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

[NYcarbineer]

Raising Taxes does not create a single Job. Case Closed.

Every person in the military holds a job that was created by the government and is paid for by taxes.

Every person in the private sector whose company does work for the government is getting all or part of their job from tax money.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Uh, no.
I can look at the claims made for the stimulus before it was passed and compare that to what actually happened. When the results fall far far short of what was promised I can say categorically the program was a failure.
I did not declare that assumptions render a study invalid. You are reading things that aren't there.

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.

Then you never said the above, highlighted in blue?

lol

I would explain it to you but then I'd have to explain the explanation. And then explain the explanation of the explanation.
And you still wouldn't get it.

I get that you're lying and I am waiting for you to show us that promise.

You can also show us where the economy would have went without the stimulus, without any assumptions please,

if you want to prove the stimulus was a failure.

 

[JRK]

You are actually going to post that nonsense? That government spending creates wealth?
Really?!!!!
Give some specific examples of a government program that creates wealth and while it does, operates under or at budget and on time.

Are you claiming that the govt creates wealth by taking wealth away from people, wait, let me try it this way
everything you list the is wealth that has been provided by the tax payer
The tax payer paid for that education, not the govt
the govt does not create wealth
It takes wealth

So the taxpayers create wealth.

So taxation has a legitimate role in creating wealth in this country.

Aha
Now your catching on
why do I need to give my wealth to someone else to create wealth?
Why do I have to give my wealth to Barrack Obama to create wealth?

 

[The Rabbi]

Raising Taxes does not create a single Job. Case Closed.

Every person in the military holds a job that was created by the government and is paid for by taxes.

Every person in the private sector whose company does work for the government is getting all or part of their job from tax money.

But where does the gov't get its money? From the taxpayer. It deprives the private economy of funds that could be used to create more jobs, more efficiently too I might add.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Understand what?

Lunacy?

The Bush tax cuts blew the deficit sky high and did almost nothing to stimulate the economy. In fact..his administration encouraged some extremely dangerous behavior that nearly caused a total collapse of the US economy.

There are billions of uncollected tax dollars..and thats basically in the form of tax cheat tax dollars that could be gotten if congress funded the IRS properly. They don't want to do that. Why? Because it's the wealthiest of Americans that are sitting on the little pot of gold.

Spending blew the deficit sky high. .

Spending that would have been PAID FOR had the tax cuts not been imposed.

Nope. But nice spin though.
Spending is a voluntary action which can be controlled by the realization that if one has $1 they cannot spend $1.20. This is our federal government's main problem with fiscal discipline. Or lack thereof.
BTW, using the CBO predictor of 10 year budget deficit of nearly $14 trillion dollars, if the federal government decided to wipe out the deficit in one massive act, the entire net worth of every person, business, property and asset would have to e confiscated to pay the deficit off.
Based on that and that alone, it is clear that our federal government has a massive problem with fiscal discipline.

 

[JRK]

Raising Taxes does not create a single Job. Case Closed.

Every person in the military holds a job that was created by the government and is paid for by taxes.

Every person in the private sector whose company does work for the government is getting all or part of their job from tax money.

every person that is in the military is being paid by the tax payer
the tax payer
me
you
Exxon
created that job
not the Govt.

 

[JRK]

I will say some are starting to catch on
The US govt has a place in our lives as the founding fathers intended it to be
for the people, by the people

Where Obama is so far of course is the stimulus. It is not his place in life to take wealth from you and I and Give that wealth to those he chooses to
thats not the intent of our government

What he did with his 1/2 of tarp was allot worse
GM and GMAC ended up with over 70 billion dollars of our wealth
And the Lib cusses Exon? a company that gave part of there wealth so Obama could give it to GM with out congress saying a word
How do you think Toyota felt? building Trucks in Texas

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Then you never said the above, highlighted in blue?

lol

I would explain it to you but then I'd have to explain the explanation. And then explain the explanation of the explanation.
And you still wouldn't get it.

I get that you're lying and I am waiting for you to show us that promise.

You can also show us where the economy would have went without the stimulus, without any assumptions please,

if you want to prove the stimulus was a failure.

The promise was to keep unemployment in real numbers at or under 8%. The other promise was the federal stimulus would create permanent jobs. The next promise was that the stimulus would fund "shovel ready jobs". By Obama's own admission it did not.
The federal stimulus had but one purpose. That was to keep government workers working. None of the money went to the private sector.
The bailout of GM and Chrysler was not part of the stimulus. The TARP bailout for the banks has largely been repaid. Repaid with government protesting the repayment.
Look, government grants, lends and gives money to public and private enterprise for one reason, to have some degree of control over them. With money comes responsibility.
For example, when the federal government offers subsidies to farmers, the trade off is the federal government gets to tell the farmers what crop they can plant and what they can sell. When the federal government subsidizes school lunch programs, it gets to determine to some degree the way schools are run even at the local level. For example Title IX. Believe it or not, private schools which receive no federal or state money are exempt from federal and state regulations. I think, I could be wrong but the only caveat is private schools must meet certain basic state requirements in order to be accredited. After that private schools are on their own.

 

[8537]

You are actually going to post that nonsense? That government spending creates wealth?
Really?!!!!
Give some specific examples of a government program that creates wealth and while it does, operates under or at budget and on time.

The US patent office.

Have a nice day.

 

[Care4all]

People laugh at what they don't understand.

Understand what?

Lunacy?

The Bush tax cuts blew the deficit sky high and did almost nothing to stimulate the economy. In fact..his administration encouraged some extremely dangerous behavior that nearly caused a total collapse of the US economy.

There are billions of uncollected tax dollars..and thats basically in the form of tax cheat tax dollars that could be gotten if congress funded the IRS properly. They don't want to do that. Why? Because it's the wealthiest of Americans that are sitting on the little pot of gold.

Bush blew nothing sky hi
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures | The Foundry
tax rates had nothing to do with the debt
9-11
2 wars (yes there numbers are there with the debt)
2 recessions (one from Clinton, a slow down by definition)
Dot com bubble busting
housing bubble
financial collapse, tarp
There is all of GWB debt and then some and tax rates had nothing to do with any of those events except for maybe helping some people hold onto there homes

president bush did not put the afghan war or the iraq war in his budget, nor did he put the amounts shoveled out for Katrina in his budget, nor did he put any emergency spending on things like forest fire relief in his budget....

so you can not get a clear picture on what president Bush's deficits were because he masked them with what he called "supplemental spending"....the ONLY way to compare apples to apples is to look at the National debt each fiscal year for the 8 years that president Bush was in office....his 8 year term added near $6 TRILLION to the national debt....his last yearly deficit was over a trillion dollars....this is what Barak had to begin with...a running deficit of over a trillion dollars a year...while President Bush began with a running surplus of a couple of hundred billion a year and ended with a budget producing trillion dollar deficits.....and handed that to Obama....

you guys just are not thinking things through....

also, President Bush had the luxury of using some of the highest revenue years of social security for what Income taxes should have been paying....

 

[The Rabbi]

Understand what?

Lunacy?

The Bush tax cuts blew the deficit sky high and did almost nothing to stimulate the economy. In fact..his administration encouraged some extremely dangerous behavior that nearly caused a total collapse of the US economy.

There are billions of uncollected tax dollars..and thats basically in the form of tax cheat tax dollars that could be gotten if congress funded the IRS properly. They don't want to do that. Why? Because it's the wealthiest of Americans that are sitting on the little pot of gold.

Bush blew nothing sky hi
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures | The Foundry
tax rates had nothing to do with the debt
9-11
2 wars (yes there numbers are there with the debt)
2 recessions (one from Clinton, a slow down by definition)
Dot com bubble busting
housing bubble
financial collapse, tarp
There is all of GWB debt and then some and tax rates had nothing to do with any of those events except for maybe helping some people hold onto there homes

president bush did not put the afghan war or the iraq war in his budget, nor did he put the amounts shoveled out for Katrina in his budget, nor did he put any emergency spending on things like forest fire relief in his budget....

so you can not get a clear picture on what president Bush's deficits were because he masked them with what he called "supplemental spending"....the ONLY way to compare apples to apples is to look at the National debt each fiscal year for the 8 years that president Bush was in office....his 8 year term added near $6 TRILLION to the national debt....his last yearly deficit was over a trillion dollars....this is what Barak had to begin with...a running deficit of over a trillion dollars a year...while President Bush began with a running surplus of a couple of hundred billion a year and ended with a budget producing trillion dollar deficits.....and handed that to Obama....

you guys just are not thinking things through....

also, President Bush had the luxury of using some of the highest revenue years of social security for what Income taxes should have been paying....

All of that is a lie.
You have this annoying history of posting bullshit and then when disproven you disappear and refuse to acknowledge you were wrong.
Why should anyone take you seriously?

 

[Sallow]

Bush blew nothing sky hi
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures | The Foundry
tax rates had nothing to do with the debt
9-11
2 wars (yes there numbers are there with the debt)
2 recessions (one from Clinton, a slow down by definition)
Dot com bubble busting
housing bubble
financial collapse, tarp
There is all of GWB debt and then some and tax rates had nothing to do with any of those events except for maybe helping some people hold onto there homes

president bush did not put the afghan war or the iraq war in his budget, nor did he put the amounts shoveled out for Katrina in his budget, nor did he put any emergency spending on things like forest fire relief in his budget....

so you can not get a clear picture on what president Bush's deficits were because he masked them with what he called "supplemental spending"....the ONLY way to compare apples to apples is to look at the National debt each fiscal year for the 8 years that president Bush was in office....his 8 year term added near $6 TRILLION to the national debt....his last yearly deficit was over a trillion dollars....this is what Barak had to begin with...a running deficit of over a trillion dollars a year...while President Bush began with a running surplus of a couple of hundred billion a year and ended with a budget producing trillion dollar deficits.....and handed that to Obama....

you guys just are not thinking things through....

also, President Bush had the luxury of using some of the highest revenue years of social security for what Income taxes should have been paying....

All of that is a lie.
You have this annoying history of posting bullshit and then when disproven you disappear and refuse to acknowledge you were wrong.
Why should anyone take you seriously?

No it's not.

It's exactly correct.

 

[8537]

Spending blew the deficit sky high. .

Spending that would have been PAID FOR had the tax cuts not been imposed.

Nope. But nice spin though.
Spending is a voluntary action which can be controlled by the realization that if one has $1 they cannot spend $1.20. This is our federal government's main problem with fiscal discipline. Or lack thereof.
BTW, using the CBO predictor of 10 year budget deficit of nearly $14 trillion dollars, if the federal government decided to wipe out the deficit in one massive act, the entire net worth of every person, business, property and asset would have to e confiscated to pay the deficit off.
Based on that and that alone, it is clear that our federal government has a massive problem with fiscal discipline.

You're claiming that the total net worth of the all domestic assets is 14 trillion dollars?

 

[The Rabbi]

You are actually going to post that nonsense? That government spending creates wealth?
Really?!!!!
Give some specific examples of a government program that creates wealth and while it does, operates under or at budget and on time.

The US patent office.

Have a nice day.

You might have mentioned Bureau of Weights and Measures.
But all of that accounts for about 0.0000001% of gov't expenditures.
And those aren't exactly gov't programs but constitutionally-mandated functions.

 

[JRK]

I would explain it to you but then I'd have to explain the explanation. And then explain the explanation of the explanation.
And you still wouldn't get it.

I get that you're lying and I am waiting for you to show us that promise.

You can also show us where the economy would have went without the stimulus, without any assumptions please,

if you want to prove the stimulus was a failure.

The promise was to keep unemployment in real numbers at or under 8%. The other promise was the federal stimulus would create permanent jobs. The next promise was that the stimulus would fund "shovel ready jobs". By Obama's own admission it did not.
The federal stimulus had but one purpose. That was to keep government workers working. None of the money went to the private sector.
The bailout of GM and Chrysler was not part of the stimulus. The TARP bailout for the banks has largely been repaid. Repaid with government protesting the repayment.
Look, government grants, lends and gives money to public and private enterprise for one reason, to have some degree of control over them. With money comes responsibility.
For example, when the federal government offers subsidies to farmers, the trade off is the federal government gets to tell the farmers what crop they can plant and what they can sell. When the federal government subsidizes school lunch programs, it gets to determine to some degree the way schools are run even at the local level. For example Title IX. Believe it or not, private schools which receive no federal or state money are exempt from federal and state regulations. I think, I could be wrong but the only caveat is private schools must meet certain basic state requirements in order to be accredited. After that private schools are on their own.

The stimulus was exactly what you stated it was. We where lied to
GM has not paid back shit, I am tired of hearing that lie, with respect and in detail
Debate Rages On: Did Uncle Sam's $50 Billion Bailout of GM Work? [Michigan Capitol Confidential]
Pretty much agreed upon 50 billion, to start
ut Grassley said in his letter that a Securities and Exchange Commission form filed by GM showed that $6.7 billion of the tens of billions the company received was sitting in an escrow account and available to be used for repayment. He called on Geithner to provide more information about why the company was allowed to use bailout money to repay bailout money, and how much of the remaining escrow money GM would be allowed to keep.

"The bottom line seems to be that the TARP loans were 'repaid' with other TARP funds in a Treasury escrow account. The TARP loans were not repaid from money GM is earning selling cars, as GM and the administration have claimed in their speeches, press releases and television commercials," he wrote.


Read more: Grassley Slams GM, Administration Over Loans Repaid With Bailout Money - FoxNews.com

where up to 57 billion now

What about GMAC?
GMAC is a diversified financial services firm that derives its revenues from automotive finance, where it holds a dominant position, as well as mortgage operations, insurance operations, and commercial finance. The U.S. government has spent a total of $17.2 billion to support GMAC under the TARP. GMAC received funds on three separate occasions, spanning both the Bush and Obama Administrations. As part of the government bail-out effort, GMAC has received special treatment apart from the funds in order to meet the capital buffers established under the bank "stress tests" because it could not raise funds from private sources. This book examines the unique treatment given GMAC under the TARP.
https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=15650&osCsid=b

we now are at 74 billion

and to date we have 11-19 billion back
there is so much spin about this subject, you can find as hi as 23 billion

this is from GMs web site
GM stock sale sends $11.7B to Treasury - GM Inside News Forum

25 billion makes you 50 short

 

[Care4all]

Bush blew nothing sky hi
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures | The Foundry
tax rates had nothing to do with the debt
9-11
2 wars (yes there numbers are there with the debt)
2 recessions (one from Clinton, a slow down by definition)
Dot com bubble busting
housing bubble
financial collapse, tarp
There is all of GWB debt and then some and tax rates had nothing to do with any of those events except for maybe helping some people hold onto there homes

president bush did not put the afghan war or the iraq war in his budget, nor did he put the amounts shoveled out for Katrina in his budget, nor did he put any emergency spending on things like forest fire relief in his budget....

so you can not get a clear picture on what president Bush's deficits were because he masked them with what he called "supplemental spending"....the ONLY way to compare apples to apples is to look at the National debt each fiscal year for the 8 years that president Bush was in office....his 8 year term added near $6 TRILLION to the national debt....his last yearly deficit was over a trillion dollars....this is what Barak had to begin with...a running deficit of over a trillion dollars a year...while President Bush began with a running surplus of a couple of hundred billion a year and ended with a budget producing trillion dollar deficits.....and handed that to Obama....

you guys just are not thinking things through....

also, President Bush had the luxury of using some of the highest revenue years of social security for what Income taxes should have been paying....

All of that is a lie.
You have this annoying history of posting bullshit and then when disproven you disappear and refuse to acknowledge you were wrong.
Why should anyone take you seriously?

NONE absolutely NONE of that is a lie....

feel free to show us all, the lie....

i'll be waiting...........

 

[8537]

You are actually going to post that nonsense? That government spending creates wealth?
Really?!!!!
Give some specific examples of a government program that creates wealth and while it does, operates under or at budget and on time.

The US patent office.

Have a nice day.

You might have mentioned Bureau of Weights and Measures.
But all of that accounts for about 0.0000001% of gov't expenditures.
And those aren't exactly gov't programs but constitutionally-mandated functions.

Well sure. Now we're agreeing that government has a role in creating wealth and debating the details of that fact.

you could add The Department of Defense, which offers a macro version of the private property protections offered by the patent office.

 

[The Rabbi]

The US patent office.

Have a nice day.

You might have mentioned Bureau of Weights and Measures.
But all of that accounts for about 0.0000001% of gov't expenditures.
And those aren't exactly gov't programs but constitutionally-mandated functions.

Well sure. Now we're agreeing that government has a role in creating wealth and debating the details of that fact.

you could add The Department of Defense, which offers a macro version of the private property protections offered by the patent office.

No, you couldn't.
The percentage of defense expenditures that actually secures private property is tiny. The rest of it goes for "national interests" which is mandated but not directly related to securing rights.
Gov't can create conditions for wealth creation, like courts etc. But it cannot create wealth.

 

[Rozman]

All I know is there isn't a tax the Libs don't like.

 

[JRK]

Understand what?

Lunacy?

