If tax cuts create jobs, what happened with GW?

[Sallow]

You are so simplistic. Your meathead view of the world has no shade of gray, because you have zero finesse or sophistication.

Can getting something free be de-motivating? Yes. Is it always, no?

You don't believe that there are honest, hard-working people who need help and who don't want handouts? You have to answer that you don't based on your last response...and of course, that doesn't mesh with reality.

There are people, down on their luck who need temporary help...and who are proud enough to get off welfare.

You can fight the facts and figures all you want. You lose here too, Rabid.

Thats the best you can do? Insults and ad homs. No surprise, "counselor."

The number of people temporarily down on their luck is a drop in the bucket compared to the inter-generational welfare dependency we see in most inner cities and rural areas. The tendency is once someone is on public assistence they stay there, because the incentive to do so (by all parties, not just the recipient) is enormous. Check the figures for length of time on unemployment insurance. They are at the highest level in history.
You have yet to post a single fact or figure.

A great deal of which..started with slavery. Where's the 40 acres and a mule?

 

[The Rabbi]

You are so simplistic. Your meathead view of the world has no shade of gray, because you have zero finesse or sophistication.

Can getting something free be de-motivating? Yes. Is it always, no?

You don't believe that there are honest, hard-working people who need help and who don't want handouts? You have to answer that you don't based on your last response...and of course, that doesn't mesh with reality.

There are people, down on their luck who need temporary help...and who are proud enough to get off welfare.

You can fight the facts and figures all you want. You lose here too, Rabid.

Thats the best you can do? Insults and ad homs. No surprise, "counselor."

The number of people temporarily down on their luck is a drop in the bucket compared to the inter-generational welfare dependency we see in most inner cities and rural areas. The tendency is once someone is on public assistence they stay there, because the incentive to do so (by all parties, not just the recipient) is enormous. Check the figures for length of time on unemployment insurance. They are at the highest level in history.
You have yet to post a single fact or figure.

A great deal of which..started with slavery. Where's the 40 acres and a mule?

There was no welfare in the 1890s. You fail, Swallow.

 

[Vanquish]

Yeah the chart I posted had no facts or figures. *roll eyes*

Can I use the space where your brain is for a piggy bank?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

The jobs will come. the wealthy is just holding the money for now waiting for a good opportunity to trickle it down

Might take thirty or forty years...just be patient

With interest rates at near zero why would "the wealthy" (whoever they are) hold on to money that loses value every day instead of investing it in enterprises that can make them much more?

Hmm. You'll need to ponder that one, eh Nutwinger?

Show me where the $2.5 trillion in tax cuts was invested in US manufacturing infrastructure or in creating jobs.

The reason they "hold on" to the money is because they take it as profit instead of putting it into the company

Government freeloader says what?

 

[Sallow]

Thats the best you can do? Insults and ad homs. No surprise, "counselor."

The number of people temporarily down on their luck is a drop in the bucket compared to the inter-generational welfare dependency we see in most inner cities and rural areas. The tendency is once someone is on public assistence they stay there, because the incentive to do so (by all parties, not just the recipient) is enormous. Check the figures for length of time on unemployment insurance. They are at the highest level in history.
You have yet to post a single fact or figure.

A great deal of which..started with slavery. Where's the 40 acres and a mule?

There was no welfare in the 1890s. You fail, Swallow.

No you fail, you ******* ******. You can't suck my dick..I like chicks..you pansy. No swallow for you you cum gargling maggot.

And good on you to be so dismissive of slavery..it's probably something you've never experienced. You little homo. If you had..you'd know that human being were shackled up in the underbellies of boats and left to crap and urinate all over themselves and each other. Then if they survived they were auctioned off to people to be used as slaves. They had little or no rights and served at the pleasure of their owners. They were beaten, raped, tortured and killed with abandon. They were fed food deemed not suitable for pigs. That..went on for GENERATIONS.

And a ******* little cock sucker like yourself probably approves of all of that.

 

[hortysir]

<snip>
Some might claim that tax cuts would stimulate the demand side of the equation, but this may not be the case for the following reason: there would be a transfer of purchasing power from the government to individuals and businesses, which under normal circumstances would spike demand, consumption, and employment. Under an uncertain climate, however, it makes infinitely more sense for individuals and corporations to save their money. It makes more sense for people to save their purchasing power rather than to utilize it; the economy remains in the tank because demand is not stimulated and unemployment remains high and even higher, because the government would have an incentive to keep spending - so that unemployment stabilizes. It does not mean that government knows hows to spend money better than people, it's simply a matter of the incentives they face. For people and businesses, what makes sense is to save their money, it's not up to them to bring down the unemployment rate by spending and creating demand - it does not make sense for the individual to do this under the current circumstances. But it does make sense for the government to do so - because otherwise, if unemployment is high or rising, it gets voted out of office.
<snip>

This is precisely why I never got into Econ 101....boooorrrrrriinnnnnggggg.

I just can't comprehend why it's okay for government to spend itself into infinite debt, in your scenario.
It's only okay because we, as a people, have accepted the fact government bureaucracies (I always need spellcheck for that word) aren't designed to make a profit. Their sole reason for existence is to exhaust their budget so they can get a bigger one the next year. They're designed to become bloated and inefficient.
Why can't we change their business model to better mirror a business?
I mean we ARE supposed to be a free-enterprise-capitalist society, right??
I challenge any of these beltway knuckleheads to reconcile a P&L statement. The majority of them wouldn't recognize one if it crossed their desk.
For far too many generations we've allowed them to bloat and grow too big for our own good.
The only, and I do mean ONLY, way government can create jobs is if they realize a profit.
It makes zero sense for me to hire 100 new people if I don't have the money to pay them. The only way to afford to pay them would be to raise my prices to such an astronomical level as to drive myself out of competion and into bankruptcy.
Why do we allow such irresponsible behavior from our government, banks, and automakers?
So what if they fail. Lesson learned. Bet they won't repeat that behavior.
"We can't let our government go into default"
Why not? Let China start calling in on some of their loans. Maybe it'll wake somebody up to actually DO something besides campaigning.
When entire blocks of land, in the USA, starts getting taken over by China, et.al. somebody will come up with the cash to stop it.
If not? Lesson learned. Bet ya they won't repeat that behavior again.

 

[Vanquish]

Oh I'm sure he/she does.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

you must have missed the 6 years of full employment.

....And, it's (finally) catching-UP to the folks at....

...BUSHCO!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cJlJudDtVE]YouTube - &#x202a;Iraq for Sale Banned Excerpts&#x202c;&rlm;[/ame]

*

February 12, 2006​

"Fresh, new, crisp, unspent, just-printed $100 bills. It was the Wild West," recalls Frank Willis, who was the No. 2 man at the Coalition Provisional Authority's Ministry of Transportation.

Asked if he has any evidence that the accounting system was a little loose, Willis says, "I would describe it as nonexistent."

Billion$ Wasted In Iraq​

*

C'mon....KARMA!!!!


. . . . ​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"Iraqi officials have since threatened to take the U.S. to court to reclaim the funds."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

 

[The Rabbi]

A great deal of which..started with slavery. Where's the 40 acres and a mule?

There was no welfare in the 1890s. You fail, Swallow.

No you fail, you ******* ******. You can't suck my dick..I like chicks..you pansy. No swallow for you you cum gargling maggot.

And good on you to be so dismissive of slavery..it's probably something you've never experienced. You little homo. If you had..you'd know that human being were shackled up in the underbellies of boats and left to crap and urinate all over themselves and each other. Then if they survived they were auctioned off to people to be used as slaves. They had little or no rights and served at the pleasure of their owners. They were beaten, raped, tortured and killed with abandon. They were fed food deemed not suitable for pigs. That..went on for GENERATIONS.

And a ******* little cock sucker like yourself probably approves of all of that.

Are you really off your meds or are you this irrational all the time?
Can't defend his position so has to attribute his wishful thinking about my sexual orientation.

 

[NoNukes]

you must have missed the 6 years of full employment. Convenient to ignore those isnt it?

US Unemployment Rate by Year

2001 4.76
2002 5.78
2003 5.99
2004 5.53
2005 5.08
2006 4.63
2007 4.61
2008 5.76
2009 9.26

The United States Unemployment Rate By Year

Notice when it started to change? After Democrats took over! Thank you Obama!

When Bush was in office, here in Ohio, we had reports about businesses paying two dollars over minimum wage, because they were trying to attract new workers.

Now, you're lucky if you can find a job.

Liberals can push this pap, but the facts are too easy bring into evidence.

Interesting that unemployment skyrocketed after 8 years of Bush.

You are from Ohio? That explains a lot.

 

[The Rabbi]

you must have missed the 6 years of full employment. Convenient to ignore those isnt it?

US Unemployment Rate by Year

2001 4.76
2002 5.78
2003 5.99
2004 5.53
2005 5.08
2006 4.63
2007 4.61
2008 5.76
2009 9.26

The United States Unemployment Rate By Year

Notice when it started to change? After Democrats took over! Thank you Obama!

When Bush was in office, here in Ohio, we had reports about businesses paying two dollars over minimum wage, because they were trying to attract new workers.

Now, you're lucky if you can find a job.

Liberals can push this pap, but the facts are too easy bring into evidence.

Interesting that unemployment skyrocketed after 8 years of Bush.

You are from Ohio? That explains a lot.

Actually unemployment was low under Bush. It skyrocketed as the Democrats assumed control over the gov't.
Are you an idiot? That explains a lot.