Someone please explain Bachmann's "reasoning'?

[HUGGY]

Bachmann's "reasoning'?

Oxymoron.

 

[Dr.Drock]

If you show me how eliminating the number of jobs it would take to reduce the federal government by 40%,

which is the percent of the budget we're borrowing,

would lead to a net increase in the number of jobs in this country, by all means do so.

Be specific and talk in factual terms about real tangible things, PLEASE.

Otherwise shut up.

No YOU shut up. Please.

If you eliminate 40% of the taxes needed to feed a growing and bloated bureaucracy, stop increasing the deficit, and start paying down the debt, our AAA credit rating is restored and both foreign and domestic markets will stabilize. Consumer confidence is restored.

Then give the job producers assurance that their tax burden is maneagable for the next five to ten years, and remove the most unnecessary and onerous regulation for the next five to ten years, and they will put the estimated 3 to 6 trillion in investment capital they are sitting on back into the economy and put people back to work.

That's how it is done.

That's retarded. Seriously. You put millions of people out of work if you cut back government by 40%, all that buying power and demand disappears, you already have 9% unemployment in a jobless recovery,

and you think that magically businesses are going to ramp up production enough to hire millions??

Use your fucking head.

That's not really magic, that's economics 101, I would advise you sign up for that class at your nearest community college.

On day 1 after you get your syllabus, you'll learn how taxes impact supply and demand in a capitalistic economy.

 

[Ringel05]

Someone please explain Bachmann's "reasoning'?

It isn't yours, that's why you need it explained.
(Damn, that was easy..) Next question?

 

[Wry Catcher]

No YOU shut up. Please.

If you eliminate 40% of the taxes needed to feed a growing and bloated bureaucracy, stop increasing the deficit, and start paying down the debt, our AAA credit rating is restored and both foreign and domestic markets will stabilize. Consumer confidence is restored.

Then give the job producers assurance that their tax burden is maneagable for the next five to ten years, and remove the most unnecessary and onerous regulation for the next five to ten years, and they will put the estimated 3 to 6 trillion in investment capital they are sitting on back into the economy and put people back to work.

That's how it is done.

That's retarded. Seriously. You put millions of people out of work if you cut back government by 40%, all that buying power and demand disappears, you already have 9% unemployment in a jobless recovery,

and you think that magically businesses are going to ramp up production enough to hire millions??

Use your fucking head.

That's not really magic, that's economics 101, I would advise you sign up for that class at your nearest community college.

On day 1 after you get your syllabus, you'll learn how taxes impact supply and demand in a capitalistic economy.

I'm not enrolled so I have no syllabus; let us know how taxes impact supply and demand. Is that a hypothesis, a theory or a law (or do those terms only apply to hard science)?

 

[Dr.Drock]

That's retarded. Seriously. You put millions of people out of work if you cut back government by 40%, all that buying power and demand disappears, you already have 9% unemployment in a jobless recovery,

and you think that magically businesses are going to ramp up production enough to hire millions??

Use your fucking head.

That's not really magic, that's economics 101, I would advise you sign up for that class at your nearest community college.

On day 1 after you get your syllabus, you'll learn how taxes impact supply and demand in a capitalistic economy.

I'm not enrolled so I have no syllabus; let us know how taxes impact supply and demand. Is that a hypothesis, a theory or a law (or do those terms only apply to hard science)?

Save the store bought talking points, I'm as anti-republican as i am anti-democrat. I find evolution deniers on the republican side ridiculous, just like i find you economics deniers on the democrat side ridiculous.

Tax incidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll down to the charts, the word you'll consistently see is burden.

 

[Wry Catcher]

That's not really magic, that's economics 101, I would advise you sign up for that class at your nearest community college.

On day 1 after you get your syllabus, you'll learn how taxes impact supply and demand in a capitalistic economy.

I'm not enrolled so I have no syllabus; let us know how taxes impact supply and demand. Is that a hypothesis, a theory or a law (or do those terms only apply to hard science)?

Save the store bought talking points, I'm as anti-republican as i am anti-democrat. I find evolution deniers on the republican side ridiculous, just like i find you economics deniers on the democrat side ridiculous.

Tax incidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scroll down to the charts, the word you'll consistently see is burden.

