Definitely. Tax cuts while increasing spending like you have no limit is detrimental to fiscal health.
Definitely. Tax cuts while increasing spending like you have no limit is detrimental to fiscal health.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
still can't find where i mentioned a question, let alone a "hard hittin' question"? must be really sad for you to deal with such horrible reading comprehension issues, no wonder you falsely accuse other of that all the time. denial and deflection.....
i find it disturbing how much you think about whether i love bush or not. it is actually creepy. this is a political board, if you want to discuss man love as much as you do, perhaps you will find more success at a different board.
and work on your BDS. thank you.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
So the Bush tax cuts did not produce the employment and prosperity he promised?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
you think that is frantic? wow, you have more serious issues than i imagined.
where did i talk about a question onceler? <-- is there a reason you keep avoiding that question?
could it be because you never admit you're wrong?
I said you didn't ask a question. It's funny you think that's a gotcha.
And yes - you did get frantic.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
Tax cuts can be beneficial at a time of high unemployment. It is a fact that unemployment traditionally is improved by giving incentives to employers, but it seems we have a different set of rules today. The fastest way to get people working now is by supplying the wherewithall to see a good idea to productive fruition and grow new companies. Where do tax cuts come in? Easy. Any man with an idea or the pasion to create his own company and who is presently collecting social security, or whatever you call it in the US, should be able to get a deal that allows him to start with no tax liabilities. He might be given, yes given, a factory or premises and a loan at zero interest for a fixed period. He should be given assistance in the administration of that business, if he is ignorant of those affairs, by local organisations who will find the right people. He should be given priority to sell his product be it widgets or fruit juice with zero tax obligations. He would, of course, need to be out of work and rules should be put in place to prevent the con man and the liar from benefitting. The company might have a state accountant to check the books every week/month/whatever.
As soon as the company starts to turn a profit he should slowly collect his obligations. First by taxes at a very low rate, then by repaying his loan, interest free for a number of years. Conditions may be imposed such as a minimum time before he increases his workforce, a maximum salary while his obligations remain.
If he goes broke through no fault of his own he goes back to social security with zero obligations and no stain on his character.
Expensive? Sure. More expensive that other schemes? I very much doubt it. You might even finance part of the scheme by increasing tax rates for the mega rich.
Beats sitting in a cold New York street, doesn't it?
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
yes you did:
you claim i am deluded for thinking i asked a hard question in post 8 and you highlighted this:
seriously, pretty dumb think to lie about
Another example of how targeted tax cuts can create jobs.
I said you've never asked a hard hittin' question, even in post #8. And you didn't ask a hard-hittin' question, or any question, in post #8.
How dumb are you?
Love the lengths you go to for any attempted gotcha, though. It's hilarious.
It is difficult to say really. Just after they were passed we were attacked in a way that targeted our economy. That we maintained a decent level of unemployment during the subsequent years was quite astounding really. Was it due to the tax cuts? Maybe, but I'd say it was a combination of the cuts with the "spend more" request... It served to push off the major portion of the downturn until later, almost wholly until the next President took office. The problem with it was the fact that most who wanted to spend more were adding to the debt crisis, putting their homes under second mortgages, etc...
Lowaicue
英語在香港
The key being the word 'targeted'. You will also note there were 'targeted' tax increases in my post.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
did i claim i asked a hard hitting question? why did you highlight that text? it makes zero sense unless of course you're saying i claimed i asked a hard question.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
That boils down to "no", doesn't it?
It boils down to, 'I'm not sure.' with an explanation as to why. What would have happened if all things had remained the same? I don't think we'll ever know.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Bush promised that tax cuts would create jobs and prosperity. It's been over 10 years since 9/11.
Try again.
Unnecessary. The reality is we cannot know if the promised jobs would have showed up if a terrorist attack specifically on our economic interests hadn't occurred. Is it possible that we stayed as stable as we did because of those cuts? Yes, is it possible that they didn't do anything? Yeah. The issue is far more complex than your bumper sticker mentality seems able to maintain.
I'm not sure, I think it is likely that without those tax cuts the attack on the economy would have been more successful more quickly, and the downturn would have hit then and sustained after, however it would have been shorter as we wouldn't have been building up a deeper debt crisis as we did by putting our houses further into debt before the crisis came to a head.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
it is disingenuous to claim as fact that the bush tax cuts did not create jobs. 1. jobs were created under bush; 2. the market was doing fine until the real estate bubble burst and that had little, if anything, to do with bush's tax cuts.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
If I accept your premise, then it is possible that exculpatory circumstances would explain why Obama's economic measures also haven't performed as expected?