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

[Mr. Shaman]

It is very sad that you are allowed to vote when you just do not care about our great nation. We have serious problems that many of them have been created by the very man you elected and yet you do not even know why you elected him

I care more about this country than to allow it to be handed over to a bunch of 19th century flashbacks who have summarily forgotten 70 years of progress in economic thought - or the people those economists lead around by the nose.

and I find people who question other's patriotism based on political disagreement to be most despicable and pathetic.

Why in gods name would anyone of us want that type of leadership ever?

....As-opposed-to leadership that wants to.....

....RIP-OFF retirees....

....in-order-to guarantee uninterrupted ca$h-flow into your leadership's campaign-coffers???​

 

[JRK]

There is always a cycle. And that cycle always involves banks lending money to people who have no business having it for purposes that should never be funded. Whether it is the S&Ls, or Latin American debt, or petro-dollars, or whatever. In the last phase of expansion there is crap all over the system with businesses buying assets at inflated prices they will never come out on.
The crash phase should get rid of all that, washing out those assets for pennies on the dollar to new owners, who will form the basis of the next expansion.

But that didnt happen under Obama (and Bush as well). Instead the stupid and greedy got rewarded with bailouts instead of the liquidation they deserved. The real entrepreneurs, who would put those assets to good use, got screwed out of opportunity. And the rest of us footed the bill.

How'd we have such a severe double-dip recession under Reagan? Was that just a great big lending bubble followed by liquidation?

Reagan?
so this recession is all Obama's then
I mean the timing and everything
Early 1980s recession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do not think Reagan, Bush or Obama had anything to do with those messes

I could not agree more with the bailouts, The problem is for Obama and Bush both is they had no choice with the banks

My issue with Obama as I have said over and over is the never allowing a crises go to waste
Look you come out
plead your case
take it to the public
and let the ball fall where it may

 

[NYcarbineer]

He answered the question, dipshit.

Well, that was shortest trip to ignore on record. Welcome back!

He didn't answer the question.

Libs how can anything cost the government one penny?
I cannot give a better example as to why anyone would elect Obama
The US government is a collection agency that only destroys wealth. It serves no function to create it
It serves many good functions with some of the wealth it collects, but the only thing a tax cut does is allow the very people who fund the government to keep more of the wealth they provide to run it

The only thing that is impacted by a tax cut or a tax hike is the person who pays taxes.
This is the very reason I know people like 8537 does not pay much in tax
They have no idea the impact taxes has on our society

Education doesn't create wealth?

 

[Londoner]

JRK.

Capital only invests in job creation when there is sufficient demand. Indeed: when the middle class has money to spend, capital does miraculous things to capture that money (including adding jobs and investing in innovative technology).

When the middle class lacks money (because wages, benefits, and entitlements have been cut in order to enable tax cuts), capital must find different investment opportunities for its surplus. This is what we saw in the post-Reagan, low wage, globalized economy: surplus capital, lacking an incentive to add jobs, was increasingly diverted into speculative instruments (hedge funds, derivatives, etc), which builds dangerous risk into financial markets. This is what we saw during the Clinton and Bush years where the over-concentration of surplus capital ("profits") created by the Reagan tax policies so clearly lacked sufficient investment opportunities in the real economy, which is why it took flight into tech IPO's and mortgage derivatives.

[If you lower the compensation of your workers, you are destroying their ability to buy your products. If they can't buy your stuff, you have no incentive to invest in the real economy (because nobody can buy anything), so you end up with a massive surplus with nowhere to go, which surplus inevitably ends up at Wall Street, which lacks sufficient investment opportunities (because there is no demand). Thus, Wall Street, in order to handle the massive capital surplus of Reaganomics, is pressured to create ever-better returns; therefore, it invents phantom speculative instruments which ultimately destroy the very capital which was meant for investment (-please study the Tech IPOs of the Clinton years, or the credit default swaps of the Bush years). The Bush tax cuts didn't go to the creation of American jobs (because there was no demand to capture); Bush had the worst job creation in the last 1/2 century. Those tax cuts went to speculative Wall Street garbage, and the result was catastrophic. Study the "Greenspan Put"]

but it gets worse....

What happens when consumers lack sufficient wages and benefits to buy things? [Remember: all the money they used to get (in the form of wages, benefits, entitlements, public education, etc) was cut then transferred to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts] The middle class consumer, now without sufficient economic security to consume, must increasingly rely on credit cards to drive consumption. When they max out their credit cards, they turn to their homes for money. When their homes crash they finally stop consuming. And what happens when nobody goes into shopping malls and buys garbage? Spiraling job loss. [we built a consumption economy from the surplus middle class wealth enabled by postwar wage/benefit policies. FDR put money inside the pockets of the middle class, and capitalists were forced to innovate like crazy to get that money. Then Reagan got rid of the wage/benefit policies of FDR, and he (along with Clinton) freed capital to go to the 3rd world for sweat shop labor. The solid jobs that once enabled high levels of consumption were destroyed.

So we entered the mid 90s with a consumption economy that required high levels of middle class spending, but we enacted tax, labor, and entitlement reforms which destroyed the needed demand to drive that economy. So we created debt gimmicks to sustain consumption. We used everything from credit cards to our houses to compensate for the fact that the historic surplus on top was not trickling down to middle class demand. And at precisely the moment that we need demand-centered policies, we still have a group of talk radio morons parakeeting economic theories which made sense 30 years ago.

Reaganomics, which was absolutely necessary 30 years ago, has been over-applied. It no longer has the same utility because the problems are different. Capital has nothing solid to invest in (because it lowered the wages a.k.a. buying power of consumers), while the consumer lacks the money to buy even basic staples without unholy amounts of debt. On the investment side we have dangerous speculation, on the consumption side we have dangerous debt.

When surplus capital has nowhere to go but dangerous speculation (because consumers don't earn enough to consume), you need policies which bolster demand so you can attract investment to the real economy. You need another tool besides supply side economics, which assumes sufficient demand

The OP keeps repeating tired talking points about how we cannot tax job creators. His criticisms of Keynesian economics are old. We get it. But, this is no longer 1970 when Labor's advantage over capital created massive efficiency and competition issues for American capital. Today we have a much different problem. American corporations are sitting on more surplus than at any time since the Gilded Age - and they have benefited from 30 years of deregulation. They have captured every regulatory body through the meticulous application of lobbying pressure. Their effective tax rate is lower than any advanced industrial nation (corporations like GE and Exxon don't pay taxes; they are heavily subsidized. They own both parties. The wealthiest Americans don't pay income tax; they make their money in Capital Gains, which means they pay lower taxes than their workers. The OP never mentions any of this stuff because he gets his information from talk radio rather than non-political peer reviewed sources).

Giving corporations more tax breaks won't lead to more jobs or innovation. Why? Because you cannot fix a demand problem with tax breaks any more than you can solve inflation by lowering interest rates. 30 years of lowering middle class wages, benefits, and education/health/retirement programs has left them unable to consume. You can't solve this problem the way Reaganomics has always tried to solve it: credit cards for the serfs and tax breaks for the Lords. This recipe has destroyed America. Unless you find a way to recapitalize demand like you recapitalized the suppliers in the 80s, the current problem will only get worse.

Please don't get your economic theory from talk radio. You are clogging the debate with garbage

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone else notice that the thread title makes no sense whatsoever?

 

[JRK]

Well, that was shortest trip to ignore on record. Welcome back!

He didn't answer the question.

Libs how can anything cost the government one penny?
I cannot give a better example as to why anyone would elect Obama
The US government is a collection agency that only destroys wealth. It serves no function to create it
It serves many good functions with some of the wealth it collects, but the only thing a tax cut does is allow the very people who fund the government to keep more of the wealth they provide to run it

The only thing that is impacted by a tax cut or a tax hike is the person who pays taxes.
This is the very reason I know people like 8537 does not pay much in tax
They have no idea the impact taxes has on our society

Education doesn't create wealth?

Absolutely
where does the money come from to support that education?

 

[The Rabbi]

Libs how can anything cost the government one penny?
I cannot give a better example as to why anyone would elect Obama
The US government is a collection agency that only destroys wealth. It serves no function to create it
It serves many good functions with some of the wealth it collects, but the only thing a tax cut does is allow the very people who fund the government to keep more of the wealth they provide to run it

The only thing that is impacted by a tax cut or a tax hike is the person who pays taxes.
This is the very reason I know people like 8537 does not pay much in tax
They have no idea the impact taxes has on our society

Education doesn't create wealth?

Absolutely
where does the money come from to support that education?

Well, education CAN create wealth. Engineers have to learn their trade somewhere.
But it doesn't have to. How many gym majors have used their education in their careers?
And whether it is worth it or not is another issue.

 

[JRK]

JRK.

Capital only invests in job creation when there is sufficient demand. Indeed: when the middle class has money to spend, capital does miraculous things to capture that money (including adding jobs and investing in innovative technology).

When the middle class lacks money (because wages, benefits, and entitlements have been cut in order to enable tax cuts), capital must find different investment opportunities for its surplus. This is what we saw in the post-Reagan, low wage, globalized economy: surplus capital, lacking an incentive to add jobs, was increasingly diverted into speculative instruments (hedge funds, derivatives, etc), which builds dangerous risk into financial markets. This is what we saw during the Clinton and Bush years where the over-concentration of surplus capital ("profits") created by the Reagan tax policies so clearly lacked sufficient investment opportunities in the real economy, which is why it took flight into tech IPO's and mortgage derivatives. [If you lower the compensation of your workers, you are destroying their ability to buy your products. If they can't buy your stuff, you stop investing in innovative products for the real economy of hard goods and services, and you seek returns in phantom Wall Street instruments, which award returns based on unreal levels of speculation (-please study the Tech IPOs of the Clinton years, or the credit default swaps of the Bush years). The Bush tax cuts didn't go to the creation of American jobs; Bush had the worst job creation in the last 1/2 century. Those tax cuts went to speculative Wall Street garbage, and the result was catastrophic. Study the "Greenspan Put" so you can stop wasting our time with talk radio bumper stickers]

Meanwhile, consumers, lacking the wages and benefits to buy things, were forced to increasingly rely on credit cards to hold up the consumption economy. When they maxed out their credit cards, they turned to their homes for money. When their homes crashed, they were finally forced to stop consuming. And what happens when nobody goes into shopping malls and buys garbage? Spiraling job loss. [we built a consumption economy from the surplus middle class wealth enabled by postwar wage/benefit policies. Then Reagan got rid of the wage/benefit policies, and freed capital to go to the 3rd world for sweat shop labor, without which Walmart would not exist. So we entered the mid 90s with a consumption economy that required high levels of middle class spending, but we enacted tax, labor, and entitlement reforms which undercut their ability to spend. So we created debt gimmicks to sustain consumption. We used everything from credit cards to our houses to compensate for the fact that the historic surplus on top was not trickling down to middle class demand. And at precisely the moment that we need demand-centered policies, we still have a group of talk radio morons parakeeting economic theories which made sense 30 years ago.

Reaganomics, which was absolutely necessary 30 years ago, has been over-applied. It no longer has the same utility because the problems are different. Capital has nothing solid to invest in (because it lowered the wages a.k.a. buying power of consumers), and the consumer lacks the money to buy even basic staples without unholy amounts of debt.

When surplus capital has nowhere to go but dangerous speculation, you need policies which bolster demand so you can attract investment to the real economy. You need another tool besides supply side economics, which assumes sufficient demand

You keep repeating tired talking points about not taxing job creators. Your criticism of Keynesian economics are old. This no longer 1970 when Labor's advantage over capital created massive efficiency and incentive issues for American capital. Today, however, we have a different problem. American corporations are sitting on more surplus than at any time ever. Their effective tax rate is lower than any advanced industrial nation (corporations like GE and Exxon don't pay taxes; they are heavily subsidized. They own both parties. The wealthiest Americans don't pay income tax; they make their money in Capital Gains, which means they pay far less the middle class. Your posts never mention any of this stuff. Please broaden your information sources).

Giving corporations more tax breaks won't lead to more jobs or innovation. Why? Because you cannot fix a demand problem with tax breaks any more than you can solve inflation by lowering interest rates. 30 years of lowering middle class wages, benefits, and education/health/retirement programs has left them unable to consume. You can't solve this problem the way Reaganomics had always tried to solve it: credit cards for the serfs and tax breaks for the Lords. This recipe has destroyed America. Unless you find a way to recapitalize demand like you recapitalized the suppliers in the 80s, the current problem will only get worse.

Please don't get your economic theory from talk radio. You have been mislead.

I have no idea why you would think I get my Theories from talk radio. You may dis agree with what I say, but talk radio has nothing to do with what I say

To start with corporations do not pay taxes, people do. This should clear up any ideas anyone would have as to where you and I sit in this conversation
Let me make sure you understand this. When a corporation is born, it is a piece of paper. When it dies it is a piece of paper.
When the people that run that corporation sell there product, they add enough cost to the bottom line to cover all taxes. This would include items such as the federal sur tax on fuel of 0.18 cents per gallon
The product in this country such as GM has labor
it has legacy
the it has taxes
when Ford sold there product, they had enough cash to cover there losses, GM did not. Part of that was the tax GM had to pay in the years it made profit

Surplus monies are not being spent for so many reasons I am not sure where to start, but I will try

To start with what sector do we invest in?
If we decide to invest it in the oil shale, wait, that sector is off limits. never mind.
What about the auto industry, never mind BHO inc owns that now.
Toyota would have grown our economy
Ford would have
Honda would have
We went thru 80 billion in cash we did not have instead and the "corporation" is still broke


How about we invest in better refineries that are closer to the oil shale we are extracting? never mind.
What about we open a business that supports these new sectors? and maybe we could build some motels near these areas where these new jobs are going to be exploding like Colorado and Utah and Kentucky.
I am sure we could also invest in the equipment it takes to locate these deep oil deposits that are all over this country. Never mind

How many other sectors out there are just as dead?
the seafood industry comes to mind. they have Killed it in Florida

Allowing millions of acres of Timber to rot and cause major forest fires in our federal lands. places in which could be leased to grow the very things we need to feed people, after the harvest of the timber, done smart, done right, done in a way that people can make a profit
we can grow foods
we can raise livestock
We could grow the corn needed to make Ethanol
then we refine, then we distribute, etc... etc...etc...

The bottom line is I could go on for ever. There is crude in Florida, lots of it. But we would rather have empty houses that dump solid waste into our aquifers when there not empty than a real sector that will for ever be there.

Your quick to judge a man that knows allot more about what were talking about than most people you will ever meet. Money being invested the way you state has no where else to go
If it did that is where it would be. People put money to risk the way some did in the banking sector and in the private market should be in prison
Thats not Obama's fault
Clinton's
Bushes
Reagan's
where do you start
how far do you go
Lying to a banker to borrow is a felony
Loaning money to someone who is lying once, OK, 1,000,000 times, is a felony


Now let us talk about job creation
from 80-08 we created 47 million jobs
from 80-10 the population grew 82 million (legal)
you Liberals keep talking about this job creation monster as though this 5% UE run with no added sectors was suppose to keep going
The housing industry collapsed there is nothing there to replace it
And until the housing market returns, (it's not coming back). Obama gave away 800 billion dollars in months and we still lost 6 million jobs
You think taxes had anything to do with that?

Simply put there is no where for the money to go right now
Thats not Reagan's fault
Taxes created the wealth, regulations and yes taxes has it no where to go
Remember
I sell you a product, I have to add those cost to the bottom line to cover those taxes, some we are going to pay even if we lose the shirt off of our back

 

[bripat9643]

Education doesn't create wealth?

Government education creates stupidity.

 

[JRK]

Education doesn't create wealth?

Absolutely
where does the money come from to support that education?

Well, education CAN create wealth. Engineers have to learn their trade somewhere.
But it doesn't have to. How many gym majors have used their education in their careers?
And whether it is worth it or not is another issue.

I do not dis agree
My point is where does that money come from to pay for that education?

 

[JRK]

JRK.

Capital only invests in job creation when there is sufficient demand. Indeed: when the middle class has money to spend, capital does miraculous things to capture that money (including adding jobs and investing in innovative technology).

When the middle class lacks money (because wages, benefits, and entitlements have been cut in order to enable tax cuts), capital must find different investment opportunities for its surplus. This is what we saw in the post-Reagan, low wage, globalized economy: surplus capital, lacking an incentive to add jobs, was increasingly diverted into speculative instruments (hedge funds, derivatives, etc), which builds dangerous risk into financial markets. This is what we saw during the Clinton and Bush years where the over-concentration of surplus capital ("profits") created by the Reagan tax policies so clearly lacked sufficient investment opportunities in the real economy, which is why it took flight into tech IPO's and mortgage derivatives.

[If you lower the compensation of your workers, you are destroying their ability to buy your products. If they can't buy your stuff, you have no incentive to invest in the real economy (because nobody can buy anything), so you end up with a massive surplus with nowhere to go, which surplus inevitably ends up at Wall Street, which lacks sufficient investment opportunities (because there is no demand). Thus, Wall Street, in order to handle the massive capital surplus of Reaganomics, is pressured to create ever-better returns; therefore, it invents phantom speculative instruments which ultimately destroy the very capital which was meant for investment (-please study the Tech IPOs of the Clinton years, or the credit default swaps of the Bush years). The Bush tax cuts didn't go to the creation of American jobs (because there was no demand to capture); Bush had the worst job creation in the last 1/2 century. Those tax cuts went to speculative Wall Street garbage, and the result was catastrophic. Study the "Greenspan Put"]

but it gets worse....

What happens when consumers lack sufficient wages and benefits to buy things? [Remember: all the money they used to get (in the form of wages, benefits, entitlements, public education, etc) was cut then transferred to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts] The middle class consumer, now without sufficient economic security to consume, must increasingly rely on credit cards to drive consumption. When they max out their credit cards, they turn to their homes for money. When their homes crash they finally stop consuming. And what happens when nobody goes into shopping malls and buys garbage? Spiraling job loss. [we built a consumption economy from the surplus middle class wealth enabled by postwar wage/benefit policies. FDR put money inside the pockets of the middle class, and capitalists were forced to innovate like crazy to get that money. Then Reagan got rid of the wage/benefit policies of FDR, and he (along with Clinton) freed capital to go to the 3rd world for sweat shop labor. The solid jobs that once enabled high levels of consumption were destroyed.

So we entered the mid 90s with a consumption economy that required high levels of middle class spending, but we enacted tax, labor, and entitlement reforms which destroyed the needed demand to drive that economy. So we created debt gimmicks to sustain consumption. We used everything from credit cards to our houses to compensate for the fact that the historic surplus on top was not trickling down to middle class demand. And at precisely the moment that we need demand-centered policies, we still have a group of talk radio morons parakeeting economic theories which made sense 30 years ago.

Reaganomics, which was absolutely necessary 30 years ago, has been over-applied. It no longer has the same utility because the problems are different. Capital has nothing solid to invest in (because it lowered the wages a.k.a. buying power of consumers), while the consumer lacks the money to buy even basic staples without unholy amounts of debt. On the investment side we have dangerous speculation, on the consumption side we have dangerous debt.

When surplus capital has nowhere to go but dangerous speculation (because consumers don't earn enough to consume), you need policies which bolster demand so you can attract investment to the real economy. You need another tool besides supply side economics, which assumes sufficient demand

The OP keeps repeating tired talking points about how we cannot tax job creators. His criticisms of Keynesian economics are old. We get it. But, this is no longer 1970 when Labor's advantage over capital created massive efficiency and competition issues for American capital. Today we have a much different problem. American corporations are sitting on more surplus than at any time since the Gilded Age - and they have benefited from 30 years of deregulation. They have captured every regulatory body through the meticulous application of lobbying pressure. Their effective tax rate is lower than any advanced industrial nation (corporations like GE and Exxon don't pay taxes; they are heavily subsidized. They own both parties. The wealthiest Americans don't pay income tax; they make their money in Capital Gains, which means they pay lower taxes than their workers. The OP never mentions any of this stuff because he gets his information from talk radio rather than non-political peer reviewed sources).

Giving corporations more tax breaks won't lead to more jobs or innovation. Why? Because you cannot fix a demand problem with tax breaks any more than you can solve inflation by lowering interest rates. 30 years of lowering middle class wages, benefits, and education/health/retirement programs has left them unable to consume. You can't solve this problem the way Reaganomics has always tried to solve it: credit cards for the serfs and tax breaks for the Lords. This recipe has destroyed America. Unless you find a way to recapitalize demand like you recapitalized the suppliers in the 80s, the current problem will only get worse.

Please don't get your economic theory from talk radio. You are clogging the debate with garbage

One more thing
I ask the question that every liberal keeps saying to me that higher taxes will create jobs
Again we dumped 800 billion in cash in mere months more than we would have and boom
Clogging the debate?

 

[8537]

JRK.

Capital only invests in job creation when there is sufficient demand. Indeed: when the middle class has money to spend, capital does miraculous things to capture that money (including adding jobs and investing in innovative technology).

When the middle class lacks money (because wages, benefits, and entitlements have been cut in order to enable tax cuts), capital must find different investment opportunities for its surplus. This is what we saw in the post-Reagan, low wage, globalized economy: surplus capital, lacking an incentive to add jobs, was increasingly diverted into speculative instruments (hedge funds, derivatives, etc), which builds dangerous risk into financial markets. This is what we saw during the Clinton and Bush years where the over-concentration of surplus capital ("profits") created by the Reagan tax policies so clearly lacked sufficient investment opportunities in the real economy, which is why it took flight into tech IPO's and mortgage derivatives.

[If you lower the compensation of your workers, you are destroying their ability to buy your products. If they can't buy your stuff, you have no incentive to invest in the real economy (because nobody can buy anything), so you end up with a massive surplus with nowhere to go, which surplus inevitably ends up at Wall Street, which lacks sufficient investment opportunities (because there is no demand). Thus, Wall Street, in order to handle the massive capital surplus of Reaganomics, is pressured to create ever-better returns; therefore, it invents phantom speculative instruments which ultimately destroy the very capital which was meant for investment (-please study the Tech IPOs of the Clinton years, or the credit default swaps of the Bush years). The Bush tax cuts didn't go to the creation of American jobs (because there was no demand to capture); Bush had the worst job creation in the last 1/2 century. Those tax cuts went to speculative Wall Street garbage, and the result was catastrophic. Study the "Greenspan Put"]

but it gets worse....

What happens when consumers lack sufficient wages and benefits to buy things? [Remember: all the money they used to get (in the form of wages, benefits, entitlements, public education, etc) was cut then transferred to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts] The middle class consumer, now without sufficient economic security to consume, must increasingly rely on credit cards to drive consumption. When they max out their credit cards, they turn to their homes for money. When their homes crash they finally stop consuming. And what happens when nobody goes into shopping malls and buys garbage? Spiraling job loss. [we built a consumption economy from the surplus middle class wealth enabled by postwar wage/benefit policies. FDR put money inside the pockets of the middle class, and capitalists were forced to innovate like crazy to get that money. Then Reagan got rid of the wage/benefit policies of FDR, and he (along with Clinton) freed capital to go to the 3rd world for sweat shop labor. The solid jobs that once enabled high levels of consumption were destroyed.

So we entered the mid 90s with a consumption economy that required high levels of middle class spending, but we enacted tax, labor, and entitlement reforms which destroyed the needed demand to drive that economy. So we created debt gimmicks to sustain consumption. We used everything from credit cards to our houses to compensate for the fact that the historic surplus on top was not trickling down to middle class demand. And at precisely the moment that we need demand-centered policies, we still have a group of talk radio morons parakeeting economic theories which made sense 30 years ago.

Reaganomics, which was absolutely necessary 30 years ago, has been over-applied. It no longer has the same utility because the problems are different. Capital has nothing solid to invest in (because it lowered the wages a.k.a. buying power of consumers), while the consumer lacks the money to buy even basic staples without unholy amounts of debt. On the investment side we have dangerous speculation, on the consumption side we have dangerous debt.

When surplus capital has nowhere to go but dangerous speculation (because consumers don't earn enough to consume), you need policies which bolster demand so you can attract investment to the real economy. You need another tool besides supply side economics, which assumes sufficient demand

The OP keeps repeating tired talking points about how we cannot tax job creators. His criticisms of Keynesian economics are old. We get it. But, this is no longer 1970 when Labor's advantage over capital created massive efficiency and competition issues for American capital. Today we have a much different problem. American corporations are sitting on more surplus than at any time since the Gilded Age - and they have benefited from 30 years of deregulation. They have captured every regulatory body through the meticulous application of lobbying pressure. Their effective tax rate is lower than any advanced industrial nation (corporations like GE and Exxon don't pay taxes; they are heavily subsidized. They own both parties. The wealthiest Americans don't pay income tax; they make their money in Capital Gains, which means they pay lower taxes than their workers. The OP never mentions any of this stuff because he gets his information from talk radio rather than non-political peer reviewed sources).

Giving corporations more tax breaks won't lead to more jobs or innovation. Why? Because you cannot fix a demand problem with tax breaks any more than you can solve inflation by lowering interest rates. 30 years of lowering middle class wages, benefits, and education/health/retirement programs has left them unable to consume. You can't solve this problem the way Reaganomics has always tried to solve it: credit cards for the serfs and tax breaks for the Lords. This recipe has destroyed America. Unless you find a way to recapitalize demand like you recapitalized the suppliers in the 80s, the current problem will only get worse.

Please don't get your economic theory from talk radio. You are clogging the debate with garbage

One more thing
I ask the question that every liberal keeps saying to me that higher taxes will create jobs

can you name some of these "every" liberals who are saying that higher taxes will create jobs?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I ask the question that every liberal keeps saying to me that higher taxes will create jobs

You're a lying sack of shit.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What did the stimulus bill cost?

Did it cost 787 billion or not?

Plus interest

288 billion of that was tax cuts/credits. The 'cost' of the stimulus bill cited above is including the cost, in lost revenue, of that 288 billion tax cut.

The point? Anyone using the 700+ billion figure as the cost of the stimulus bill is acknowledging that tax cuts are a cost,

and impact the deficit/debt in the same manner an increase in spending does.

Oh please. You're stuck on stupid.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The theory that consumer spending drives the economy is wrong. The civil servant's salary is money taken from somewhere else, either by taxation or borrowing. The civil servant produces nothing. Ergo money is siphoned from productive uses to unproductive ones.

Exactly. Most of the jobs saved, temporarily, were civil service jobs. There was no growth of the economy. There were no net positive jobs created. It was a costly bandaid, nothing more

That is false. The recession ended in July of 2009, which means that positive economic GROWTH in the economy resumed at that point.

You can believe that if it makes you feel better. It's just not true.
The economy continues to sputter. People are not finding work. The numbers of new applicants for unemployment keeps rising. Consumer confidence is still at decades lows. The price of gas has people shortening or cancelling vacations.
I suppose though that on planet liberal, everything is just peachy.

 

[thereisnospoon]

The stimulus worked.

ignoring the that fact just mkes you look fact adverse

worked..Oh yeah..It put us deeper into debt and temporarily saved a few thousand public sector jobs.
Hey sunshine, what happened to all those "shovel ready projects"?

 

[Truthmatters]

words have definitions and you dont get to change them to suit your historically failed ideas.

 

[Jarhead]

Exactly. Most of the jobs saved, temporarily, were civil service jobs. There was no growth of the economy. There were no net positive jobs created. It was a costly bandaid, nothing more

That is false. The recession ended in July of 2009, which means that positive economic GROWTH in the economy resumed at that point.

You can believe that if it makes you feel better. It's just not true.
The economy continues to sputter. People are not finding work. The numbers of new applicants for unemployment keeps rising. Consumer confidence is still at decades lows. The price of gas has people shortening or cancelling vacations.
I suppose though that on planet liberal, everything is just peachy.

Well, after participating on this board for the last year or so, it seems to me that those that support Mr. Obama have yet to see a single flaw in any move he has made.....so to them, all is peachy. We have a President with a perfect record.

 

[JRK]

JRK.

Capital only invests in job creation when there is sufficient demand. Indeed: when the middle class has money to spend, capital does miraculous things to capture that money (including adding jobs and investing in innovative technology).

When the middle class lacks money (because wages, benefits, and entitlements have been cut in order to enable tax cuts), capital must find different investment opportunities for its surplus. This is what we saw in the post-Reagan, low wage, globalized economy: surplus capital, lacking an incentive to add jobs, was increasingly diverted into speculative instruments (hedge funds, derivatives, etc), which builds dangerous risk into financial markets. This is what we saw during the Clinton and Bush years where the over-concentration of surplus capital ("profits") created by the Reagan tax policies so clearly lacked sufficient investment opportunities in the real economy, which is why it took flight into tech IPO's and mortgage derivatives.

[If you lower the compensation of your workers, you are destroying their ability to buy your products. If they can't buy your stuff, you have no incentive to invest in the real economy (because nobody can buy anything), so you end up with a massive surplus with nowhere to go, which surplus inevitably ends up at Wall Street, which lacks sufficient investment opportunities (because there is no demand). Thus, Wall Street, in order to handle the massive capital surplus of Reaganomics, is pressured to create ever-better returns; therefore, it invents phantom speculative instruments which ultimately destroy the very capital which was meant for investment (-please study the Tech IPOs of the Clinton years, or the credit default swaps of the Bush years). The Bush tax cuts didn't go to the creation of American jobs (because there was no demand to capture); Bush had the worst job creation in the last 1/2 century. Those tax cuts went to speculative Wall Street garbage, and the result was catastrophic. Study the "Greenspan Put"]

but it gets worse....

What happens when consumers lack sufficient wages and benefits to buy things? [Remember: all the money they used to get (in the form of wages, benefits, entitlements, public education, etc) was cut then transferred to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts] The middle class consumer, now without sufficient economic security to consume, must increasingly rely on credit cards to drive consumption. When they max out their credit cards, they turn to their homes for money. When their homes crash they finally stop consuming. And what happens when nobody goes into shopping malls and buys garbage? Spiraling job loss. [we built a consumption economy from the surplus middle class wealth enabled by postwar wage/benefit policies. FDR put money inside the pockets of the middle class, and capitalists were forced to innovate like crazy to get that money. Then Reagan got rid of the wage/benefit policies of FDR, and he (along with Clinton) freed capital to go to the 3rd world for sweat shop labor. The solid jobs that once enabled high levels of consumption were destroyed.

So we entered the mid 90s with a consumption economy that required high levels of middle class spending, but we enacted tax, labor, and entitlement reforms which destroyed the needed demand to drive that economy. So we created debt gimmicks to sustain consumption. We used everything from credit cards to our houses to compensate for the fact that the historic surplus on top was not trickling down to middle class demand. And at precisely the moment that we need demand-centered policies, we still have a group of talk radio morons parakeeting economic theories which made sense 30 years ago.

Reaganomics, which was absolutely necessary 30 years ago, has been over-applied. It no longer has the same utility because the problems are different. Capital has nothing solid to invest in (because it lowered the wages a.k.a. buying power of consumers), while the consumer lacks the money to buy even basic staples without unholy amounts of debt. On the investment side we have dangerous speculation, on the consumption side we have dangerous debt.

When surplus capital has nowhere to go but dangerous speculation (because consumers don't earn enough to consume), you need policies which bolster demand so you can attract investment to the real economy. You need another tool besides supply side economics, which assumes sufficient demand

The OP keeps repeating tired talking points about how we cannot tax job creators. His criticisms of Keynesian economics are old. We get it. But, this is no longer 1970 when Labor's advantage over capital created massive efficiency and competition issues for American capital. Today we have a much different problem. American corporations are sitting on more surplus than at any time since the Gilded Age - and they have benefited from 30 years of deregulation. They have captured every regulatory body through the meticulous application of lobbying pressure. Their effective tax rate is lower than any advanced industrial nation (corporations like GE and Exxon don't pay taxes; they are heavily subsidized. They own both parties. The wealthiest Americans don't pay income tax; they make their money in Capital Gains, which means they pay lower taxes than their workers. The OP never mentions any of this stuff because he gets his information from talk radio rather than non-political peer reviewed sources).

Giving corporations more tax breaks won't lead to more jobs or innovation. Why? Because you cannot fix a demand problem with tax breaks any more than you can solve inflation by lowering interest rates. 30 years of lowering middle class wages, benefits, and education/health/retirement programs has left them unable to consume. You can't solve this problem the way Reaganomics has always tried to solve it: credit cards for the serfs and tax breaks for the Lords. This recipe has destroyed America. Unless you find a way to recapitalize demand like you recapitalized the suppliers in the 80s, the current problem will only get worse.

Please don't get your economic theory from talk radio. You are clogging the debate with garbage

One more thing
I ask the question that every liberal keeps saying to me that higher taxes will create jobs

can you name some of these "every" liberals who are saying that higher taxes will create jobs?

Monday I will look back
Its more about lower taxes do not create jobs, maybe I take that is if we paid more taxes we would have more jobs?
Liberals for some reason have a real issue with our tax rate.
If its only for the rich.

To start with the entire system as I see it is broke
we need a system like Florida/Texas has
How we can we expect to grow this economy by taking more wealth from those very people who feed it?
I am talking the couple that makes 100k a year, not the millionaire
and what about him
The very thing the liberal misses is wealth, how its taxed, where does it go, and how one keeps from losing it

If you pay 39% in income and whatever in capital gains and lets add some for corporate and pay-roll

Purchasing a company just like GM s not going to make that happen
Investing millions into the oil industry just to have a judge who feels it is his place in life to legislate from the bench, is not happening

Your talking to of the largest sectors we have and they are both broke
what about Power? why the nukes that are in a row to be approved are in a row to be approved?
what about Obama-care?
Was it the right time to even start that?

 

[Truthmatters]

If you would get your side to quit spreading lies that we must fight then maybe we could find some time to find real fault.

Many on here have already stated dissatisfaction with some of his moves.

You only hear what you want to hear.