Do tax cuts help create Jobs?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AAEp0J_hzU"]‪kennedy tax cut‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

I like this idea!

 

Isn't it funny how every conservative on this board claims to be an employer?

Why are you laying off so many people then giving yourself seven-figure bonuses?

Oh, right. You all own Mickey D franchises. My bad.

 

Those also are not "independant studies" if done by think tanks who exist to help influence public policy.

 

Apparently you didn't read this entire thread. Question was already answered. Or you could just ask badmutha...he's an employer, dontcha know.

 

Yeah, how about giving it BACK to its rightful owners...The American people?

Get off it. Those foreign factory workers have more now then they every had scratching the Earth to make a living or selling their own into slavery for a few pieces of gold.

If I lived there and got an American salary, I'd have a penthouse and a bevy of pretty female servants. However, I am not in favor of sending manufacturing off-shore. It is just a reality right now.

If I were President I'd instantly slap a 20% tariff on all goods coming from China in the first place. The clamor for similar goods at cheaper prices would certainly stimulate manufacturing here.

I am saying that Obama can't get any large-scale national construction underway because of his lack of knowledge. You see, he does not understand what it takes to do these projects much less does he have the $$$$ to PAY for them.

Business has no faith in Obama therefore, they are no choosing to expand. Obama is like a poison-pill to business and free enterprise and, as I said, he is too ignorant to realize it. He was raised in a socialist cocoon and that is all he really knows. I think a lot of folks are taking these now...



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

Kennedy was the last great Democrat.

 

Agree. He loved this country.

 

The planet China did not exist in the solar system's economy under Kennedy, so that tax reduction is totally irrelevant in today's discussion.

If we could be self-sustaining with Green energy, minerals, elements, or just call it resources, raising tariffs and reducing income taxes would be sufficient to create jobs domestically, but no protectionist tariffs while increasing consumption taxes whether excise or a "Fair Tax," eliminating the death tax, I believe would have the opposite effect on jobs. Should the jobs from the wealthy aristocracy not be forthcoming, the ability of the poor classes to obtain enough land (free from property taxes) to subsist must be promoted.

The elimination of the IRS and raising consumption taxes while keeping lower than 95.0% imposts (with non-protectionist tariffs) would not create domestic jobs, but would shift the burden from the aristocracy (wealthy capable of owning a self-sustaining estate for almost no consumption) to the consumers (surfs, who must work for others to feed...themselves):

"To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending." http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-04-15/end-the-income-tax-abolish-the-irs/

Ron Pods had better take a look at this chart, because first, Ron Paul does not know We the People had an Income tax in 1865, just check his many speeches and stuff, and second, the "Receipts % Tariff" would have to increase significantly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excise_tax_in_the_United_States

1792 "Receipts % Tariff" 95.0% "Receipts % Excise" 4.7%
2010 "Receipts % Tariff" 1.2% "Receipts % Excise" 3.1%

I think to be self-sustaining we must have some protectionist tariffs to get to the 95% "Receipts % Tariff" we would need to have, especially in the Green energy industry (needed most for self-sufficiency).

The fact that arable land was pretty much untaxed by local government, and free for the taking, throughout much of the period when we existed with only Tariffs as the major source of income cannot be ignored.

Now if Ron Paul types were to agree to have protectionist tariffs on Green energy type products, and to help any industry we must maintain for national security reasons, and since an aristocracy like that of France in Thomas Jefferson's time must be prevented and since most land is no longer free, so if they go with Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson at least enough to make the silver spooned inheritors lose wealth and land for trickle down to those they do not hire equitable to their wealth, they might be able to convince me to get on-board. Otherwise, all I see in these lower tax schemes is a benefit to the silver spooned inheritors, and a French type aristocracy and decreased domestic jobs, for a Reign of Terror and return of the Obamanator for a congregation working toward ECONOMIC PARITY.

 

Lincoln was the last great Republican.

So you only have about 100 years to catch up.

 

Since you like Thomas Jefferson so much you must also share his aversion to central banking and government debt.

As for the leftist green energy fantasy, it is just a pipe-dream. Oil (shale and crude), natural gas, nuclear, they are the future of energy. They are proven and cost-effective and are relatively environmentally friendly. Green energies are only viable as supplements.

 

Lincoln was a tyrant who spat on the Constitution and caused hundreds of thousands of deaths unnecessarily in a war of aggression. No wonder you like him so much...

 

Certainly I am against government debt, when unnecessary and unwise in a long war, and I am against Congress abdicating its powers in favor of an institution that it gives such broad goals to it cannot function in concert with our laws and taxes.

As to the latter these two things often quoted by me show that, if you search for the many FED discussions in PDF format you see that the FED wanted a lower than "50% debt-to-income ratio for borrowers" but did not feel it had the laws of Congress to do it:

"BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM DivisIoN OF BANKING SUPERVISION AND REGULATION Date: September 30, 2005:"
"Another parameter that could be combined with LTV ratios to determine capital requirements might be a capacity measure such as a debt-to-income ratio." http://www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/PRESS/BCREG/2005/20051006/Basel1Amemo.pdf

"Fed to discuss max 50% debt-to-income ratio for borrowers, prohibition on 'stated-income' loans to subprime borrowers, and other new rules" (May 29th, 2007, 3:38 pm) http://mortgage.freedomblogging.com...ns-to-subprime-borrowers-and-other-new-rules/

A "50% debt-to-income ratio for borrowers" and it being front ratio at that was down right criminal. The end result was the debt crisis as a direct offshoot of the inability of the FED to prevent the mortgage and credit crisis. I should not have to show you where Greenspan did not believe there was a housing bubble in 2004.

The problems that exist there are directly related to the inability of Congress to be responsible with reasonable banking regulations.

I said, "If we could be self-sustaining with Green energy, minerals, elements, or just call it resources"

The "if" is an operative word, just as the phrase, "or just call it resources" is operative. If we must get our titanium from foreign sources then that can effect trade tariffs with that source.

*****

It is interesting that you ignored any discussion of Tariffs, which was our main revenue source until 1865-1870 when We the People got our first Income Tax, as a means increasing domestic jobs.

If Ron Paul types are not liars about indirect taxes, then tariffs, which was our main revenue source until 1865-1870 when We the People got our first Income Tax, should not be off the table.

A simple test could be conducted by raising tariffs (taxes on imports) while keeping the Bush tax cuts. If the "Receipts % Tariff" could be raised to be equal to the "leftest" perceived loss due to Bush tax cuts then we could see the effect on domestic jobs, and it might be easier to convince people to ditch the IRS. But, if you do not think raising tariffs (taxes on imports) would work, then Ron Pods lose any argument in favor of returning to the old indirect tax schemes.

United States Federal, State and Local Government Revenue, Fiscal Year 1792 in $ million

United States Federal State and Local Government Revenue, Pop: 31.4 million, Fiscal Year 1860 in $ million

"Customs Duties and Fees" were the primary source of revenue, but lets see what Ron Pod has to say:

"I am disheartened by the administration's recent decision to impose a 30 percent tariff on steel imports... We forget that tariffs are taxes, and that imposing tariffs means raising taxes. Why is the administration raising taxes on American steel consumers?" (Congressman Ron Paul, MD) http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul21.html

Personally, I think he is a blithering idiot. The taxes preferred by our founders was tariffs not excise taxes or anything else a Ron Pod prefers.

 

It is much more effective to directly spend money than to give it to someone else and hope they spend it. At least in terms of pure stimulus.

 

Then the Soviet Union should have been the most prosperous country to ever grace the planet.......rather than the failed bankrupt liberal utopia it became.
.
.
.
.

 

using your own logic against you, the US should be the most prosperous country ever to grace the planet, since tax rates are at a 60 year low......rather than a bankrupt conservative trainwreck it has become.

 

I hit No by mistake ,please disreguard one of the no votes . (Sorry)

 

And it is........but Obama and Democrats are hell bent on changing that.
.
.
..

 

lol, then why is unemployment over 9%? according to your logic, since taxes are at a 60 year low, we should have full employment.

reality sucks doesn't it?

 

You speak from experience Ignoramus......

Unemployment Rate Since Democrats Took Over Congress



Unemployment Rate Since Obama became President


Tax Rates may be a big factor.......but not the only one.
.
.
.
.
.
.

 

tax rates are not a factor at all. You still refuse to read an economics textbook. only demand for increased production creates jobs. So, back to your failed logic. since tax rates are at a 60 year low, why is unemployment over 9%? and what, in your mind, have democrats done to cause such high unemployment?

 

The greatest democrat President, John F Kennedy, understood how cutting taxes improves the economy.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4S5nM8BjwM"]‪JFK - Path to Prosperity‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

So write your rep and tell them to set the top tax rate to 70% like Kennedy the greatest democrat President put them.

I agree that will go a long way to solve the deficit problem.

 

Well thought out, rational nonpartisan broad look at what we have to do to rectify this situation we find ourselves in.

I salute your lack of narrowminded, selfserving, partisan hackery.

 

What thr right will do is keep tax breaks for the wealthy and increase taxes for the not so wealthy.

So...if you make less you will pay more. They will call it sharing the burden.

Taxes will go up...you can bank on it.