Tax cuts have not created a single job

I am going to respond to your post only cause others pretty much repeat the same theme:
Quote from Hamlet:

The problem is all the pork, waste and exessive socialism which adds up to multiples of the cost of those items you mentioned.
More...

It's really simple, no sane person has a problem with eliminating government waste, pork and excessive socialism (whatever that is). Once they are eliminated, once the government generates budget surplus and pays off the debt it's only fair to give the money back to taxpayers.

But that's not what's hapenning and that's not what the research was all about. Bush administration has not eliminated, rather increased waste, pork and excessive socialism, it has also increased expenditures on "essential" government services like education, homeland security, the military and the war in Iraq. Tax cuts under the circumstances were fiscally irresponsible, you can hardly call it tax cuts if you and your children will still to have to pay the money back with interest later.

More importantly, the cornerstone of republican/libertarian economic theory is that tax cuts create jobs. This was the only issue the article addressed and it has proved conclusively that the theory is completely wrong, the private sector created millions of jobs in the 90s when taxes were higher and it has not created a single job after taxes were lowered. The [sluggish] job growth of the last 5 years was fueled exclusively by increased government spending paid for by borrowed money.
 
Quote from Hamlet:

Tax cuts do stimulate the economy which in turn leads to the preservation and creation of jobs. Without tax cuts the economy was headed for a deeper more prolonged recession which would have resulted in less jobs.
More...

There is an implied agreement between the advertised "tax cuts .... increasing jobs" and the "obligation of those whom receive those cuts to CREATE THOSE JOBS".

Since there is/are no contractual obligatory bindings, whether in writing, implied or suggested, THEN THERE ARE NO JOBS, OR NOT NEARLY WHAT IS ADVERTISED, BEING CREATED.

The Chinese call this "fung pahh (not actual spelling)". The Americans call it "Bul.......it".

That's what we've got.

Its not necessary to remind anyone which political party trumpets what demigogery or pundunts, just necessary to remind us that those jobs that were here are NOT now, no matter what is being suggested.

Quality of job, well, get used to the Walmart concept of hiring just about everyone (and to their well deserved credit, I have never seen so many cripple persons working anywhere) as being the standard of what American jobs are becoming.
 
Quote from dddooo:


More importantly, the cornerstone of republican/libertarian economic theory is that tax cuts create jobs. This was the only issue the article addressed and it has proved conclusively that the theory is completely wrong, the private sector created millions of jobs in the 90s when taxes were higher and it has not created a single job after taxes were lowered. The [sluggish] job growth of the last 5 years was fueled exclusively by increased government spending paid for by borrowed money.
More...

You can NOT make a correlation between actual results and one variable in a system as complex as the US economy.

Less money going to the government means more money going to consumers(who spend it) and businesses (who invest it) ... both good things for the economy.

And stop talking about roads when you're crying that tax cuts shouldn't have been made. Roads are (supposed to be) paid for through gas taxes, which have not been changed at all. You use the road, you need gas, there is a direct relationship there.
 
Quote from futures_shark:

You can NOT make a correlation between actual results and one variable in a system as complex as the US economy.
More...
I did not make the correlation, I've always believed it does not exist, republican and libertarian economic think tanks have been making this correlation for decades promising explicitely that tax cuts = job growth. I only pointed out that there is no correlation and that they are wrong.

Quote from futures_shark:

Less money going to the government means more money going to consumers(who spend it) and businesses (who invest it) ... both good things for the economy.
More...
That's too simplistic. More money going to the government would have paid for all those extra defense and non discretionary spending that created 2.8 mln jobs and that we'll still have to pay for anyway. More money to consumers is a good thing but we all know a very small amount of money went to consumers, most of the money went to the rich and big business (I am not discussing whether it is or it is not fair but that's what happened). And businesses (unlike the government) chose not to expand and not to create new jobs in this country as the research demonstrates.
 
Have you all seen the CBO report that came out this week? And the leaders that be, are pressing to make these policies permanent. Go figure.


Center on Budget Policy and Priorities

CBO DATA SHOW TAX CUTS HAVE PLAYED MUCH LARGER ROLE
THAN DOMESTIC SPENDING INCREASES IN FUELING THE DEFICIT

INCREASES IN CBO'S REVENUE PROJECTIONS DO NOT SHOW TAX CUTS ARE HELPING THE ECONOMY

NEW CBO DATA INDICATE GROWTH IN LONG-TERM
INCOME INEQUALITY CONTINUES

picchart091305taxcuts.jpg
 
Tax cuts have to be made permament and over the long haul--not 4 or 5 years , deficits will be reduced. This of course has to be coupled with spending growth reduced(spending will never be cut, but the growth of spending needs to be). This chart and short term view is exactly what liberals love to use to bait Americans into believing that we are headed down the wrong path. Give the tax cuts time and pressure politicians to reduce growth of spending and the deficits will decrease. By the way--Clinton fooled the American people into believing deficits were being reduced by his policies, however a large part of his program was to fund the deficit with short term rates instead of locking in long term rates, thus mortgaging the future . --Thus the change from the benchmark 30 to the benchmark 10.
 
Quote from Buy1Sell2:

Tax cuts have to be made permament and over the long haul--not 4 or 5 years , deficits will be reduced. This of course has to be coupled with spending growth reduced(spending will never be cut, but the growth of spending needs to be). This chart and short term view is exactly what liberals love to use to bait Americans into believing that we are headed down the wrong path. Give the tax cuts time and pressure politicians to reduce growth of spending and the deficits will decrease. By the way--Clinton fooled the American people into believing deficits were being reduced by his policies, however a large part of his program was to fund the deficit with short term rates instead of locking in long term rates, thus mortgaging the future . --Thus the change from the benchmark 30 to the benchmark 10.
More...
Possibly you should review the report before commenting.. Huh.

Congressional Budget Office
 
Do you believe every economist prediction you read? Is that how you base your trades?

I'd like to see a comparison of past CBO "predictions" and what really happened.

If you think most new jobs created by businesses have been overseas than you would also have to agree that with HIGHER taxes EVEN MORE jobs would have been created overseas vs. domestically.

The tax cuts ARE NOT bad policy, the profligate spending IS.

NO tax policy will be sufficient to fix anything as long as politicians are allowed to spend any amount they want. They MUST be constrained.

Just check out the balance sheet.
 

Attachments

You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top