revenue it collected because people and businesses were so much more prosperous
 
BTW- Clinton inherited a strong economy from the 2 terms of Ronald Reagan.

Weird link. Why are all the names at the top left those of Republicans?

Why was it Bush1 was a 1 term president again?

How many budgets were balanced under Nixon, Nixon/Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush W, or Bush W?

Coincidence?

Ronald Reagan presided over one HECK of a run of deficit stimulus spending. Because the Great Communicator couldn't control his Congress? That can only go on for so long.
 
Some of you seem to forget that 2/3 of our economy is consumer spending. Anything the puts more money in the pockets of people who are going to spend it, will, create and save jobs at the places they spend their 'new' money.

Taking money out of the government's pocket and putting it into the hands of the public is a good thing, don't get me wrong. Government tends to waste money, and quite a bit escapes our national economy, ending up in other countries.

But... it's manufacturing and service that create "new" dollars. Consumer spending just passes the same dollar from one hand to the next. If you take a dollar out of Uncle Barry's pocket and put it in mine... it's still the same dollar. But if a company produces an actual product.. the difference between cost and retail is "new money".

That's why these "stimulus" maneuvers, or even the reduction of taxes, aren't a real fix in and of themselves. Sure, you can push more money out and nudge a sluggish economy, but you won't get "recovery" until we're producing goods and services *and* spending as consumers to buy them.

The whole thought behind "stimulating" consumer spending is that it leads to greater production and "new money". Then the whole thing becomes self-sustaining as it creates more jobs and more consumer dollars. In theory, it sounds like a good plan. But... it's not working. And the question of 'why' is the thing this administration needs to figure out.

Personally, I think there are two major problems with the plan. First, the "stimulus" money hasn't actually reached the economy and probably won't before it's too late. Only 4% was allocated to "infrastructure", if memory serves. And only something like 10% has been spent. The rest is supposed to be spent this year and next, disgustingly enough... just in time for elections. :rolleyes:

The fly in the ointment for Democrats, is that if huge chunks of our economy have already tanked by then, all their political machinations will have come to nothing. Many producers will be wiped out already. "Stimulus" can provide a nudge, IF the money actually gets into the hands of consumers. But it's just a band-aid, to get as many "over the hump" as we can. It's not start-up capital. There's not enough government money available to burn the whole thing down and then build it back up... because that money HAS to come from back out of the economy at some point to pay the debt on the borrowed money.

So, when you have businesses wiped out... No production = No jobs. And thus no money on the natural economy to be spent, and no "new money" to increase government revenues and cover the stimulus debt.

The second thing I believe is going wrong, is that the policies of this administration are actually discouraging growth. The Obama administration has promoted a decidedly UNFRIENDLY atmosphere for business. Entrepreneurs don't know what to expect. Everything Obama and this Congress has tried to pass legislatively are business-killers. Cap-and-tax, Card Check, Obamacare... hell, an employer can't tell if he's legally adopting a prospective employee or hiring him. :rolleyes:
And he has NO WAY to project what his operating costs will be over the next few years, or if it'll be him or some union who'll be running his business. It's no wonder employers are trimming overhead and holding off on expansion. And worst of all... that other shoe, the debt on the spending we've done so far, is hanging overhead, waiting to drop.
 
Last edited:
Yup, it's a joke.
And the joke's on you because that is 100% correct.

I see all of you are just saying this hoping it will stick. So where's your proof? There is none, because it's false.

Denial: It's not just a river in Egypt.
Tax Policy, Economic Growth and American Families

This is from the link

Real Revenue Growth Under Reagan Out-Paced Bush/Clinton
Contrary to the claims of Democrats, tax cuts under Reagan were not the cause of persistent budget deficits. As Figure 3 shows, real revenue grew much faster in the Reagan recovery than in the Bush/Clinton recovery. Under Reagan, federal revenue, in inflation-adjusted dollars, grew at an average annual rate of 4.8 percent, compared to 3.2 percent growth under Bush/Clinton.[5] After six years of economic expansion, real revenues under Reagan (with tax cuts) grew a cumulative 32.6 percent. Even with two tax increases, Bush/Clinton revenues are projected to increase just over 20 percent in six years, a feat Reagan accomplished two years quicker. Click here to see Figure 3..


Even measured in absolute terms, revenue growth was much greater under Reagan than under Bush/Clinton. After six years of economic expansion, Reagan real revenues were $277 billion higher than at the end of the recession. Projected revenues under Clinton show that six years after the 1990-91 recession ended, revenues will be just $225 billion higher.

The reason for this is simple: The growth of revenues is tied to growth of the economy. Tax cuts stimulate economic growth, which in turn means that incomes are higher than they would be otherwise. Conversely, tax increases hinder growth and constrain economic expansion. Thus, revenue during the Reagan recovery actually grew faster than revenue in the Bush/Clinton recovery, despite the fact that Reagan instituted tax cuts while Bush and Clinton raised taxes.



Go to the link an click on Figure 3 and it has a chart
 
Yes, hindsight sucks. All those dumb people made their beds with no nudging from outside interests eager to make a buck off their ignorance. They shoulda known, dammit.

Seriously, what's the alternative? People living on the street and seeking government aid to feed their children and house them? It's still GOVERNMENT MONEY. At least there's some incentive in those programs for more people to take that personal responsibility that you say is lacking, and to which I agree. We've GOT to have more Americans educated, and student loans are choking them once they graduate. Doctors are more incentivized to go into consulting for Wall Street businesses where they can earn five times what they can actually practicing medicine. And that looks awfully good when someone is looking at tens of thousands in student loans (in many cases initiated by big banks at high interest rates, by the way).

You gotta be kiddin me, " GOVERNMENT MONEY"???????? Where the HELL do you think they get GOVERNMENT MONEY FROM????? The GOVERNMENT MONEY TREE that grows out on the front lawn of the WH??????????????


IT'S THE TAXPAYER'S MONEY!!!!!!!! GOOD GRIEF!!!! Where do you libs get your ideas.:cuckoo::cuckoo:

In that regard, both you and Mike seem to have a huge comprehension problem. I believe I was addressing the unemployment situation and that if THE GOVERNMENT is expected to perform some miracle to make businesses start hiring, it's still money that comes from THE GOVERNMENT COFFER that keeps those unemployed people sustained until they find jobs. Some of you people are so hung up on government=taxpayer it's ludicrous. OF COURSE they are one and the same. I just don't feel I need to explain it like I would to five-year olds.

It think it's important for people to understand where this money comes from.

It DOES NOT come from the government. The government doesn't make it's own money.

It DOES come from taxpayers. Therefore, when we are talking about tax reductions for businesses and individuals, we are talking about letting people keep more of their OWN money.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top