• 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!

U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%[W: 831]

Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Why isn't Detroit, the city of big government solutions.....one of the model cities for the War on Poverty....the Motor City, doing better then?

Kushinator said:
The auto industry is doing much better.
Click to expand...
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

JC Callender said:
What are you talking about?
Click to expand...

First you make the claim that Michigan is doing better because of gov snyder cutting back regulations. You didn't say how those regulations had an effect on the economy... hell you didn't even say what regulations were enacted. You just made a vague statement and didn't back it up. Then when asked for specifics you just flow into another rambling of how michigan is doing better because Repubs are in charge now instead of dems. Didn't back any of it up. Just said so.

Just try to statistical tie your claims to your assumptions.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Kushinator said:
You shifted your focus from unemployment to fiscal policy.
Click to expand...

Oh... that's where the goalposts went. lol
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

JC Callender said:
Why isn't Detroit, the city of big government solutions.....one of the model cities for the War on Poverty....the Motor City, doing better then?
Click to expand...

More questions... no answers. Don't forget, you are the one making the bold claims.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I said he cut business taxes.

poweRob said:
First you make the claim that Michigan is doing better because of gov snyder cutting back regulations. You didn't say how those regulations had an effect on the economy... hell you didn't even say what regulations were enacted. You just made a vague statement and didn't back it up. Then when asked for specifics you just flow into another rambling of how michigan is doing better because Repubs are in charge now instead of dems. Didn't back any of it up. Just said so.

Just try to statistical tie your claims to your assumptions.
Click to expand...
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

JC Callender said:
I said he cut business taxes.
Click to expand...

Great. Now link to that and then show how it was that made Michigan's unemployment drop.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

No, you link to your source that cutting taxes on business and cutting deductions for individuals hurts the economy. I already have proof to support my point, our economy is doing much better.

poweRob said:
Great. Now link to that and then show how it was that made Michigan's unemployment drop.
Click to expand...
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

poweRob said:
That is true. So what's your claim? That more collection is somehow higher than the rate? Because fact show that collections are far lower which is why so many corporations pay zero taxes even though our tax rates are supposedly high.
Click to expand...

The numbers speak for themselves, govt income tax revenue grew every year after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented and set a record in 2007. Reagan increased FIT revenue by 60% with his tax cuts, how do you explain it?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Kushinator said:
A reference point (in this case % of GDP) is required to compare non-stationary time series.
Click to expand...

So low GDP means a higher percentage and that is good? Interesting. Comparing tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is a liberal tactic that ignores you don't spend percentage change you spend actual dollars.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

JC Callender said:
No, you link to your source that cutting taxes on business and cutting deductions for individuals hurts the economy. I already have proof to support my point, our economy is doing much better.
Click to expand...

I've never made any claims. You have. Can you back them up? I mean I can easily play your game. Obama's president. Pretty much all states are doing better since Bush is gone. Therefore Michigan is doing better because of Obama.

Now, for me to make that claim without any sources is specious at best, yet that is the same way you have formulated your argument. It is wrong... but it is the same.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
The numbers speak for themselves, govt income tax revenue grew every year after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented and set a record in 2007. Reagan increased FIT revenue by 60% with his tax cuts, how do you explain it?
Click to expand...

The government was spending more per capita under Reagan. There how is that!
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

JC Callender said:
No, you link to your source that cutting taxes on business and cutting deductions for individuals hurts the economy. I already have proof to support my point, our economy is doing much better.
Click to expand...

By your economic logic, Texas should be Germany by now, not just a BBQ flavored Poland..............just saying..................
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

JC Callender said:
No, you link to your source that cutting taxes on business and cutting deductions for individuals hurts the economy. I already have proof to support my point, our economy is doing much better.
Click to expand...

The state economy is doing better, but assuming that it is due mainly or wholly to the tax cuts can't be demonstrated, at least not right now. One could be dealing with a coincidence in timing on account of other factors. For example, New Jersey had a different experience.

Christie

It is probably likely that the tax relief had some impact, but a modest one. One need only look at the companies' financial data to see that state taxes account for a small portion of their cost structure, meaning that the tax relief had a modest positive impact on after-tax profitability. Perhaps much more likely is that Michigan was well-positioned to leverage the improvement in certain sectors e.g., cyclical manufacturing revival. States with economies focused on those sectors, even without tax policy changes, have enjoyed an economic boost.

And from an early story on Michigan's recovery that lends support to the idea of larger sector-specific factors, Bloomberg Business Week reported back in late 2011:

Michigan’s economy is recovering from the recession at the second-fastest pace in the U.S., lifted by reviving carmakers and local manufacturers, according to a new Bloomberg index that tracks the pace of state growth.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...48-states-shows-autos-drive-u-s-recovery.html
 
Last edited:
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
The numbers speak for themselves, govt income tax revenue grew every year after the Bush tax cuts were fully implemented and set a record in 2007. Reagan increased FIT revenue by 60% with his tax cuts, how do you explain it?
Click to expand...

Revenues go up naturally due to population growth meaning more people are paying taxes. In fact tax revenue growth was lower under Reagan than previous presidents. This is always ignored by those who make your argument that Reagan's tax cuts were the reason why revenues went up. Fact is... that's not true.

This guy kind of explains it rather well:

The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.

Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up a lower 91.3 percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which are directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. The reference to the doubling of revenues under Reagan commonly refers to TOTAL revenues. These include the above-mentioned Social Insurance revenues for which the tax rate went UP. It seems highly hypocritical to include these revenues (which were likely bolstered by the tax hike) as proof for the effectiveness of a tax cut.

Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.

link...​
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
So low GDP means a higher percentage and that is good? Interesting.
Click to expand...

You cannot view it from a vacuum, as tax revenue is dependent upon income. If output were to fall, tax revenue must also fall (as tax revenue is derived from income).

Comparing tax revenue as a percentage of GDP is a liberal tactic that ignores you don't spend percentage change you spend actual dollars.
Click to expand...

More anti-intellectual drivel. You cannot compare raw non-stationary time series data due to the dynamics of economic variables across the said time series, e.g. inflation, tax rates, output levels, etc.... It has nothing to do with "liberal tactics".
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Kushinator said:
No, i just understand the nature of our economic reality. The private sector is sitting on $3 trillion plus in short term liquidity. Tax rates are near historic lows (both corporate and individual). As previously stated, corporations are protecting shareholder value.
Click to expand...

With record profits and such low tax rates, economic theory dictates the private sector sure be investing this capital back into the market, expanding their enterprise and creating new jobs to fill.

One should consider the ramifications of Dodd-Frank churning out reams of new regulations, as well as the added cost of hiring new employees built in to Obamacare.

It is correct to assert that business is simply "protecting shareholder value." There is no value to be had from corporate expansion and capital investment.

This is the direct effect of stifling economic policy.

Unless of course one is foolish enough to believe that every one of the 9,000 pages of new regulations are needed for our economy to function...

Especially when advocating for robust government stimulus as the only effective means to get the economy going.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

poweRob said:
Revenues go up naturally due to population growth meaning more people are paying taxes. In fact tax revenue growth was lower under Reagan than previous presidents. This is always ignored by those who make your argument that Reagan's tax cuts were the reason why revenues went up. Fact is... that's not true.

This guy kind of explains it rather well:

The argument that the near-doubling of revenues during Reagan's two terms proves the value of tax cuts is an old argument. It's also extremely flawed. At 99.6 percent, revenues did nearly double during the 80s. However, they had likewise doubled during EVERY SINGLE DECADE SINCE THE GREAT DEPRESSION! They went up 502.4% during the 40's, 134.5% during the 50's, 108.5% during the 60's, and 168.2% during the 70's. At 96.2 percent, they nearly doubled in the 90s as well. Hence, claiming that the Reagan tax cuts caused the doubling of revenues is like a rooster claiming credit for the dawn.

Furthermore, the receipts from individual income taxes (the only receipts directly affected by the tax cuts) went up a lower 91.3 percent during the 80's. Meanwhile, receipts from Social Insurance, which are directly affected by the FICA tax rate, went up 140.8 percent. This large increase was largely due to the fact that the FICA tax rate went up 25% from 6.13 to 7.65 percent of payroll. The reference to the doubling of revenues under Reagan commonly refers to TOTAL revenues. These include the above-mentioned Social Insurance revenues for which the tax rate went UP. It seems highly hypocritical to include these revenues (which were likely bolstered by the tax hike) as proof for the effectiveness of a tax cut.

Hence, what evidence there is suggests there to be a correlation between lower taxes and LOWER revenues, not HIGHER revenues as suggested by supply-siders. There may well be valid arguments in favor of tax cuts. But higher tax revenues does not appear to be one of them.

link...​
Click to expand...

