No Tax Increases, Obama backs up like little girl.

And that exactly proves he is wrong. If you tax someone an extra 1% on a $40,000 income they have $400 less to spend and create demand for jobs.

Thank you for proving my point.
 
Big question at this point is whether the House will accept the cuts in defense spending. It will be interesting to discover whether or not Reid will table the vote on a BBA before the 2012 elections.
 
or if you tax someone an extra 1% on a $40,000 income the gov' has $400 more to spend and create demand for jobs.

the whole job creation + tax argument is stupid.
 
Actually, since the government is so broke and is paying $0.41 per $1 to borrow money, that $400 doesn't pay for shit. Especially when you consider the overhead that government has to manage getting and spending that money.

I'd be surprised that if the government actually got to SPEND 25% on "creating demand for jobs" of the money that they take in on that 1% increase.
 
So fail around if the goal is to reduce our deficits? Splendid.

Whelp, hopefully they pass raising the debt limit to at least this self-inflicted fake crisis doesn't end up tanking our/the world's economy. So... yay.
 
Broken window fallacy. Nice try. You fail.

Instead of creating jobs locally in a community, you send the money to Washington DC so it can "create" overpaid jobs in the DC metro area. Ever wonder why the counties surrounding DC are the richest in the country?

Taxation does not create jobs, it destroys them.
 
But the previous statement is also true. Which means by increasing taxes, no net job creation exists. It seems the only difference, then, is if you want to create a job based on market forces, or government force. Purchase products you want, or be taxed for products you don't necessarily want or need.

I think we see to which side you lean.

And as we've seen more recently, since the government is so broke as Anti-Lib mentions above, the money is only going to damage control (repayment of loans) rather than the creation of any new work.

If this taxation is so good, why don't we let the states do it? Then we can see the states that tax their citizens up the wazoo get rich, while states that don't tax enough become poor slums. Wouldn't that be a great way for you to prove how right you are? Why must everything be on the Federal level, where we can't see by experiment and control which way actually works best?
 
Taxation may falsely create jobs, but if focuses the jobs in government approved areas. Instead of a mom and pop store in a local community hiring an unemployed mother of two, it allows for another bureaucrat to be hired in DC, which will have no impact on the local community, it only destroys jobs in the local community.
 
When Democrats and Republicans agree on something, it is usually a very bad thing for The People.

$1 trillion in cuts over 10 years. Really? We have a $14+ trillion dollar deficit. At this fucking rate, assuming they use NONE of the 2+ trillion ceiling and add new debt (which we both know isn't going to happen), it'll be the year 2151 before America breaks even.

This TENTATIVE deal is shit!
 
What is the end game of creating more government jobs? The government has more control over their employees than they have over private sector employees. Why would our benign government seek to become job creators? Could this possibly derive from an insatiable thirst for power over the individual? Let us look at the USSR, as was, to determine what the end game will be once taxation in the name of job creation is accepted as normative governmental business. When all of the populous is employed by the government, how then shall our benign government behave?
 
Back
Top