"first off jobs are not created by anyone. No one sows the word job in a field and lo and behold jobs are born."

"All made possible through President’s Bushes tax cuts."

So which one is it?

Reply By: enigmagneticPosted: Tuesday, March 08, 2005"first off jobs are not created by anyone. No one sows the word job in a field and lo and behold jobs are born.""All made possible through President’s Bushes tax cuts."So which one is it?

the employers of the country makes the jobs, but the job creation by employers was made possible because of the tax cuts... the credit goes to the employers for making jobs and not just banking profits. clear?

"first off jobs are not created by anyone. No one sows the word job in a field and lo and behold jobs are born." "All made possible through President’s Bushes tax cuts." So which one is it?

Since you obviously don't get it let me clear it up for you. The key phrase here is "made possible".
"Made possible" does not *equal* created! Made possible means that the cuts made it possible for someone to create a job.

Since you obviously don't get it let me clear it up for you. The key phrase here is "made possible"."Made possible" does not *equal* created! Made possible means that the cuts made it possible for someone to create a job.

amen drmiler ,, ya did notice no comment from him/she when I responded. above you.

Jobs are created when there is increased demand that can not be met without adding workers. The increase productivity has reduced job creation. To increase demand, people must spend money they receive. the middle and lower income workers will spend a much higher percent of additional income then wealthy individuals. Some added money from tax cuts to the wealthy dooes create new jobs. However, overall a greater percent of added income to middle and lower income workers are spent and thus are more effecive in stimulating demand and jobs.

Moderateman, there are some problems with your theory. First of all, clearly, since the producers make so much additional money (there seems to be endless demand, so long as you have money to hire the workers), it would have made sense for your wife to hire the workers with or without the tax cuts. In addition, the tax cuts are adding to the $22,000 debt that every person living in the United States owes, so tack on another trillion or so onto that. Now, also realize that more times than not the tax cuts are just pocketed by the wealthy (I would know). Further, tax cuts applied to people, not companies, so unless she owns the company, your logic fails again.

Moderateman, there are some problems with your theory. First of all, clearly, since the producers make so much additional money (there seems to be endless demand, so long as you have money to hire the workers), it would have made sense for your wife to hire the workers with or without the tax cuts

You don't seem to understand......WITHOUT the tax cuts additional hirings would NOT have been possible!

Since you obviously don't get it let me clear it up for you. The key phrase here is "made possible"."Made possible" does not *equal* created! Made possible means that the cuts made it possible for someone to create a job. amen drmiler ,, ya did notice no comment from him/she when I responded. above you.

Now that you mention it, your right. Makes you wonder is he a coward or does he just have nothing to say?

Reply By: sandy2Posted: Tuesday, March 08, 2005Moderateman, there are some problems with your theory.

hi there sandy been a while... btw it's not a theory, it's reality.

Reply By: COL GenePosted: Tuesday, March 08, 2005Jobs are created when there is increased demand that can not be met without adding workers. The increase productivity has reduced job creation. To increase demand, people must spend money they receive. the middle and lower income workers will spend a much higher percent of additional income then wealthy individuals. Some added money from tax cuts to the wealthy dooes create new jobs. However, overall a greater percent of added income to middle and lower income workers are spent and thus are more effecive in stimulating demand and jobs.

gene I am talking reality from my wife and her position as an EMPLOYER. the tax cuts made it possible for her to do so.

Reply By: drmilerPosted: Tuesday, March 08, 2005Moderateman, there are some problems with your theory. First of all, clearly, since the producers make so much additional money (there seems to be endless demand, so long as you have money to hire the workers), it would have made sense for your wife to hire the workers with or without the tax cutsYou don't seem to understand......WITHOUT the tax cuts additional hirings would NOT have been possible!

they understand just fine doc.. they are just playing at being contrary and obtuse.

Reply By: drmilerPosted: Tuesday, March 08, 2005Moderateman, there are some problems with your theory. First of all, clearly, since the producers make so much additional money (there seems to be endless demand, so long as you have money to hire the workers), it would have made sense for your wife to hire the workers with or without the tax cutsYou don't seem to understand......WITHOUT the tax cuts additional hirings would NOT have been possible! they understand just fine doc.. they are just playing at being contrary and obtuse.

Are we finally backing the "extreme" lefties into a corner they can't get out of?

Reply By: drmilerPosted: Wednesday, March 09, 2005Reply By: drmilerPosted: Tuesday, March 08, 2005Moderateman, there are some problems with your theory. First of all, clearly, since the producers make so much additional money (there seems to be endless demand, so long as you have money to hire the workers), it would have made sense for your wife to hire the workers with or without the tax cutsYou don't seem to understand......WITHOUT the tax cuts additional hirings would NOT have been possible!they understand just fine doc.. they are just playing at being contrary and obtuse.Are we finally backing the "extreme" lefties into a corner they can't get out of?

I really do not want to pin anyone down, but when I get arguements back that is theory and I am stating facts from my wifes position. well you know...

Moderateman

I understand that some of the addad money from tax cuts to the wealthy help create new jobs. I said that in my reply #5. The bottom line is that the growth from the Bush tax cuts have not produced the GDP growth to replace the lost revenue from the tax cuts and moved us toward a balanced budget. We are moving the opposit direction. It has not produced enough jos for the 5 million new workers that have come into the work force since 2001. I have been working with two staff members about the unemployemnt rate and how it is not showing the true picture about the number of workers that do not have a living wage job. one person in the BLS staff told me the number of people that do not have jos that would be considered living wage jobs (under employed is their term) is about double the unemployment rate or about 10.8%.

One of your better posts in my humble opinion, Modman. I'm glad you pointed out that it isn't the job of the government to make jobs, but rather create a good environment for businesses to create jobs. A minor quibble: in your example you seem to be mixing business tax cuts with income tax cuts for the rich, they are two separate things as you know.

I think low corporate taxes are necessary to compete in this day of globalization: corporations are more mobile than citizens, so while a moderate income tax hike won't cause people to leave a country, business tax hikes will certainly cause businesses to flee to low tax jurisdictions.

Tax "breaks" and "hikes" are relative things. We had a conservative govenment here in Ontario that slashed income taxes something like 35%. In my opinion this was somewhat justified because they were following a socialist government who had hiked taxes. The problem was the Conservatives failed to cut spending and deal with a runaway deficit. Today the conservatives are out of power, taxes are low - and we have a huge deficit. So the new Liberal government introduced a $900 a year "health premium" (read: tax). The lesson here is that when you are in a deficit, you cannot afford to cut taxes without paying an even bigger price down the road. Take a look at what countries like New Zealand and Canada did to eliminate the deficit. Hint: we didn't accomplish it by cutting taxes on the rich.

For what its' worth, in my analysis of American fiscal policy you cannot eliminate the federal deficit without increasing revenue, and restoring Clintonian top bracket tax rates - hiking taxes on the rich, if you want to word it that way - is the best first step. By any measure - historical, comparative vs. other countries, etc. the US top tax rate is relatively low and a marginal increase is not going to cause people to flee to Bermuda, nor lead to significant economic slowdown.

A consumption tax is a good idea for many reasons and when very basic items like food, medicine, and shelter are exempted it will not have a regressive effect on the lower income brackets.

Being in favour of cutting taxes is like being in favour of sunshine or apple pie; nobody likes taxes. The reality is that America has a very large runaway deficit to deal with right now and in my opinion your time would be better spent arguing which programs should be cut or how to raise revenue more efficiently and equitably. And I don't hear anyone doing that.

David St. Hubbins