Because they listened to the stupid liberal whining.
And because of the stupid budget rules.
Phase ins are stupid. People delay some actions if they know taxes will be lower, later.
Stupid budget rules, how so? The fact that the Bush Tax Cuts increase the deficit? And that's why they had the sunset provision? So if the Bush Tax Cuts increased the deficit, then that means tax cuts create deficits. And why would they listen to liberals at all? Conservatives controlled all three branches of government. They didn't need liberals to go along with them, and all the liberals voted against the Bush Tax Cuts.
So the premise that tax cuts "pay for themselves" is a false premise, isn't it?
So they don't pay 100% for themselves. So what?
So that means there's no economic benefit to doing them. So if they don't pay for themselves, don't create jobs, and increase debt,
why do them at all? And no portion "came back", hence the deficits that appeared after taxes were cut.
Instead, job growth was faster than if the MW wasn't raised.
If only you had proof.
We have the empirical data that shows states that raised their MW saw faster job growth than states that didn't. Whether or not that job growth is attributed to the MW hike, we can debate. However, your argument that raising the MW kills jobs is not something we can debate
because it isn't true.
No, what I said was the job growth was attributed to the mortgage bubble.
You said there was no job growth. You were wrong.
NO! I said the job growth was attributed to the mortgage bubble. Re-read the thread. You do a lot of sloppy work here. Is that on purpose?
First of all, there was no job growth after the Reagan Tax Cuts in 1981.
Liar.
The Reagan Tax Cuts were signed into law August 1981. Unemployment for July 1981 was 7.2%. It would then climb up to 10.8% by December
1982, one year into the Reagan Tax Cuts taking effect, and 16 months after they were signed into law. So if unemployment went from 7.2% to 10.8%, does that mean there are more people employed than before? Yes or no?
And the 60's, the top tax rate was cut to 70%...so if you want to return to a 70% top tax rate
I want tax cuts, not hikes.
Then why did you invoke a tax cut that set the rate to 70%? Sloppy work, as usual. Stop rushing. Use your words.
The Bush Tax Cuts created the mortgage bubble,
You said the cuts created jobs which created the bubble.
Now you're claiming that cutting the top rate from 39.6% down to 35% created a bubble?
No, the bubble is what created the jobs. But remember, Bush lost net 841,000 private sector jobs in his first four years, and lost 460,000 private sector jobs overall. And I'm not the one who claimed it caused the bubble,
Bush was.
TWhy would the increase be $100K?
If you increase wage expenses by $100K, the increase is $100K.
No, where are you getting the $100K from? Or did you just pull that number out of your ass?
Because they didn't when 13 states + DC raised their minimum wages just three years ago.
You didn't show MW employment before and after the hike. Try again?
Ummmm....that's because unemployment
declined. So I don't know what you're trying to get at here.
So again, we saw that 13 states raised their minimum wage in 2014, and those states then saw faster job growth than the states that didn't.
Changes in total employment disprove the supply/demand curve?
Quick, alert the Nobel committee, you're a shoe in for a prize in economics.
We are talking about the unemployment rate. You all claimed it would go up if the MW was raised. It didn't for 13 states. So why are you still pretending as if it did? Sophistry, that's why.
As I said, we can debate whether or not raising the MW creates jobs...and that's a debate I don't mind having.
Great.
Does raising it to $15/hr lose jobs? Does raising it to $30 lose jobs? Does raising it to $50 lose jobs?
If you ever get to yes, as the rate rises, you've lost the debate.
No one is proposing raising it to $30 or $50/hr. Seattle raised theirs to $15/hr and they have 3.3% unemployment. You know that now because I gave you the most recent info, after you and your comrades tried to lie about it before.
And you base that on what?
I base employers having less money on your insistence on raising their costs. You know, math.
Less money? Since their revenues are increasing thanks to increased consumption, why would they "have less", and what would they do with the money they have anyway?
All I showed was that job growth happened.
Yes, I noticed your failure to post the proof of your claim.
Well, the empirical evidence is the proof. Those states saw faster job growth than the states that didn't raise their MW. You all say that the opposite would happen, but it didn't. So that's why you argue in theory and not in fact.
" rely on?
