In view of your prior posts on this subject, does this mean your wife doesn't have to quit her job like you pretended a few years ago? Since she retroactively quit it in 2009 in order to prepare for 2011, is she going to have to quit 2 years from 2013, which would be like now?
To all these liberals who are crowing about the tax cuts, I've often wondered why you don't just volunteer to pay more in taxes yourselves. Put your money where your mouth is. TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP
Are you still avoiding your local military recruiter like he has the ebola virus? You know it's not too late to do your part in Iraq?
I'm still waiting on you to explain why you support the option that provides the least stimulus to the econmy and the most to the deficit. Until you can do that, your economic theories can't really be taken seriously.
I'd like to hear you explain how progressively punishing more and more success and thwarting incentive provides stimulus to the economy? And also, how can tax cuts "cost" money unless you accept the faulty premise that all money is government's and not people's private property?
Well stimulus isn't provided by tax cuts. The fact is for every dollar spent on tax cuts only about thirty five cents goes back into the economy. Where as something like unemployment benefits which could be paid for with the taxes on the wealthy is a much bigger return on stimulus. for every dollar spent on unemployment $1.61 goes back into the economy. The myth is that giving uber wealth tax breaks makes them hire more people and creates jobs. That's BS. The uber wealthy have enough money right now to hire people. They don't need a tax break to do that. What they need to hire more people is for more people to buy their products or services. So the stimulus needs to come from the ground up. The more middle income earners have to spend the more they will drive a need for expansion among the top 2%. Nobody who's a good businessman will start hiring people just because they get a tax break unless there is actually demand for what they are going to produce. When the economy is bad like it is, there isn't really a demand. Give them tax breaks all you want, but they aren't going to hire employees to sit around and do nothing.
I think it's more based on the premise that x-1 < x, where x is a positive number. If you can disprove this, you will literally blow my mind, much like the first time I heard Frampton break out the talk box in Feel like I Do.
Lol...you're essentially arguing for a permanent welfare state. Unemployment benefits provide no economic stimulus. I'd love to see some stats on how exactly that logic makes any sense. Unemployment provides the poor/unfortunate with barely enough to sustain themselves. It's not stimulating anything other than government by creating a permanent underclass, and maybe the ability for the people on unemployment to pay their electric bill for the current month. Stimulus is indeed provided by tax cuts. Every time we've cut taxes, an economic boom has followed. When you allow people to keep more of the money they have EARNED (not been given), that creates more discretionary income, which allows people to spend more. This generates more revenue in the form of taxes for the government.
And this is the level of debate that exists now, if taxes lapse to a level as they were during the 90's, or lower than they were during Reagan - you are creating a "permanent welfare state" - whatever that actually even means. Hyperbole: You has it. There is not a big enough palm in our galaxy to administer the blow to the face that is required by this abortion of a syllogism. Your bad energies are overwhelming my Thetans, the alien Xenus will come and smote you.
uh...man oh man. k, this is the Laffer curve, which was created to support your idea. it's rather self-explanatory. and it's something supply-side proponents often misinterpret even though it was constructed to support their idea. care to reflect on your statement before I bring up CBO numbers?
What? I have printed facts from the non-partisan CBO, and Moody's Analytics which is hardly a liberal organization. I've told you where I'm getting my facts from. Where are your coming from? The fact is that when middle class people who've been laid off because of the tough economy get their unemployment check they spend it, in addition to more money. That money may come from their savings because they believe they will be back at work soon. When the wealthy get tax cuts especially in tough economic times it tends to go towards savings. They don't spend it back into the economy. Again this is from Moody's. I'm talking about researched facts, not something some politician has said, or what seems logical to me. I'm talking about actual research and facts. As for the permanent welfare state thing, that is odd, because that's not what I'm advocating at all. I'm advocating providing targeted stimulus in order to boost the economy and put more people to work at better wages. That would be the opposite of a permanent welfare state. Here's some links for you to look at. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...ax-cuts-instead-of-spending-moody-s-says.html http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/index.htm Here is one that talks about how the unemployment benefits stimulate the economy. It also explains why tax cuts tend to increase savings and don't really stimulate the economy as much. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128449659 Again, I'm dealing with research and facts from economists and studies. Where are you getting your information?
Wow. Out of context much? Although I guess that doesn't matter...just throw some big words out there that have nothing to do with anything and all will be good. My comment about the welfare state has nothing to do with tax rates. The statement I was responding to was the illogical argument that unemployment benefits provide more stimulus, or any stimulus at all, than a tax cut does. If unemployment provides so much stimulus, why don't we all just get on unemployment (welfare state). That'll get us out of this mess in a heartbeat!
At the risk of being identified as a "liberal back-slapper", this post is almost as cool as Battelfield Earth--solid gold
Because that isn't how unemployment works. Again, I've provided studies by economists that show how unemployment acts as a stimulus to the economy. You still haven't shown where you are getting your "facts" from.
That sure is how unemployment works under this administration, seeing as how you can stay on it for almost 3 years now. As for where I get my facts from to support the idea that tax cuts stimulate the economy and unemployment does not, here's a few... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...-growth-commentary-by-david-blanchflower.html http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm http://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/tax_cuts.asp http://www.cnbc.com/id/39154135/Ending_Bush_Tax_Cuts_Will_Hurt_Economy_Goldman_Analyst http://www.ncpa.org/taxes/ http://conservativeoutpost.com/i_guess_tax_cuts_stimulate_economy_after_all http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/econ/tax_cuts.htm http://www.benzinga.com/general/10/...-through-tax-relief-for-workers-and-employers http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...economic-stimulus-stanford-s-taylor-says.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575351301788376276.html http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...timulate-economic-growth-new-heritage-study-f http://www.dailyestimate.com/article.asp?id=13832 http://www.themoralliberal.com/2010/12/14/paying-the-unemployed-does-not-stimulate-the-economy/ http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/no...nemployment-benefits-doesnt-stimulate-economy http://www.mackinac.org/13203
When the unwashed are arguing that consumption of goods and services does not stimulate demand or create jobs, it's time to have the Xenus gravitate down from the Van Allen belts and liquidate their husks. I'll let a more patient thetan handle the bloody mess here. I'm beyond this level. Though I will say, a word to the unwise, next time you're going to fight a losing battle over the demand stimulus effect of tax cuts, you probably don't want to preface it..... Spoiler .....with a statement that you're going to take a tax cut and put it in the bank for 20 years, husky man...
