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

[The Rabbi]

Wow. Just wow. I didnt think anyone could be that ignorant about economics and still be able to make change from a dime. But I guess I was wrong.
So your position is that by spending trillions of dollars today (which have to be borrowed and thus accrue interest payments) we are better off than if we hadn't spent the money.

Yes.

Take Steve Jobs: Was he made better off by going into debt?

Was the US better off after deficit spending in 1941?

As I said, I carry misconceptions that you might actually understand the economics involved. I also know that any attempt to explain it would be met with your usual stupidity and name calling.

Other people get it. You don't, and it's not my concern.

Yes! You win the trifecta of stupid! Comparing a gov't program of nothing more than transfer payments to Steve Jobs building a company. You are truly and honestly the most ignorant 'tard here. RDean is a genius compared to you.
I suppose those who invested with Bernie Madoff are much better off now too!
Hoot. What a retard. Unbelievable.

 

[8537]

it is not difficult to create public sector jobs with tax payer money when you dont need to be acoutnable for head count...and profitibility per head

The stimulus did not "create" necessary jobs...it simply gave reasons for people to get a paycheck.

The private sector has been creating jobs for well over a year.

yes...a natural occurance created by the need for replacement goods and services.

It happens after a recession all the time.

People can go with holes in their socks just so long.

So we agree that job creation is underway. And we're debating the ultimate source(s) of that job creation.

Yes?

 

[8537]

Yes! You win the trifecta of stupid! Comparing a gov't program of nothing more than transfer payments to Steve Jobs building a company. You are truly and honestly the most ignorant 'tard here. RDean is a genius compared to you.
I suppose those who invested with Bernie Madoff are much better off now too!
Hoot. What a retard. Unbelievable.

If you think I'm stupid it's a surefire sign I'm doing something right.

I'm honored, Rabbi. That's how I feel every time I'm lambasted by someone who can wash all their clothes in hot water.

 

[Jarhead]

The private sector has been creating jobs for well over a year.

yes...a natural occurance created by the need for replacement goods and services.

It happens after a recession all the time.

People can go with holes in their socks just so long.

So we agree that job creation is underway. And we're debating the ultimate source(s) of that job creation.

Yes?

I know as fact that there is private sector job creation. I am a business planner/recruiter in the NYC area.

I also know as fact why many job creators did not deem it wise to hire back in 2009 and 2010...but for me to discuss that now will result in some jerks saying I am a liar.

I also know as fact how certain entitlement progrmas failed miserably as it gave many an impetus to "hold out for the ideal job and highest pay.

ANd I know based on logic and my education in economics why jobs are being created now in the private sector...and it has nothing to do with the stimulus.

8537...the stimulus saved some public secotr jobs...yes....that is a given.....but it did nothing for the private sector.

 

[The Rabbi]

Long term? Yes. I don't expect you to understand it. You've demonstrated your intellectual capacity in the past and I'm quite certain the idea is above it. Hello?

Wow. Just wow. I didnt think anyone could be that ignorant about economics and still be able to make change from a dime. But I guess I was wrong.
So your position is that by spending trillions of dollars today (which have to be borrowed and thus accrue interest payments) we are better off than if we hadn't spent the money.

Are you just fooling with me or do you actually believe that? That's a serious question because I want to see just how stupid you really are.

Actually, there are some that do believe that...and there is valid reason to believe it. I dont agree and believe the valid reasons are completely overshadowed by the exceptions to the rules that need to come into play that will not...but never-the-less, they are valid reasons.

Many that are more of a progressive thinking are not morons.....they are less pro-active in my eyes...and more presumptuous.......but by no menas are they morons

There are people who believe Elvis is alive and OJ was innocent. The fact that some people are gullible does not make anything true. Only being true makes it true.
In this case it is an absolute falsehood that the stimulus made the country better off. By every measure it failed, leaving us with a mass of debt to be paid for.
The stimulus taxed or borrowed money from profitable entities and used it to fund rtansfers to states, worthless projects, and in many cases outright fraud. Even Obama admitted finally there was no such thing as "shovel ready projects."
CBO's estimate of job creation stems entirely from an assumption that gov't spending MUSt create jobs at some rate. There is no empirical evidence that is so. There is also no evidence of a "multiplier effect" from gov't spending, a mainstay of Keynesian thought. The multiplier appears to be less than 1.

 

[The Rabbi]

The private sector has been creating jobs for well over a year.

yes...a natural occurance created by the need for replacement goods and services.

It happens after a recession all the time.

People can go with holes in their socks just so long.

So we agree that job creation is underway. And we're debating the ultimate source(s) of that job creation.

Yes?

In any economy there is ALWAYS job creation. There was job creation in 2009.
NET job creation is a different matter. While we have net job creation now it is well below what is normal for recoveries.

 

[JRK]

The stimulus failed because 40% of it was set aside for tax cuts

So then those that voted for it voted for a failed program that cost us over 800 billion in borrowed money.

Tax cuts or not, they rpomised us it was a good investment. They were wrong. They gambled a hell of a lot of money on an obvious long shot.

It should have all been targeted for obvious job creation/job saving measures

It did save many teacher, police and firemens jobs as well as some much needed public works. However, once the politicians go involved it became another gravy train

Even for the Republicans who voted against it

1) the stimulus with the money from tarp had about 25% tax cuts, those tax cuts had nothing to do with 750 billion dollars that was and is being spent. that is the same as a 750 billion dollar tax increase. pure and simple
2) what job creation? we have 6 million fewer jobs than we did in 2008
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.ceseeb1.txt

 

[JRK]

The stimulus bill can not be held accountable for job losses that occurred before the bill was passed. Since it was passed, monthly job creation has gone from a loss of about 750K per month to a gain of about 240K per month despite declines in public sector employment.



GDP growth has gone from -6% to positive 2-5%.

it is not difficult to create public sector jobs with tax payer money when you dont need to be acoutnable for head count...and profitibility per head

The stimulus did not "create" necessary jobs...it simply gave reasons for people to get a paycheck.

The private sector has been creating jobs for well over a year.

8537 to start with I wish you had more respect for our president
How can you claim a job has been created when that same job was lost?
were not even close to being where we where in 2008

you want to see job creation?
When GWB tax cuts took place in 2003 the economy started creating jobs in 2005
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226

You surely are not trying to claim that a 6 million job deficit can be ignored just because BHO has a 1 trillion dollar failed stimulus attached to him?
No, No way

 

[JRK]

Wow. Just wow. I didnt think anyone could be that ignorant about economics and still be able to make change from a dime. But I guess I was wrong.
So your position is that by spending trillions of dollars today (which have to be borrowed and thus accrue interest payments) we are better off than if we hadn't spent the money.

Yes.

Take Steve Jobs: Was he made better off by going into debt?

Was the US better off after deficit spending in 1941?

As I said, I carry misconceptions that you might actually understand the economics involved. I also know that any attempt to explain it would be met with your usual stupidity and name calling.

Other people get it. You don't, and it's not my concern.

Deficit?
Deficit?
it was a slush fund that has done nothing
8537 I will never understand how you can have so much information staring you right in the face and you just go into denial
Understand economics?
I know that for 1 trillion dollars one would expect not to lose 6 million jobs at the same time
I understand that what ever that 1 trillion dollars was suppose to do
it failed

 

[midcan5]

"In terms of promoting economic growth, the Bush tax cuts have been a miserable failure.

Under George W. Bush, U.S. GDP growth averaged 2.1 percent a year. Since the end of World War II, the country has never experienced such low economic growth during an eight-year period. And if you exclude the war demobilization of 1946, when U.S. government spending fell by two-thirds and GDP fell by 10.9 percent, Bush had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover."

Read more: The Bush Tax Cuts: Failure Analysis by David Fiderer ? Failure magazine |

 

[8537]

yes...a natural occurance created by the need for replacement goods and services.

It happens after a recession all the time.

People can go with holes in their socks just so long.

So we agree that job creation is underway. And we're debating the ultimate source(s) of that job creation.

Yes?

In any economy there is ALWAYS job creation. There was job creation in 2009.
NET job creation is a different matter. While we have net job creation now it is well below what is normal for recoveries.

There has been net job creation for many, many months now. In fact, the net job creation figures were -750K in Jan of 2009 and are now +240K

 

[8537]

Wow. Just wow. I didnt think anyone could be that ignorant about economics and still be able to make change from a dime. But I guess I was wrong.
So your position is that by spending trillions of dollars today (which have to be borrowed and thus accrue interest payments) we are better off than if we hadn't spent the money.

Are you just fooling with me or do you actually believe that? That's a serious question because I want to see just how stupid you really are.

Actually, there are some that do believe that...and there is valid reason to believe it. I dont agree and believe the valid reasons are completely overshadowed by the exceptions to the rules that need to come into play that will not...but never-the-less, they are valid reasons.

Many that are more of a progressive thinking are not morons.....they are less pro-active in my eyes...and more presumptuous.......but by no menas are they morons

There are people who believe Elvis is alive and OJ was innocent. The fact that some people are gullible does not make anything true.

hell yes! There are even people so dumb as to believe that black people can't lead.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I cannot put it any better

It’s official: Obama’s job stimulus program failed
TAGS: Examiner editorial failure job stimulus President Barack Obama unemployment rate
COMMENTS (0) SHARE PRINT
By: Examiner Editorial 01/22/11 10:00 PM
Democrats have lambasted Republicans for years for believing in “Voodoo economics.” Well, the evidence is mounting that economic superstition is alive and well in the nation’s political circles, though it has nothing to do with a fondness for tax cuts.

It’s instead the crazy belief that the government can spend its way to prosperity for the rest of us. Analyzing this conclusion, the House Ways and Means Committee recently released a report titled “It’s Official: On Unemployment and Jobs, Democrats’ 2009 Stimulus Was a Huge Failure.”

The Ways and Means report provides a number of striking reminders about the predictions the White House made in January 2009 while urging the passage of their $814 billion Keynesian spending bill. By January 2011, the stimulus bill was supposed to have lowered the unemployment rate to 7 percent. It now stands at 9.4 percent, and the report notes that “the unemployment rate would be 11.3 percent if it included all the ‘invisible unemployed’ — American workers who have simply given up looking for work.” The report also said that the stimulus was supposed to create 3.7 million jobs by now, for a total of 137.6 million jobs in the American economy. Currently, there are 130.7 million jobs. Since the stimulus’ passage, 47 of the 50 states have lost jobs; overall, the private sector has seen 1.8 million jobs disappear.

Note as well that unemployment currently is slightly above what the White House predicted it would be if the Obama stimulus program was not passed as emergency legislation. Any honest assessment of the stimulus has to consider the possibility that flawed economics, kickbacks to unions and other Democratic special interests, corruption and an inefficient bureaucracy simply swallowed all the jobs for which those billions were supposed to pay. In fact, job creation exceeded the White House’s expectations in only one area: The District of Columbia created almost twice as many jobs as the White House anticipated. In other words, thanks to the stimulus, the only area growing new jobs is the federal government.



Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: It

Much like the New Deal, the stimulus wasn't big enough. America only recovered from the Great Depression when it began spending at about 5-10 times the rate of the New Deal.

 

[Jarhead]

"In terms of promoting economic growth, the Bush tax cuts have been a miserable failure.

Under George W. Bush, U.S. GDP growth averaged 2.1 percent a year. Since the end of World War II, the country has never experienced such low economic growth during an eight-year period. And if you exclude the war demobilization of 1946, when U.S. government spending fell by two-thirds and GDP fell by 10.9 percent, Bush had the worst economic record since Herbert Hoover."

Read more: The Bush Tax Cuts: Failure Analysis by David Fiderer ? Failure magazine |

why discuss the present?
It is more fun to discuss Bush.

Give it a rest. You are adding nothing to the debate.

 

[8537]

it is not difficult to create public sector jobs with tax payer money when you dont need to be acoutnable for head count...and profitibility per head

The stimulus did not "create" necessary jobs...it simply gave reasons for people to get a paycheck.

