If Job Numbers Don't Improve Obama Can Kiss the 2012 Election Goodbye

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Here's something else you might not remember about the Bush tax cuts. Congress thought it would be a good idea to phase these tax cuts in over several years. Didn't work. The economy continued to shed jobs, so the Congress decided to let the tax cuts take effect immediately, and threw in a cut in capital gains and dividends to boot. It worked. Eight million jobs were created and tax revenues increased.

Did you catch that? Tax revenues increased after a tax cut. Democrats just hate this, but increased revenues are the norm after tax cuts. Why? Because tax cuts spur economic growth. The CBO said that the Bush tax cuts would lower 2006 revenues by $75 billion. Oops! Wrong again! Revenues actually increased by $47 billion. What about jobs? In the 18 months before the Bush tax cuts our economy lost 267,000 jobs. In the 18 months following the cuts it added over 300,000 jobs. In the next 19 months another 5 million jobs were added. [Atlanta Journal Constitution, 6/24/11]

Catch this and kindly point me to that spike in job creation post 2003. Thanks.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Bring back LBJ!

[Zero Sum 305]

The opposite of spending money is receiving money....So technically more tax revenue = less spending.....Oh, I forgot, you believe tax cuts = more tax revenue. How does that work again?

It works well for the rich puppetmasters keeping more of their 'hard-ly' earned money. Laughing themselves silly at the stooges that create an electoral fan base for policy that trickles down the crumbs once in a while to them.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

It works well for the rich puppetmasters keeping more of their 'hard-ly' earned money. Laughing themselves silly at the stooges that create an electoral fan base for policy that trickles down the crumbs once in a while to them.

Thing is that demand creates jobs. Businesses produce more and invest and expand when there's growing demand for their product or service. For no other reason. They do not expand to create jobs. They create jobs to meet demand. So, if you've got $1,000.00 to play with and you distribute that $1,000.00 to 10 households that have a hard time making ends meet at $100.00 each, then that $1,000.00 will create immediate demand - it's an extra $1,000.00 in the economy. If, on the other hand, you give it to a single household that has no financial hardship at all, then that $1,000.00 ends up with the rest of the pile of cash that that household is already sitting on. Extra demand created = 0. It's really simple.

[Ironman140 45]

You think the RWN's understand that?

Not really to busy collecting 99 weeks of unemployment

[Zero Sum 305]

Thing is that demand creates jobs. Businesses produce more and invest and expand when there's growing demand for their product or service. For no other reason. They do not expand to create jobs. They create jobs to meet demand. So, if you've got $1,000.00 to play with and you distribute that $1,000.00 to 10 households that have a hard time making ends meet at $100.00 each, then that $1,000.00 will create immediate demand - it's an extra $1,000.00 in the economy. If, on the other hand, you give it to a single household that has no financial hardship at all, then that $1,000.00 ends up with the rest of the pile of cash that that household is already sitting on. Extra demand created = 0. It's really simple.

They condemn it and then they turn around and find other ways of supporting it. It really is that simple.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

So technically more tax revenue = less spending.....

not even remotely accurate.

more tax revenue equals just that, more tax revenue. it does not mean there will be less spending.

[웃 910]

not even remotely accurate.

more tax revenue equals just that, more tax revenue. it does not mean there will be less spending.

Let's say tax collection rates were at 0% on $10,000 in total income and gubmin spent $1,000 for the year. They collected nothing. TOTAL SPENT = -$1,000

Now tax rate is at 10% so they collect $1,000 for the year and spend all $1,000. TOTAL SPENT = $0

Tax rate 20%...$2,000 collected....$1,000 spent.....TOTAL SPENT = +$1,000 (surplus)

You can't say that increasing tax revenues is the same as less spending? I believe you can unless you can prove that gubmint would spend EVEN MORE if more was collected.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Let's say tax collection rates were at 0% on $10,000 in total income and gubmin spent $1,000 for the year. They collected nothing. TOTAL SPENT = -$1,000

Now tax rate is at 10% so they collect $1,000 for the year and spend all $1,000. TOTAL SPENT = $0

Tax rate 20%...$2,000 collected....$1,000 spent.....TOTAL SPENT = +$1,000 (surplus)

You can't say that increasing tax revenues is the same as less spending? I believe you can unless you can prove that gubmint would spend EVEN MORE if more was collected.

in your example, there was still $1000 spent in both cases. that's not exactly less spending, is it?

additionally, when was the last time you saw the us government not spend more when they take in more?