A burden can be many things: Demand for the products sold by small business in a region impacted because too little revenue caused a need to reduce police protection or enforcement of codes causing the smell of sewer gases to repel customers; a burden might be pot holes or gridlock preventing easy access to customers or supplies to business or industry or regular brownouts do to a failing electrical grid.

I don't use "talking points"; I'm quite able to think for myself (and in fact enjoy reading others use my words and phrases - it gives me confidence my ideas have an impact).

I suggest you buy a copy of SimCity and see an example of how taxes impact a community, commerce and citizens. I also suggest you keep the sarcasm to a minimum, it serves no positive purpose. My point in which you appeara to have taken offense is that Econ is a soft science.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Looks like (once again) debate is ended because my opponents have cut and run.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No YOU shut up. Please.

If you eliminate 40% of the taxes needed to feed a growing and bloated bureaucracy, stop increasing the deficit, and start paying down the debt, our AAA credit rating is restored and both foreign and domestic markets will stabilize. Consumer confidence is restored.

Then give the job producers assurance that their tax burden is maneagable for the next five to ten years, and remove the most unnecessary and onerous regulation for the next five to ten years, and they will put the estimated 3 to 6 trillion in investment capital they are sitting on back into the economy and put people back to work.

That's how it is done.

That's retarded. Seriously. You put millions of people out of work if you cut back government by 40%, all that buying power and demand disappears, you already have 9% unemployment in a jobless recovery,

and you think that magically businesses are going to ramp up production enough to hire millions??

Use your fucking head.

That's not really magic, that's economics 101, I would advise you sign up for that class at your nearest community college.

On day 1 after you get your syllabus, you'll learn how taxes impact supply and demand in a capitalistic economy.

We were talking about cutting government spending by 40%, Schoolboy. Learn to read.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You idiots who think shrinking the size of government is not a job killer, tell me this.

The US Post Office needs to get rid of about 100,000 employees to get itself financially straight.

How does that create jobs? First, how does it create jobs for the 100,000 laid off postal workers? Then, where does the net increase in jobs come from?

Prove that you're not idiots.

Deregulation.

Rewriting the Tax Structure Laws.

Limiting Government Overhead.

We are too top heave NYCarb. You are too caught up in your game of Musical Chairs to notice the effect you have on the rest of us. You have been riding high for too long.

Pie in the Sky dreaming. You think you're going to deregulate your way to prosperity you're even dumber than I thought,

and you weren't doing all that well to begin with.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Looks like (once again) debate is ended because my opponents have cut and run.

Funny, I thought it ended because you never responded to my challenge.

 

[Dr.Drock]

That's retarded. Seriously. You put millions of people out of work if you cut back government by 40%, all that buying power and demand disappears, you already have 9% unemployment in a jobless recovery,

and you think that magically businesses are going to ramp up production enough to hire millions??

Use your fucking head.

That's not really magic, that's economics 101, I would advise you sign up for that class at your nearest community college.

On day 1 after you get your syllabus, you'll learn how taxes impact supply and demand in a capitalistic economy.

We were talking about cutting government spending by 40%, Schoolboy. Learn to read.

Cutting spending and cutting taxes are supposed to go hand in hand, figured you'd be able to make the obvious connection.

However, somehow, you guys have convinced yourself that taxes have zero impact on the economy and can just be raised and raised until your democratic heros are wiping their butts with Ben Franklins.

 

[eflatminor]

Bachmann attacked President Obama's speech yesterday and in part she proposed to “massively cut” government and to repeal “job killing regulations.’’

If the cost of government is largely the cost of salary and benefits, then cutting government means cutting jobs.

Cutting jobs increases unemployment, so, I conclude, cutting government is a "job killing" proposition.

In my thought process, these government employees have bills to pay, children to raise and whether they are productive in the eyes of some or not, they still pay taxes. In addition they buy things: pizzas and pies, shoes and socks, books and bagels.

How will increasing the unemployment numbers stimulate our economy?

Because any money used to create government jobs must first be taken OUT of the economy. It is then run through corrupt and inefficient bureaucracies before any job is "created". Return that money to the economy by eliminating the inefficient government jobs and we end up with more private section jobs than the government could ever create. Logic and reason...ain't it a bitch.

 

[Oddball]

Looks like (once again) debate is ended because my opponents have cut and run.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Looks like (once again) debate is ended because my opponents have cut and run.

Yeah, your strategy is unbeatable.

1.) Parrot whatever democrat politicians say

2.) Assume it's a fact, no matter how crazy it sounds

3.) When you hear rational counter points, insult for awhile, then stick your fingers in your ear and scream "LALALALALALLA"

4.) Claim victory, despite the debate still taking place around you

Sounds like such a great plan, I'm now an Obamabot!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I would like for someone to explain the support obama is getting?

 

[Oddball]

I would like for someone to explain the support obama is getting?

 

[Dr.Drock]

I would like for someone to explain the support obama is getting?

LOL!!!!!!!!


Just terrific.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Awwww NYCarbineer neg'd me, I was so hoping we agreed on political issues.................................

 

[Foxfyre]

That's retarded. Seriously. You put millions of people out of work if you cut back government by 40%, all that buying power and demand disappears, you already have 9% unemployment in a jobless recovery,

and you think that magically businesses are going to ramp up production enough to hire millions??

Use your fucking head.

That's not really magic, that's economics 101, I would advise you sign up for that class at your nearest community college.

On day 1 after you get your syllabus, you'll learn how taxes impact supply and demand in a capitalistic economy.

I'm not enrolled so I have no syllabus; let us know how taxes impact supply and demand. Is that a hypothesis, a theory or a law (or do those terms only apply to hard science)?

Taxes affect supply and demand in two ways.

Increased costs of things people have to have often result in less buying of things they don't have to have.

Increased taxes on a product they don't have to have will reduce at least some demand from consumers. If the supplier lowers base cost to offset the tax to keep consumers interested, that will lower the supplier's profit which may or may not affect the supply but it certainly affects the overall robustness of the economy. One way it usually affects most supply is that imported products too often then look better than our own. Excessive taxes, artificially inflated wages, and over regulation continues to drive our manufacturing base overseas. And nobody seems interested in correcting that.

An illustration is the legislation in which George H.W. Bush broke his 'no new taxes' pledge and allowed a tax on the 'rich' to be applied to private planes, boats, jewelry luxury cars, other high ticket items. (He was supposed to get $3 in spending cuts for every dollar in new taxes, but as these things go, that never materialized. Congress will raise the taxes but they won't cut spending.)

Anyway the onerous new taxes decimated our private industries when the 'rich' simply went elsewhere for more consumer friendly climes to buy their toys. More than 50,000 employees were laid off in the boat and plane building industries that have not fully recovered yet, and our profitable jewelry industry was driven off shore where it now remains in places like Grand Cayman. The duties to bring it into the country were less than the tax applied when it was bought here.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's not really magic, that's economics 101, I would advise you sign up for that class at your nearest community college.

On day 1 after you get your syllabus, you'll learn how taxes impact supply and demand in a capitalistic economy.

I'm not enrolled so I have no syllabus; let us know how taxes impact supply and demand. Is that a hypothesis, a theory or a law (or do those terms only apply to hard science)?

Taxes affect supply and demand in two ways.

Increased costs of things people have to have often result in less buying of things they don't have to have.

Increased taxes on a product they don't have to have will reduce at least some demand from consumers. If the supplier lowers base cost to offset the tax to keep consumers interested, that will lower the supplier's profit which may or may not affect the supply but it certainly affects the overall robustness of the economy. One way it usually affects most supply is that imported products too often then look better than our own. Excessive taxes, artificially inflated wages, and over regulation continues to drive our manufacturing base overseas. And nobody seems interested in correcting that.

An illustration is the legislation in which George H.W. Bush broke his 'no new taxes' pledge and allowed a tax on the 'rich' to be applied to private planes, boats, jewelry luxury cars, other high ticket items. (He was supposed to get $3 in spending cuts for every dollar in new taxes, but as these things go, that never materialized. Congress will raise the taxes but they won't cut spending.)

Anyway the onerous new taxes decimated our private industries when the 'rich' simply went elsewhere for more consumer friendly climes to buy their toys. More than 50,000 employees were laid off in the boat and plane building industries that have not fully recovered yet, and our profitable jewelry industry was driven off shore where it now remains in places like Grand Cayman. The duties to bring it into the country were less than the tax applied when it was bought here.

Our friends on the left will never acknowledge such blasphemy.