You really don't understand our economy do you, it is consumer driven and generated so people with more spendable income spend it, save it, or pay off debt all helping the economy. Only a big govt liberal believes the govt. needs the money more than the people do. What is it in your past that generates this knid of belief? Sorry but the facts prove you wrong, working people pay more in taxes than unemployed people and thus there were more workers then than now thus higher revenue
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

I don't have time to study your article and the economy of New Jersey, but would suggest a more non biased source than Bloomberg in the future. Btw, in the little I did read, it says that unemployment has gone down a little.



donsutherland1 said:
The state economy is doing better, but assuming that it is due mainly or wholly to the tax cuts can't be demonstrated, at least not right now. One could be dealing with a coincidence in timing on account of other factors. For example, New Jersey had a different experience.

Christie

It is probably likely that the tax relief had some impact, but a modest one. One need only look at the companies' financial data to see that state taxes account for a small portion of their cost structure, meaning that the tax relief had a modest positive impact on after-tax profitability. Perhaps much more likely is that Michigan was well-positioned to leverage the improvement in certain sectors e.g., cyclical manufacturing revival. States with economies focused on those sectors, even without tax policy changes, have enjoyed an economic boost.
Click to expand...
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Kushinator said:
You cannot view it from a vacuum, as tax revenue is dependent upon income. If output were to fall, tax revenue must also fall (as tax revenue is derived from income).



More anti-intellectual drivel. You cannot compare raw non-stationary time series data due to the dynamics of economic variables across the said time series, e.g. inflation, tax rates, output levels, etc.... It has nothing to do with "liberal tactics".
Click to expand...

Have you ever been in retail sales? Do you think businesses make more on sale items than regular items? Of course not but they draw people in and create opportunities for more sales. Tax cuts do the same thing, they create an atmosphere condusive to greater revenue caused by increased spending and more jobs. People like just cannot grasp that more taxpayers paying a lower rate still generate more revenue and have a multiplier effect
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
You really don't understand our economy do you, it is consumer driven and generated so people with more spendable income spend it, save it, or pay off debt all helping the economy. Only a big govt liberal believes the govt. needs the money more than the people do. What is it in your past that generates this knid of belief? Sorry but the facts prove you wrong, working people pay more in taxes than unemployed people and thus there were more workers then than now thus higher revenue
Click to expand...

So I just ****ed your politically dogmatic world view all up and you do your usual non sequitur response of "You're stupid and I'm smarter than you" bull**** dodge post. Ok...My bad. I seriously should've known better than to reply to your tripe.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

How well did Michigan's economy do during Obama's first two years?

poweRob said:
I've never made any claims. You have. Can you back them up? I mean I can easily play your game. Obama's president. Pretty much all states are doing better since Bush is gone. Therefore Michigan is doing better because of Obama.

Now, for me to make that claim without any sources is specious at best, yet that is the same way you have formulated your argument. It is wrong... but it is the same.
Click to expand...
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

JC Callender said:
I don't have time to study your article and the economy of New Jersey, but would suggest a more non biased source than Bloomberg in the future. Btw, in the little I did read, it says that unemployment has gone down a little.
Click to expand...

You are playing the "biased media" card with Bloomberg mag? Really?
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

JC Callender said:
How well did Michigan's economy do during Obama's first two years?
Click to expand...

Seems to be doing better the further away from Bush we get doesn't it?

Granted I don't buy that outright but this is how you debate so... welcome to your mirror.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

StringBean said:
With record profits and such low tax rates, economic theory dictates the private sector sure be investing this capital back into the market, expanding their enterprise and creating new jobs to fill.
Click to expand...

Until aggregate demand is expanding robustly leading to substantial sales growth, businesses will not expand aggressively. With the slower growth, a greater share of the focus remains on increasing productivity and effiency rather than taking on new employees/building new factories, etc. New employees, new factories, new equipment all entail significant new financial commitments. Right now, in many parts of the economy, aggregate demand is not expanding at a rate where companies need to increase their productive capacity.
 
Re: U.S. Adds Only 88,000 Jobs; Jobless Rate Falls to 7.6%

Conservative said:
Have you ever been in retail sales? Do you think businesses make more on sale items than regular items? Of course not but they draw people in and create opportunities for more sales. Tax cuts do the same thing, they create an atmosphere condusive to greater revenue caused by increased spending and more jobs. People like just cannot grasp that more taxpayers paying a lower rate still generate more revenue and have a multiplier effect
Click to expand...

This is not even a response to my post. Tax rates are at historic lows while revenues are at their lowest level (factoring for inflation) since 2003. And yet, it is not generating additional revenue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom