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

[The Rabbi]

For all of you Fox viewers, and Limbaugh listeners.....

Congressional Budget Office - Economic Stimulus

Read what CBO says yourself.

You should try reading it yourself, assuming you can actually read. Because it says explicitly on Oage 12 that they are making assumptions to arrive at the results.
Further, they also say earlier on that they rely on self-reporting from stimulus recipients.

You'd prefer economic modeling without assumptions?

I prefer theories that can be tested. Theirs is reality-proof. Like you.
Are you angling to get pwned in yet another discussion with me?
When will you ever learn??

 

[NYcarbineer]

You should try reading it yourself, assuming you can actually read. Because it says explicitly on Oage 12 that they are making assumptions to arrive at the results.
Further, they also say earlier on that they rely on self-reporting from stimulus recipients.

You'd prefer economic modeling without assumptions?

I prefer theories that can be tested. Theirs is reality-proof. Like you.
Are you angling to get pwned in yet another discussion with me?
When will you ever learn??

So by your requirements, no one can prove the stimulus worked OR didn't work.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If lower taxes will create jobs, why didn't we wipe out the deficit with the Bush cuts?

BEcause Democrats were in charge of Congress for thge last two years?

If the Bush tax cuts were so awful then why did the solidly Democratic Congress pass their extension, signed by the Democratic President?

What did the Democrats have to do with it? Specifically.

PS, the Bush tax cuts were extended because Democrats stupidly acted like Republicans.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Because education is a necessary but not sufficient condition to create wealth. Doubtless that's too subtle for your limited brain.
But Spoon is correct that the fedgov's involvement in education has made things worse, not better. Abolish the Dept of Education.

The original claim was that the government cannot create wealth. That would mean the the US public school system does not add any value to our economy.

That is daft.

Sir/Mam
The Us government does not create anything
the tax payer does
The rich
the middle class
Exxon
those who put part of there wealth into the pot, helps create that welath
every penny of it

IT IS 100% OF THE REASON WHY THIS COUNTRY CAN ELECT AN OBAMA, NO DIS RESPECT BUT IT IS FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE

That's retarded. The government is funded by taxes to CREATE wealth in certain areas, such as education, infrastructure, law enforcement, anywhere the government action adds value to the economy.

Your semantics are comical.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, you have your mind made up and refuse to see logic even though it is right in front of you.
You stated that "education creates wealth"....
It does not. "Take the horse to the water".
It is the result of what one does with their education that creates wealth.

BTW, it was the Washington DC school district that offered tax breaks or school vouchers to allow inner city kids to go to better schools. Obama cancelled that program.
Most folks who support school vouchers are minority parents who are disgusted with shitty public schools that are riddled with disciplinary and crime problems.
Quite frankly I want government to leave education to the private sector. That's why I support charter schools. I think the US Dept of Education should cease to exist and all of it's employees permitted to seek work in the private sector. The federal government has no business meddling in the affairs of local school districts.\
Now if you want to get into a insult pissing contest you WILL LOSE. I will bury you. I advise you to take care in your tone.
This is a discussion. Not a bar room brawl.

Ok, imbecile, if education doesn't create wealth, why does anyone care that our foreign competitors might be doing a better job educating their young people.

Why do you care if DC has shitty schools if education doesn't create wealth?

Because education is a necessary but not sufficient condition to create wealth. Doubtless that's too subtle for your limited brain.
But Spoon is correct that the fedgov's involvement in education has made things worse, not better. Abolish the Dept of Education.

No it's not too subtle is just stupidity on your part trying desperately to deny a simple fact. Government funded education creates wealth, period.

The net effect of education is an increase in the average economic value of the average educated individual, versus the average uneducated individual,

so the net result is the net increase in the nation's wealth.

If you think ending all public education in this country tomorrow would not have a detrimental effect on this nation's wealth in the future, you're simply ignorant.

 

[Douger]

It worked as planned.
PRO MEXICO
Another
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pczGghB8MKg]YouTube - ‪detnews.com - Ford's most advanced assembly plant operates in rural Brazil‬‏[/ame]
Another
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kM2IIWARUY0]YouTube - ‪GM's China Vision‬‏[/ame]
More
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBjqdtc9Xt4]YouTube - ‪Ford India Plant Visit By Motorbeam‬‏[/ame]

There are two parties. You aren't invited to either one.

 

[Sallow]

The stimulus raised taxes?

That's a new one.

 

[The Rabbi]

You'd prefer economic modeling without assumptions?

I prefer theories that can be tested. Theirs is reality-proof. Like you.
Are you angling to get pwned in yet another discussion with me?
When will you ever learn??

So by your requirements, no one can prove the stimulus worked OR didn't work.

By my requiremeents you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[8537]

You should try reading it yourself, assuming you can actually read. Because it says explicitly on Oage 12 that they are making assumptions to arrive at the results.
Further, they also say earlier on that they rely on self-reporting from stimulus recipients.

You'd prefer economic modeling without assumptions?

I prefer theories that can be tested.

All of the modeling systems used by the CBO can be tested.

Are you angling to get pwned in yet another discussion with me?
When will you ever learn??

Quit acting like such an ignorant 12 year old.

 

[JRK]

You'd prefer economic modeling without assumptions?

I prefer theories that can be tested.

All of the modeling systems used by the CBO can be tested.

Are you angling to get pwned in yet another discussion with me?
When will you ever learn??

Quit acting like such an ignorant 12 year old.

The CBO model, test?
The stimulus was suppose to save or create 3.5 million jobs
President Barack Obama has repeatedly claimed that his economic stimulus bill will "create or save" 3.5 million new jobs by 2011, including 600,000 jobs "created or saved" by the end of this summer. It is impossible to hold the President accountable to these promises because there is no way of measuring "jobs saved." However, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does closely monitor the state of the labor market, including job creation, job-loss rates, and the total number of hours worked.
Obama's Plan to "Create or Save" Jobs: A Promise Unfulfilled | The Heritage Foundation
It is now the summer of 2011 and we are at a place that has 6 million jobs fewer than we did in 2008, December 31
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406
2009...... 130,807 108,252 18,557 694 6,016 11,847

2010...... 129,818 107,337 17,755 705 5,526 11,524
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

Exactly what are you missing here?

Now let us talk about higher taxes
What do you think people like me are up in arms about?
those of us who actually pay taxes and paid taxes under Bill Clinton know exactly what it is that higher taxes mean

Ok, how do we pay for this failed stimulus and the monies the UAW got from the Tax payer?
we are talking close to 650 billion dollars there alone

 

[Care4all]

Surely you are not saying that obama could have changed the direction of how unemployment rates were trending by the end of his first month or two in office. We do NOT live in a vacuume and at the end of obama's first full month in office, our unemployment rate was 9.3%....THIS IS WHAT Obama was dealt....8.5% unemployment rate in January, and 9.3% by the end of his first month there....

sheesh, you guys are playing dumb for partisan purposes ONLY.

 

[8537]

I prefer theories that can be tested.

All of the modeling systems used by the CBO can be tested.

Are you angling to get pwned in yet another discussion with me?
When will you ever learn??

Quit acting like such an ignorant 12 year old.

The CBO model, test?
The stimulus was suppose to save or create 3.5 million jobs

According to the CBO, it has saved or created between 1.4 and 3.6 million jobs.

Moody's Analytics reaches a similar conclusion.

MacroEconomic Advisors reaches a similar conclusion.

It is impossible to hold the President accountable to these promises because there is no way of measuring "jobs saved."

Of course you can - you can ask the recipients.

Now let us talk about higher taxes
What do you think people like me are up in arms about?
those of us who actually pay taxes and paid taxes under Bill Clinton know exactly what it is that higher taxes mean

I genuinely care less what you're "up in arms" about.

 

[Care4all]

those at the very top that paid higher taxes under Bill clinton, did NOT skip a beat, and got much wealthier JRK!

 

[Care4all]

Lower taxes under President Bush, got us nowhere but in debt up to our eyeballs, a recession bigger than anyone could imagine...

if the Republicans had cut spending equal to their tax cuts, then maybe we would not have been set up for this failure, as far as I am concerned.

it took until 2005 to collect as much in income tax revenues as we were collecting in the year 2000..... so for 5 years sstraight we collected less in income tax revenues before we saw an increase in revenues, which tells me that this time, tax breaks DID NOT WORK, did NOT pay for themselves.

If no tax laws are changed, year to year we would naturally collect more in revenues than the previous year based on our yearly growth in the economy...tax cuts did nothing under president Bush to grow the economy...nada.

What grew the economy under president Bush was the housing market and extra low interest rates, and the refinancing or home equity being taken out of everyone's homes that was used to buy things...is what grew the economy...the stupid housing BUBBLE.....to think otherwise, is foolish imho.

 

[Sallow]

Again.

Where are the Higher Taxes?

Prove it.

 

[JRK]

those at the very top that paid higher taxes under Bill clinton, did NOT skip a beat, and got much wealthier JRK!

What does that have to do with wasting someones else's wealth?
What we are up in arms about is I am not rich
My tax bill will increase3-4000 a year when we go back to Clinton's rate, we can say If
but that was not Obama's original intent
thats been a saving of 35,000 for me
there are millions of us in that bracket

The "rich" are not the ones these wasted trillions are going to hurt

 

[Care4all]

those at the very top that paid higher taxes under Bill clinton, did NOT skip a beat, and got much wealthier JRK!

What does that have to do with wasting someones else's wealth?
What we are up in arms about is I am not rich
My tax bill will increase3-4000 a year when we go back to Clinton's rate, we can say If
but that was not Obama's original intent
thats been a saving of 35,000 for me
there are millions of us in that bracket

The "rich" are not the ones these wasted trillions are going to hurt

if you are not rich, and do not have kids, your tax rate can not possibly go up that much if the tax code reverts.

Most people are not advocating raising taxes on the every day joe...EXCEPT REPUBLICANS/conservatives like diamond Dave and Willow, who are pissed that some people pay no income tax once they take all of their deductions and child tax credits. they want to take these child tax credits away... everyone with children's tax burden would go way up, if that happens.

 

[The Rabbi]

You'd prefer economic modeling without assumptions?

I prefer theories that can be tested.

All of the modeling systems used by the CBO can be tested.

.

They state explicitly that they are using assumptions as to how many jobs a given amount of gov't spending will produce. A nd then they project the number of jobs based on how much was spent.
None of that correlates to the real world.
The CBO's numbers are bunk.

The Stimulus was a gross failure, the biggest of its kind. Obama claimed it would do all sorts of things and it didnt. If he had said when he was selling it, "Pass this stimulus and in 2 years we will have 9% unemployment and unsustainable national debt" how many people would have voted for it?

 

[The Rabbi]

those at the very top that paid higher taxes under Bill clinton, did NOT skip a beat, and got much wealthier JRK!

What does that have to do with wasting someones else's wealth?
What we are up in arms about is I am not rich
My tax bill will increase3-4000 a year when we go back to Clinton's rate, we can say If
but that was not Obama's original intent
thats been a saving of 35,000 for me
there are millions of us in that bracket

The "rich" are not the ones these wasted trillions are going to hurt

if you are not rich, and do not have kids, your tax rate can not possibly go up that much if the tax code reverts.

Most people are not advocating raising taxes on the every day joe...EXCEPT REPUBLICANS/conservatives like diamond Dave and Willow, who are pissed that some people pay no income tax once they take all of their deductions and child tax credits. they want to take these child tax credits away... everyone with children's tax burden would go way up, if that happens.

The middle class is where the money is. Taxing the rich (whoever they are) even more will not solve the budget problem.

 

[JRK]

Lower taxes under President Bush, got us nowhere but in debt up to our eyeballs, a recession bigger than anyone could imagine...

if the Republicans had cut spending equal to their tax cuts, then maybe we would not have been set up for this failure, as far as I am concerned.

it took until 2005 to collect as much in income tax revenues as we were collecting in the year 2000..... so for 5 years sstraight we collected less in income tax revenues before we saw an increase in revenues, which tells me that this time, tax breaks DID NOT WORK, did NOT pay for themselves.

If no tax laws are changed, year to year we would naturally collect more in revenues than the previous year based on our yearly growth in the economy...tax cuts did nothing under president Bush to grow the economy...nada.

What grew the economy under president Bush was the housing market and extra low interest rates, and the refinancing or home equity being taken out of everyone's homes that was used to buy things...is what grew the economy...the stupid housing BUBBLE.....to think otherwise, is foolish imho.

Tax rates had nothing to do with 9-11 and those events that took place after 9-11
2 recessions had nothing to do with tax rates, except for helping the economy in 03 thru 07
Tax rates had nothing to do with 6 major storms including Katrina
Tax Rates has nothing to do with the housing crises, the dor com bubble nor did it have anything to do with the meltdown in 08

GWB added about 2.5 trillion to the debt
those events above is where that debt came from in lost revenue and expenditures
not tax cuts
One can debate Iraq, but if so then the cost of the bases in Kuwait and Saudi that are closed would have added to the debt

Your claim on interest rates has some validity, but is as usual spun
its was 4-8% under GWB
It is now at 4
http://www.moneycafe.com/library/primeratehistory.htm