punked Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 The depression wasn't a result of low taxes. Why do you continue to obfuscate? Are you saying growth would have been smaller if taxes were at 70% instead of 90%? If so, please explain that economic premise. Be specific. Also, are you saying that if Obama raised taxes up to 90%, we'd see strong economic growth? If not, why not? Also, you still haven't described how tax hikes create jobs. And you still haven't described how low taxes kill jobs. If you're going to put forth these types of economic premises, you're going to have to back them up. So far, you've done nothing. I am not playing your game Shady. If you want to know economic theories behind taxes, which their are many of, you can buy a book and read about them. I am pointing out that high taxes in the States haven't lead to the stopping of job creation which is the only argument the Republicans have against them. The evidence shows they and you are wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 While the country’s debt continues to rise, the federal government is subsidizing oil companies with $1.4 billion per year. Luckily the 20 some odd billion dollars a year they pay in taxes make up for it, and then some! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 You neglected to mention the huge subsidies provided by government to these American entities. They had no choice....Canada was on the ropes, and Alberta was getting no respect from the east...still doesn't. Remember boys and girls...American Sun Oil > Sunoco > SunCorp....I love a story with a happy ending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Job creation looks great for Bush...check the unemployment rates. LOL! great point! Bush was so bad, that the average unemployment rate during his two terms was about 5%. It's over 9% under Obama. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 I am not playing your game Shady. That's because you know that your premises contradict logic and reason. Please explain to use how a tax hike creates jobs! And then please explain to use how low taxes kills jobs! It's not a game. They're your words, and your theories. Stand behind them, or STFU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 ...I am pointing out that high taxes in the States haven't lead to the stopping of job creation which is the only argument the Republicans have against them. The evidence shows they and you are wrong. Yet you have mysteriously left out that the highest marginal tax rates only applied to income in excess of very high thresholds, not the wider bases of today. Nice try..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 LOL! great point! Bush was so bad, that the average unemployment rate during his two terms was about 5%. It's over 9% under Obama. Yup....Obama has a serious math problem. Hope and change! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 LOL! great point! Bush was so bad, that the average unemployment rate during his two terms was about 5%. It's over 9% under Obama. How many jobs he create again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 How many jobs he create again? How was the unemployment rate at 5% then? Anyways, have you figured out how you're going to explain to us how tax hikes create jobs, and how low taxes kill jobs? Will the HST create jobs too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 How many jobs he create again? More than Obama! Check the rates..... Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7 2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0 2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7 2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0 2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 4.9 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.3 2009 7.8 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.8 10.1 9.9 9.9 2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.4 2011 9.0 8.9 8.8 9.0 9.1 9.2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 More than Obama! Check the rates..... Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual 2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7 2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0 2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7 2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4 2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0 2008 5.0 4.8 5.1 4.9 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.8 7.3 2009 7.8 8.2 8.6 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.7 9.8 10.1 9.9 9.9 2010 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.8 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.4 2011 9.0 8.9 8.8 9.0 9.1 9.2 Yah Obama cut taxes to create jobs to. Fail on that one eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 I am pointing out that high taxes in the States haven't lead to the stopping of job creation which is the only argument the Republicans have against them. The evidence shows they and you are wrong. Why are the highest taxed states showing the lowest economic growth? And why are the lowest taxed states the ones creating all of the jobs right now? Come'on punked, inquiring minds want to know! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Yah Obama cut taxes to create jobs to. Fail on that one eh? Jobs are jobs....your guy is getting his presidential ass kicked! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Luckily the 20 some odd billion dollars a year they pay in taxes make up for it, and then some! I agree with the previous poster relative to your lack of knowledge about economics. I would like to recommend a course in introductory economics. It is quite obvious you are severely deficient. Edited July 12, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 LOL! great point! Bush was so bad, that the average unemployment rate during his two terms was about 5%. It's over 9% under Obama. More drivel from the pseudo economist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 I agree with the previous poster relative to your lack of knowledge about economics. I would like to recommend a course in introductory economics. It is quite obvious you are severely deficient. How so? Why don't you address the issue at hand instead? Or do you fail to understand the tremendous amount of wealth the oil industry creates for the government? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 More drivel from the pseudo economist. I'm just stating facts. Those are the numbers. Argue with math all you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Please explain to use how a tax hike creates jobs! The money can be used to invest in education, infrastructure, national security, health services... Glad to help out in your remedial studies of economics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 The money can be used to invest in education, infrastructure, national security, health services... Glad to help out in your remedial studies of economics. Oh, so government jobs. That's what I thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Hey everyone remember a bunch of posts ago in this very thread when I pointed out that Shady would say government jobs don't count however he wont see how hypocritical to say that and post job numbers every month. The US is creating private jobs right now and losing government ones. So if they don't count you must think Obama great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 The US didn't owe the world dick....your Nixon shock bankruptcy theory is a legend in your own mind. The US is not bankrupt, but if it ever goes that way, Canada will be the next one down the toilet drain. No its not a legend in my own mind. Its a well accepted fact that isnt even contraversial. Its not a theory, its the exact textbook definition of the word. The US is not bankrupt I never said it was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) No its not a legend in my own mind. Its a well accepted fact that isnt even contraversial. Its not a theory, its the exact textbook definition of the word. We have already been over this...Nixon's actions were in direct response to European moves that unilaterally abandoned Bretton Woods. Nixon owed the "world" nothing. I never said it was. Then what is the point of this game? Did Nixon owe you some gold from Fort Knox? Edited July 12, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) We have already been over this...Nixon's actions were in direct response to European moves that unilaterally abandoned Bretton Woods. Nixon owed the "world" nothing. Then what is the point of this game? Did Nixon owe you some gold from Fort Knox? As the premiere power after the Second World War the Americans pretty well dictated the outcome of the Bretton Woods conference. It wasn't so much that the Europeans abandoned this event as it was the preeminence of the Americans. As you know Europe had been devastated by the war. Edited July 12, 2011 by pinko Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 As the premiere power after the Second World War the Americans pretty well dictated the outcome of the Bretton Woods conference. It wasn't so much that the Europeans abandoned this event as it was the preeminence of the Americans. As you know Europe had been devastated by the war. Nixon "shock" happened in 1971...West Germany and Switzerland didn't seem to be bound to the agreement either. The United States acted in its own interest, just like any other nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted July 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Please explain to us how a tax hike creates jobs! The money can be used to invest in education, infrastructure, national security, health services... Glad to help out in your remedial studies of economics. So corporations and others are actually creating those jobs since the money does come from taxes. They create all the jobs in the private sector as well. Should higher taxes be legislated to increase investment in education, infrastructure, national security, health services, etc.? Can we just forget about private sector jobs then? Oh... but then there won't be any production in the private sector and nothing to tax and no money for spending...er...I mean.."investment". The government does not create jobs. If it grows the public sector it kills jobs in the private sector which finances it. The government borrowing money to finance jobs makes them unsustainable. This is why growth in the economy is so important to government to finance it's spending investments, and provide careers in education, infrastructure, national security, health services... A downturn in the economy on a macro-economic level is generally the result of monetary policies of government. Economic booms are also mostly a monetary phenomenon. Although governments attempt to maintain a stable economy, that is to say, level prices and wages, it gets into trouble because it always overspends. An economic downturn means a drop in revenues and an inability to finance itself and it's commitments at the level it has grown to. It's reaction is to finance by borrowing and that reaction may in the short run save inconveniences to people but in the long run is unsustainable. The hope is that the economy will recover before the government has to cut spending. Increasing taxes when the economy is on it's knees is counter-productive and most likely an increase in revenues will not be realized. But worse than that is the fact that the "threat", or for the left - the "promise", of increased taxes puts the economy on hold due to the uncertainty of what the increased cost to the economy is going to be. Obama care, since we don't yet know what's in it, is a job killer as well as Obama's continual ranting about tax increases for the rich. If you want an example of an economic maroon - Obama serves it well. When economics is looked at through the prism of politics it is merely a tool and is a backwards view. Politics needs to be looked at through the prism of economics. Essentially, to understand basic politics, which is of the lesser importance, it is best to understand the greater importance of some basic economics. Political differences can usually be resolved if the economics are understood. What do we know when economic terms are naunced with political deceit. Such as when "cuts to spending" are really "cuts to increases in spending", or an absence of a tax is called " a loss in revenues", or "money" has become a token or an electronic entry that can become almost instantly valueless. Or government "creates" jobs when it only regulates the ability of the economy to create jobs. We can have our arguments about political/governmental platforms and what is best for society but when politicians are having the same arguments you know there is some basic economic knowledge either being relegated to the back seat in favour of political expediency or they really don't have a clue. In either case it means trouble for us citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.