• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Study: Romney’s Tax Plan Hits Middle Class

Keridan said:
The fact that the money went to other things, too, doesn't change that the status report from Obama's advisers claimed 2.4 million jobs were added or saved (I question that figure). The goal of the stimulus was to improve the economy. $666 billion was spent on that goal. 2.4 million jobs was the claimed success. Whether the stimulation was supposed to be a direct result of hiring or because taxes were lowered to increase demand is largely irrelevant. You don't think they were quick to calculate the net effect of that increased demand in their figure of 2.4 million?

For every $278,000 spent in that stimulus, 1 job was created according to the numbers given by a report from Obama's advisers. Now, if they feel they can do better the next time around, I'd be interested in hearing the details. When unemployment is on the rise, despite not counting tons of folks and numbers don't seem to be getting much better, I think any additional government spending needs to show a better ratio on those two figures.
Click to expand...

The goal of the stimulus was multiple things. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikisource, the free online library

(a) Statement of Purposes.— The purposes of this Act include the following:
(1) To preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery.
(2) To assist those most impacted by the recession.
(3) To provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health.
(4) To invest in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure that will provide long-term economic benefits
(5) To stabilize State and local government budgets, in order to minimize and avoid reductions in essential services and counterproductive state and local tax increases.
Click to expand...

Notice 3 and 4.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
The goal of the stimulus was multiple things. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 - Wikisource, the free online library



Notice 3 and 4.
Click to expand...

Measuring success in 3 and 4 would require more information than I have energy to look up right now. I suspect I wouldn't be very satisfied with the answers. Calling the stimulus a success is very debatable, however.

I also stand firmly by my statement that any additional government spending would need a better ratio. Getting demand higher by increasing employment (or vice verse) would give additional money to worry about infrastructure.
 
Keridan said:
Measuring success in 3 and 4 would require more information than I have energy to look up right now. I suspect I wouldn't be very satisfied with the answers. Calling the stimulus a success is very debatable, however.

I also stand firmly by my statement that any additional government spending would need a better ratio. Getting demand higher by increasing employment (or vice verse) would give additional money to worry about infrastructure.
Click to expand...

You miss the point. With 4 especially, while the spending created jobs, it also provided infrastructure which has a very definate value.
 
Redress said:
You miss the point. With 4 especially, while the spending created jobs, it also provided infrastructure which has a very definate value.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss the point, I just pointed out I'm too tired to gather the relevant facts. How much road was created at what cost (as an example)? Without that information, it's hard to focus on that point. However, since infrastructure was only 1/4 of the spend, even if you were to pull that from the figures, I still would find it very hard to fit the word success to the outcome.
 
Keridan said:
I didn't miss the point, I just pointed out I'm too tired to gather the relevant facts. How much road was created at what cost (as an example)? Without that information, it's hard to focus on that point. However, since infrastructure was only 1/4 of the spend, even if you were to pull that from the figures, I still would find it very hard to fit the word success to the outcome.
Click to expand...

The point is, the claim of X per job is a false claim, since it simply divides the cost by the number of jobs reported created. That math does not, in any way, create a realistic picture.
 
Redress said:
The point is, the claim of X per job is a false claim, since it simply divides the cost by the number of jobs reported created. That math does not, in any way, create a realistic picture.
Click to expand...

I readily grant that the numbers are not a perfect descriptor. However, I think the numbers are pretty relevant. If I could find a more accurate reflection, i would be happy to use that instead. My original post on the subject was simply a dramatic way of pointing out that the success of the stimulus is highly debatable.

As a libertarian (your favorite lean, I know), I feel any government spending must be highly justified. It's like how I feel about regulations. They are necessary, but must be administered very carefully and show some very tangible and clear results.
 
hazlnut said:
[h=1]Study: Romney’s Tax Plan Hits Middle Class[/h]




How are people fooled by this guy?

Answer: Fox News.
Click to expand...

The study was done by the "Tax Policy Center" which (surprise) is an arm of the far left Brookings Institution

I'll see your article with it's phony assumptions and raise you Obamcare, which is a massive direct tax increase on the poor and middle class.
 
Keridan said:
I readily grant that the numbers are not a perfect descriptor. However, I think the numbers are pretty relevant. If I could find a more accurate reflection, i would be happy to use that instead. My original post on the subject was simply a dramatic way of pointing out that the success of the stimulus is highly debatable.

As a libertarian (your favorite lean, I know), I feel any government spending must be highly justified. It's like how I feel about regulations. They are necessary, but must be administered very carefully and show some very tangible and clear results.
Click to expand...

Leave my feelings about libertarians out of this....:3oops:

The reason the number is irrelevant is because it has no bearing on, well, anything. What percentage of the stimulus was just to create jobs? If you can't answer that, your cost per job number is no more meaningful than two random numbers divided.
 
washunut said:
When it comes to the stimulus, can't we all get along?

Let's agree that it accomplished more than nothing but not as much a very well designed $800 billion spending program could have gotten us.
Click to expand...

It was a massive failure filled with crony capitalism and corruption

This is beyond refute
 
Here is what is relevant about the “stimulus” program it didn’t live up to the bill of sale we were given by our elected officials. It didn’t create the number of jobs that was promised. It didn’t increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and heath . To much of the money was given to bail out states that had a budget shortfall, in and of itself not a bad idea, but the money was given without any plan needed for each state to show how they planned on balancing their budgets the following year. So in essence the money was given to allow states to kick the can down the road for another year.

All and all what can be said about the stimulus program is that the American Citizens got very little bang for the buck. Did it do some good, most certainly, but nothing close to what was promised.
 
Not to mention the addition to the deficit decreases growth in the long run.
 
Yes, Mitt Romney's tax plan benefits rich people not the poor and middle-class. I request all the candidates prepare plans for poor and middle-class because United States has been struggling with drought. Earlier, Romney states - Corporations are people. His statement created some controversy and Obama camp has said that Romney is in favor of corporations.
 
Bronson said:
The study was done by the "Tax Policy Center" which (surprise) is an arm of the far left Brookings Institution

I'll see your article with it's phony assumptions and raise you Obamcare, which is a massive direct tax increase on the poor and middle class.
Click to expand...
:dohBrookings institute... Left wing? :lamo
Tax policy center has experts from both Bush administrations, Clinton, and Reagan. Must be some hard core lefties under Reagan.... :roll::roll:
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Growth and taxes have no correlation.
Click to expand...

REALLY? Then why did Obama, clinton and the rest of the democrats all agree that the economy was too fragile/bad (very low growth) to raise taxes???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom