Consumers create jobs.

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Reagan introduced a massive federal income tax decrease in 81.

this is too stupid even by your standards!! This is your greatest proof that supply side economics does not work ??????????????????????????

the tax cuts to which you refer were not massive and they were not supply side tax cuts!!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be very very slow!!

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Then what would you suggest to decrease unemployment??

you would employ a series of Republican capitalist libertarian supply side measures to instantly end this depression:


1) Make unions illegal ( 10 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

What I here cons doing is parroting the con dogma of no new taxes. Blindly.

1) how can it be blind when our Founders too wanted to limit government


2) how can it be blind when it is intellectual. The more the government has to spend the more waste there is and the slower the recovery will be.

Why did you think the USSR performed so badly? Why did you think Red China instantly reversed centuries of depression the second they turned toward Republican capitalism. Why do you think they drive '59 Chevy's in Cuba: because thats when Castro removed the supply-side incentives.

A child can grasp these concepts but not a liberal.

 

[expat_panama]

...that is your case. Seems unlikely, but what the hell. I do not know your specific situation...

--and you don't let your ignorance of my situation prevent you from having strong opinions that you sound off about. You're not talking about your own unwillingness to hire people --given your politics I can see why you won't admit that taxes and regulations are keeping you from hiring too. Just the same, your willingness to talk about what you don't know explains your saying...

...when such deficit spending has occurred in past high unemployment times, that the net overall spending has caused unemployment to decrease...

--because while that may be the party talking point, in real life the more the deficit spending the worse the unemployment:

 

[Avorysuds]

I stopped reading here... "When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion." Yes, if they only kept raiding SS we would have had a "surplus."

I honestly can’t say I care what the rest of the OP was about seeing as they were lying or have no idea what they are talking about right out of the gate.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

of course if true unemployment would be 0% right now!!! Now we can see why most of the human race followed Hitler Stalin and Mao and were sure it made sense! Thinking is optional for most of us, sadly.

 

[Rshermr]

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.Ed, did you ever, ever, ever take a class in economics. Creating demand in an economic sense has nothing to do with creating demand, but rather Increasing the amount that a pool of buyers will buy at any given price. Dipshit.

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. Any proof that it was a republican, ed?? Of course not. I suspect it was a person with good engineering skills. Dipshit.

Consumer demand we can take for granted like the air we breath. If you are saying that there is always some level of demand, that is true. And a totally immaterial statement. Unless there is sufficient demand to allow sellers to make a profit, nothing will be produced. And, unless you increase demand (pay attention, now, ed) in the economic sense, the economy will not improve. 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. Again, ed, totally unsupportable statement. You have no idea who increased the production of wheat, now do you, ed. Just the tea party line. Dipshit.

Now even a liberal can understand what Republican supply-side economics yes, it is the the policy that Reagan followed when he did his major tax decrease in 1981, which caused an increase in unemployment from 7% to 10,8% over the next 15 months. It is the policy that caused him to INCREASE taxes 11 times, and to triple the national debt It is the policy that caused him to use stimulus spending to dig the economy out of the mess he created. It is the economic policy that his VP, Bush 1, called voodoo economics..
So, ed, any comeback. Any proof of anything you say. I keep asking, when has supply side economics (tax decreases) ever helped a bad economy??

 

[Rshermr]

Reagan introduced a massive federal income tax decrease in 81.

this is too stupid even by your standards!! This is your greatest proof that supply side economics does not work ??????????????????????????

the tax cuts to which you refer were not massive and they were not supply side tax cuts!!!

See why we are positive a liberal will be very very slow!!

Yes, ed. They were massive. Largest tax decrease in US History. You should actually look it up, dipshit.
It is one example.
Do you have ANY examples of when supply side economics has worked, ed. Of course you do not. I keep asking, and all I hear from you is crickets.
Relative to your statement calling liberals stupid, go to the following and it may help you understand yourself:
The right's stupidity spreads, enabled by a too-polite left | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[Rshermr]

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.

of course if true unemployment would be 0% right now!!! Now we can see why most of the human race followed Hitler Stalin and Mao and were sure it made sense! Thinking is optional for most of us, sadly.

Ed, you are a tea party dogma slinger. Just typical crap.
You see, ed, the CBO, which scores such things, states categoricaly that the stimulus created a couple million jobs. And repub obstructionism has stopped any other stimulus.
Ed, your tea party dogma, and your refusal to look at anything other than that dogma, is unamerican in a real sense. You care not what happens to the economy that the middle class lives with, only that the very rich can get richer so that they can support your tea party friends.
You are, therefore, a true bottom feeder.

 

[Rshermr]

I stopped reading here... "When President Bush took office in 2001, he inherited a $236 billion budget surplus, with a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion." Yes, if they only kept raiding SS we would have had a "surplus."

I honestly can’t say I care what the rest of the OP was about seeing as they were lying or have no idea what they are talking about right out of the gate.

Yeah, I would not believe those CBO numbers either.
Back to FOX, They say what you WANT to believe.
Living in fantasy land must be interesting, eh?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

The fact that you view taxes as a "profit", Lil...shows me how clueless you are when it comes to economics. Government does not make a profit. The Private Sector makes profits and then pays taxes on those profits.

When the Bush tax cuts took money out of the hands of government it left that money in the hands of the consumer to spend. Are you REALLY that slow that you can't see that?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Back to FOX, They say what you WANT to believe.

Unlike MSNBC, the Fox shows feature debates so they say different things, not what you want to believe.

This is why they are the most trusted and have 15 times the audience.

 

[Oldstyle]

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).

Are you kidding? Your summation of what occurred during the Reagan Presidency was so full of factual errors and misinterpretations of what really happened as to be laughable.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

The truth is...after getting the stagflation that Jimmy Carter left him under control (notice how Reagan actually DID something rather than just blame his predecessor?) cutting the inflation rate by half in only a couple years (which was the cause of higher unemployment by the way as he tightened up the money supply) Reagan cut taxes, cut government regulations and cut discretionary spending other than to the military. That set us up for the longest sustained period of time in our nation's history without a recession, creating vast amounts of wealth as we increased the size of our economy and added 20 million new jobs (not jobs "saved" but actual jobs CREATED!!!).

Now compare THAT to what Barack Obama has done since coming into office! Barry has never had a plan to fix the economy...he's just kept interest rates as low as he could by having the Fed pump out cash (which makes every dollar in our wallets worth less...a hidden Obama "tax") and kept as many of his union buddies and supporters in the Public Sector and the "Green Energy" sector flush with cash with his so called stimulus...while waiting for the economy to recover on it's own. "THAT" is Barry's plan!!! To do nothing to help the Private Sector and just hope that they can succeed despite him.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I have asked you a number of times to show where a tax decrease has ever increased jobs in a bad economy.

tax decreases in a good or bad economy increase jobs, obviously. Raise the tax on venture capital, for example, to 100% and you have no new companies funded. Drop the tax to 0% and you have many new Googles Apples HP Cisco's etc funded.

The more venture capital the liberal steals, the less venture capital there is.

Do you have the character to agree??

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, there is a historical example of supply side failing.

too perfectly stupid!!!! you said Reagan raised taxes 11 times and that was an example of supply side economics failing? See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, very very slow!!

 

[Rshermr]

Back to FOX, They say what you WANT to believe.

Unlike MSNBC, the Fox shows feature debates so they say different things, not what you want to believe.

This is why they are the most trusted and have 15 times the audience.

If you believe that fox is trustworthy, then we know all we need to you about you, ed.

 

[Rshermr]

So, there is a historical example of supply side failing.

too perfectly stupid!!!! you said Reagan raised taxes 11 times and that was an example of supply side economics failing? See why we are 100% positive a liberal will be slow, very very slow!!

No, ed. You see, you have some issues with your little pea brain. Raising taxes was NOT supply side economics. It was Reagans effort to fix the problems he created with supply side economics,, or voodoo economics as his VP, Bush 1, said. Get it yet, ed or do you need more help.

 

[Rshermr]

I have asked you a number of times to show where a tax decrease has ever increased jobs in a bad economy.

tax decreases in a good or bad economy increase jobs, obviously. We are talking about income taxes in general, ed. You know, the elimination of the bush tax decrease, which you and every con says will hurt the economy. Any examples of when income tax increases have hurt unemployment rates in a bad economy, ed If you are correct, you should easily be able to show at least one case. But then, there are none. And I think even you know it by now. Raise the tax on venture capital, for example, to 100% and you have no new companies funded. Drop the tax to 0% and you have many new Googles Apples HP Cisco's etc funded. What a profound statement, ed. You are truly stupid. Kind of like saying that if someone with an infection will die if you fill his entire system with penacilin, but he will live if you give him none. Do you ever say anything that is of value, ed????

The more venture capital the liberal steals, the less venture capital there is. Another stupid statement. Even venture capitalists like a good economy, and only demand increases will help.

Do you have the character to agree??

Odd, a question about character from someone who has none. No, ed you are wrong about everything you said, as usual.\

I asked you to show me when decreasing income taxes have ever helped unemployment, or for that matter, the economy in general. And again, you flail around with unsupported statements. Just can not find a case, can you , ed. And it has indeed been tried, ed me boy.

 

[Rshermr]

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).

Are you kidding? Your summation of what occurred during the Reagan Presidency was so full of factual errors and misinterpretations of what really happened as to be laughable.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

The truth is...after getting the stagflation that Jimmy Carter left him under control (notice how Reagan actually DID something rather than just blame his predecessor?) cutting the inflation rate by half in only a couple years (which was the cause of higher unemployment by the way as he tightened up the money supply) Reagan cut taxes, cut government regulations and cut discretionary spending other than to the military. That set us up for the longest sustained period of time in our nation's history without a recession, creating vast amounts of wealth as we increased the size of our economy and added 20 million new jobs (not jobs "saved" but actual jobs CREATED!!!).

Now compare THAT to what Barack Obama has done since coming into office! Barry has never had a plan to fix the economy...he's just kept interest rates as low as he could by having the Fed pump out cash (which makes every dollar in our wallets worth less...a hidden Obama "tax") and kept as many of his union buddies and supporters in the Public Sector and the "Green Energy" sector flush with cash with his so called stimulus...while waiting for the economy to recover on it's own. "THAT" is Barry's plan!!! To do nothing to help the Private Sector and just hope that they can succeed despite him.

You use Peter Ferarra?? The well known conservative who pushes right wing dogma on every right wing web site known to man?? You quoted an OP ED piece, by a right winger, who has never ever said anything good about a dem, or anything bad about Reagan.
Maybe I should quote some stuff from move on!!! But then, I won't. I prefer to maintain my integrity by staying with impartial sources.
What I said about reagan is completely true. I can and have proven so with government numbers. You can not disprove anything that I have said, can you dipshit. Just more dogma. You are a true waste of time.,
So come on, oldstyle. You said what I posted was full of factual errors. Lets see what you have. But you will look foolish, because I can prove what I said. What the hell, you look foolish all of the time, anyway.

 

[Oldstyle]

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).

Are you kidding? Your summation of what occurred during the Reagan Presidency was so full of factual errors and misinterpretations of what really happened as to be laughable.

Reaganomics Vs. Obamanomics: Facts And Figures - Forbes

The truth is...after getting the stagflation that Jimmy Carter left him under control (notice how Reagan actually DID something rather than just blame his predecessor?) cutting the inflation rate by half in only a couple years (which was the cause of higher unemployment by the way as he tightened up the money supply) Reagan cut taxes, cut government regulations and cut discretionary spending other than to the military. That set us up for the longest sustained period of time in our nation's history without a recession, creating vast amounts of wealth as we increased the size of our economy and added 20 million new jobs (not jobs "saved" but actual jobs CREATED!!!).

Now compare THAT to what Barack Obama has done since coming into office! Barry has never had a plan to fix the economy...he's just kept interest rates as low as he could by having the Fed pump out cash (which makes every dollar in our wallets worth less...a hidden Obama "tax") and kept as many of his union buddies and supporters in the Public Sector and the "Green Energy" sector flush with cash with his so called stimulus...while waiting for the economy to recover on it's own. "THAT" is Barry's plan!!! To do nothing to help the Private Sector and just hope that they can succeed despite him.

You use Peter Ferarra?? The well known conservative who pushes right wing dogma on every right wing web site known to man?? You quoted an OP ED piece, by a right winger, who has never ever said anything good about a dem, or anything bad about Reagan.
Maybe I should quote some stuff from move on!!! But then, I won't. I prefer to maintain my integrity by staying with impartial sources.
What I said about reagan is completely true. I can and have proven so with government numbers. You can not disprove anything that I have said, can you dipshit. Just more dogma. You are a true waste of time.,
So come on, oldstyle. You said what I posted was full of factual errors. Lets see what you have. But you will look foolish, because I can prove what I said. What the hell, you look foolish all of the time, anyway.

I don't think you know anything about what occurred during the Reagan presidency. Yes, Reagan cut taxes but he also broadened the tax base and aggressively closed tax loopholes and exemptions. It's basically the same approach that Paul Ryan was advocating. Unlike yourself, I actually know something about what I post here. You post things that you THINK you know about. The truth is...Reagan had an economic plan to get the country out to the recession he inherited from Jimmy Carter...a plan that he stuck to even when he took serious heat over a brief increase in the unemployment rate while he addressed inflation. Reagan showed real political courage.

Now would you like to explain to us what Barack Obama's economic plan is to get us out of the recession he inherited from W.? I say he hasn't had one since Larry Summers tucked tail and headed back to brainwash some more kids at Harvard about the "wonders" of Keynesian economics theory. Care to school me?