The Bush tax cuts blew the deficit sky high and did almost nothing to stimulate the economy. In fact..his administration encouraged some extremely dangerous behavior that nearly caused a total collapse of the US economy.

There are billions of uncollected tax dollars..and thats basically in the form of tax cheat tax dollars that could be gotten if congress funded the IRS properly. They don't want to do that. Why? Because it's the wealthiest of Americans that are sitting on the little pot of gold.

Bush blew nothing sky hi
Budget 2011: Past Deficits vs. Obama’s Deficits in Pictures | The Foundry
tax rates had nothing to do with the debt
9-11
2 wars (yes there numbers are there with the debt)
2 recessions (one from Clinton, a slow down by definition)
Dot com bubble busting
housing bubble
financial collapse, tarp
There is all of GWB debt and then some and tax rates had nothing to do with any of those events except for maybe helping some people hold onto there homes

president bush did not put the afghan war or the iraq war in his budget, nor did he put the amounts shoveled out for Katrina in his budget, nor did he put any emergency spending on things like forest fire relief in his budget....

so you can not get a clear picture on what president Bush's deficits were because he masked them with what he called "supplemental spending"....the ONLY way to compare apples to apples is to look at the National debt each fiscal year for the 8 years that president Bush was in office....his 8 year term added near $6 TRILLION to the national debt....his last yearly deficit was over a trillion dollars....this is what Barak had to begin with...a running deficit of over a trillion dollars a year...while President Bush began with a running surplus of a couple of hundred billion a year and ended with a budget producing trillion dollar deficits.....and handed that to Obama....

you guys just are not thinking things through....

also, President Bush had the luxury of using some of the highest revenue years of social security for what Income taxes should have been paying....

MAM THE WARS ARE INCLUDED IN GWB TOTAL DEBT
THEY WHERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE REGULAR BUDGET
The above graph does include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is of course included in the numbers above.
The Bush Deficit, the Clinton Surplus and TARP by Gregory Hilton | The DC World Affairs Blog
YOU WANT TO ADD INTREST TO IT, FINE
THEN OBAMA HAS ADDED CLOSE TO 6 TRILLION DOLLARS IN 2 YEARS
HIGHEST REVENUE FOR SOCIAL SECURITY?
YOU MEAN CLINTON RIGHT?
The Myth of the Clinton Surplus
In the late 1990s, the government was running what it -- and a largely unquestioning Washington press corps -- called budget "surpluses." But the national debt still increased in every single one of those years because the government was borrowing money to create the "surpluses."
So the table itself, according to the figures issued yesterday, showed the Federal Government ran a surplus. Absolutely false. This reporter ought to do his work. This crowd never has asked for or kept up with or checked the facts. Eric Planin--all he has to do is not spread rumors or get into the political message. Both Democrats and Republicans are all running this year and next and saying surplus, surplus. Look what we have done. It is false. The actual figures show that from the beginning of the fiscal year until now we had to borrow $127,800,000,000. - Democratic Senator Ernest Hollings, October 28, 1999
An overall "downsizing" of government and a virtual end to the arms race have contributed to the surplus, but the vast majority is coming from excess Social Security taxes being paid by the workforce in an attempt to keep Social Security benefit checks coming once the "baby-boomers" start to retire.
Of the $142 billion surplus projected by the end of 2000, $137 billion will come from excess Social Security taxes.
When these unified budget numbers are separated into Social Security and non-Social Security components, however, it becomes evident that all of the projected surplus throughout this period is attributable to Social Security. The remainder of the budget will remain in deficit throughout the next decade.
Despite a revenue shortfall, full benefits are expected to be paid out between 2017 and 2041. The system will draw on its trust fund, a collection of special-issue bonds from the government, which borrowed prodigiously from the program's surplus over the years. But since the country is already running a deficit, the government will have to borrow more money to pay back its debt to Social Security. That's a little like giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
The surplus deception is clearly discernible in the statistics of national debt. While the spenders are boasting about surpluses, the national debt is rising year after year. In 1998, the first year of the legerdemain surplus, it rose from $5.413 trillion to $5.526 trillion, due to a deficit of $112.9 billion... The federal government spends Social Security money and other trust funds which constitute obligations to present and future recipients. It consumes them and thereby incurs obligations as binding as those to the owners of savings bonds. Yet, the Treasury treats them as revenue and hails them for generating surpluses. If a private banker were to treat trust fund deposits as income and profit, he would face criminal charges.