[웃 910]

in your example, there was still $1000 spent in both cases. that's not exactly less spending, is it?

additionally, when was the last time you saw the us government not spend more when they take in more?

How about this:

There is a party with an open bar and a tip jar (tax jar).

The guy throwing the party spends $1,000 for the open bar (gubmint)

There are 3 scenarios.

1) People attending throw $0 into tip jar. (Guy throwing party spends/loses $1,000)

2) People attending throw $1,000 into tip jar. (Guy throwing party spends/loses $0)

3) People attending throw $2,000 into tip jar. (Guy throwing party makes $1,000 - ie negative spends)

Edited July 12, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Rather than calling it spending, you should call it what it is - either balanced (revenue = expenditures), a deficit (revenue < expenditures) or a surplus (revenues > expenditures) budget. Then you'll get somewhere.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Rather than calling it spending, you should call it what it is - either balanced (revenue = expenditures), a deficit (revenue < expenditures) or a surplus (revenues > expenditures) budget. Then you'll get somewhere.

because that would cut through the smoke and mirrors.

[Zero Sum 305]

because that would cut through the smoke and mirrors.

Something from the GOP is pretty clear right now, and its that they really don't have much of a priority for job creation at all.

[slim 1,525]

Let's say tax collection rates were at 0% on $10,000 in total income and gubmin spent $1,000 for the year. They collected nothing. TOTAL SPENT = -$1,000

Now tax rate is at 10% so they collect $1,000 for the year and spend all $1,000. TOTAL SPENT = $0

Tax rate 20%...$2,000 collected....$1,000 spent.....TOTAL SPENT = +$1,000 (surplus)

Who is the government taking all that "free" money from?

You can't say that increasing tax revenues is the same as less spending?

Nope. If my wife spends $100 at the mall every weekend and I give her $200 is she going to spend less?

I believe you can unless you can prove that gubmint would spend EVEN MORE if more was collected.

I lol'd at this! Are you insinuating the government would not spend extra money if it had it? I'm pretty sure a quick google search will show you that almost every single government agency or program ever created has spent more money year after year after year. In fact, government agencies are encouraged to spend more so they can get an increased budget next year.

Like my wife wouldn't spend that extra $100... HA!

How about this:

There is a party with an open bar and a tip jar (tax jar).

The guy throwing the party spends $1,000 for the open bar (gubmint)

There are 3 scenarios.

1) People attending throw $0 into tip jar. (Guy throwing party spends/loses $1,000)

2) People attending throw $1,000 into tip jar. (Guy throwing party spends/loses $0)

3) People attending throw $2,000 into tip jar. (Guy throwing party makes $1,000 - ie negative spends)

What you fail to point out in this scenario is the guy paying for the party has already stolen the money from his buddies.

Why would they pay a tip when they've already paid for the party by "giving" money to the guy who threw the party? That makes as much sense as saying they could give him $1200 next year and he'd throw the same size or a smaller party then return the extra $200 to them.

[Dan J 277]

We are in the perfect storm of factors in which, according to supply siders, we should see explosive growth at all economic levels.

1. Cost of credit is very low. (Although not available for everyone)

2. Taxes are at historic lows. (With some tax magic, a company can get effective tax rates in the 2-5% range)

3. Companies have a lot of cash on their books. (Over $2 trillion)

But the fact is that we are not. The reason we are not requires us to look at incentives. Companies are in the business to make money they are not in the business to make jobs. Jobs are often created as a result of growth. However a company can also increase profit by decreasing jobs and increasing efficiency/productivity.

For many large companies the US market is mostly saturated or the prospects of growth is much lower than the shareholders want. So they start moving operations to other countries. They create jobs in those countries or cut jobs in the US and move operations into cheaper labor markets.

For other companies, its a matter of automating more processes with new computer systems and software. (Some jobs go into creating to those systems, but its often a net loss in the long term)

Other companies with their large cash balances are going out to buy other companies and eliminating jobs in departments that are duplicated between companies.

So, in the end cutting taxes on the weathy and companies incentives the profit motivation of companies. However, greater profits does not correlate with job creation.