The private sector has been creating jobs for well over a year.

8537 to start with I wish you had more respect for our president
How can you claim a job has been created when that same job was lost?
were not even close to being where we where in 2008


You surely are not trying to claim that a 6 million job deficit can be ignored just because BHO has a 1 trillion dollar failed stimulus attached to him?
No, No way

So you're holding Obama responsible for jobs lost before he took office? I remember when you claimed the president wasn't responsible for the economy - but we were talking about Clinton, so you needed a good excuse.

 

[Mr.Nick]

it is not difficult to create public sector jobs with tax payer money when you dont need to be acoutnable for head count...and profitibility per head

The stimulus did not "create" necessary jobs...it simply gave reasons for people to get a paycheck.

The private sector has been creating jobs for well over a year.

8537 to start with I wish you had more respect for our president
How can you claim a job has been created when that same job was lost?
were not even close to being where we where in 2008

you want to see job creation?
When GWB tax cuts took place in 2003 the economy started creating jobs in 2005
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226

You surely are not trying to claim that a 6 million job deficit can be ignored just because BHO has a 1 trillion dollar failed stimulus attached to him?
No, No way

I love the liberal argument.

When the liberals take a +5 then turn it into a -10, then borrow and spend trillions and turn the -10 into a -8, they'll sit there and claim they're creating jobs.

The liberals always talk about how many jobs were created - they never mention how many jobs were lost.

4 minus 6 does not = 4, it equals negative 2.

Someone would have to be some kind of special brand of stupid to ignore that fact, and thats exactly what the Obama supporters have been doing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I cannot put it any better

It’s official: Obama’s job stimulus program failed
TAGS: Examiner editorial failure job stimulus President Barack Obama unemployment rate
COMMENTS (0) SHARE PRINT
By: Examiner Editorial 01/22/11 10:00 PM
Democrats have lambasted Republicans for years for believing in “Voodoo economics.” Well, the evidence is mounting that economic superstition is alive and well in the nation’s political circles, though it has nothing to do with a fondness for tax cuts.

It’s instead the crazy belief that the government can spend its way to prosperity for the rest of us. Analyzing this conclusion, the House Ways and Means Committee recently released a report titled “It’s Official: On Unemployment and Jobs, Democrats’ 2009 Stimulus Was a Huge Failure.”

The Ways and Means report provides a number of striking reminders about the predictions the White House made in January 2009 while urging the passage of their $814 billion Keynesian spending bill. By January 2011, the stimulus bill was supposed to have lowered the unemployment rate to 7 percent. It now stands at 9.4 percent, and the report notes that “the unemployment rate would be 11.3 percent if it included all the ‘invisible unemployed’ — American workers who have simply given up looking for work.” The report also said that the stimulus was supposed to create 3.7 million jobs by now, for a total of 137.6 million jobs in the American economy. Currently, there are 130.7 million jobs. Since the stimulus’ passage, 47 of the 50 states have lost jobs; overall, the private sector has seen 1.8 million jobs disappear.

Note as well that unemployment currently is slightly above what the White House predicted it would be if the Obama stimulus program was not passed as emergency legislation. Any honest assessment of the stimulus has to consider the possibility that flawed economics, kickbacks to unions and other Democratic special interests, corruption and an inefficient bureaucracy simply swallowed all the jobs for which those billions were supposed to pay. In fact, job creation exceeded the White House’s expectations in only one area: The District of Columbia created almost twice as many jobs as the White House anticipated. In other words, thanks to the stimulus, the only area growing new jobs is the federal government.



Read more at the San Francisco Examiner: It

The stimulus bill was 40% tax cuts.

 

[8537]

Understand economics?

Ha!

I have a passing familiarity with the topic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

No one can prove the stimulus failed because no one can demonstrate what would have happened had there been no stimulus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Funny, every chart I find shows the t op rate @ 35% since 2003.... it was onl 3.6% higher the years before.

So we had those low tax rates going into the worst recession since the Depression...

...which means they didn't work.