Page 82 of 215 FirstFirst ... 3272808182838492132182 ... LastLast
Results 811 to 820 of 2145

Thread: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

  1. #811
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Stay within the claim. No one said no effect. Said not enough to stop business if people are buying. This economy has flourish with both low and high taxes, more regulations and less regulations. This is historical fact.
    Again, you offer your opinion and pass it off as fact. Since you apparently have no idea what regulations, higher taxes, Obamacare, as well as debt service and other business expenses costs businesses, your opinion is nothing more than an inaccurate guess. Site the historical facts you claim you have? Do you have a list of all the financial statements from every business in the country? Do you have the profit demand for each business as well? State your post as opinion because that opinion of yours is downright idiotic.

  2. #812
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Again, you offer your opinion and pass it off as fact. Since you apparently have no idea what regulations, higher taxes, Obamacare, as well as debt service and other business expenses, your opinion is nothing more than an inaccurate guess. Site the historical facts you claim you have? Do you have a list of all the financial statements from every business in the country? Do you have the profit demand for each business as well? State your post as opinion because that opinion of yours is downright idiotic.
    What I offered as fact, is fact. Not opinion.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #813
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    What I offered as fact, is fact. Not opinion.
    You have provided no source of that so called fact so until you offer financial reports and profit demands of business yours is nothing more than an uneducated opinion.

  4. #814
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    You have provided no source of that so called fact so until you offer financial reports and profit demands of business yours is nothing more than an uneducated opinion.
    Over the years, I've provided many. How about this one:

    . . . it is still interesting that regardless of when we start the sample, higher top marginal tax rates are associated with higher not lower growth. Moreover, a narrative reading of postwar US economic history leads to the same conclusion. The period of highest growth in the United States was in the post-war era when top marginal tax rates were 94% (under President Truman) and 91% (through 1963). As top marginal rates dropped, so did growth. Moreover, except for 1984, a recovery year, the highest per capita growth rates since 1980 were all in the late 1990s, after the top marginal tax rate had been increased from 28% under President Reagan to 31% under the first President Bush and then 39.6% under President Clinton.

    (snip)

    What does this mean for public policy? Given the large rise in inequality in the United States over the past 40 years, if the historical evidence tells us that it is unlikely that taxing the wealthy has a large negative impact on growth (and it might even have a positive impact), shouldn't we increase rates on the wealthy from their current top rates of 35%?

    Economist's View: Does Taxing the Wealthy Hurt Growth?

    or this:

    Yet this belief, which has been subject to extensive research and analysis, does not fare well under scrutiny. As three leading tax economists recently concluded in a comprehensive review of the empirical evidence, “there is no compelling evidence to date of real responses of upper income taxpayers to changes in tax rates.”[1] The literature suggests that if the alternative to raising taxes is larger deficits, then modest tax increases on high-income households would likely be more beneficial for the economy over the long run.

    Recent Studies Find Raising Taxes on High-Income Households Would Not Harm the Economy — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

    or this:

    The argument has proved extraordinarily successful. Under Republican presidents, the top income tax rate fell as low as 28 percent, less than half the 70 percent level it was in 1980.

    The top corporate income tax rate was 46 percent when President Reagan took office. Today it is 35 percent. Taxes on investment income, which primarily flows to the wealthy, are even lower. In laying out his plan for a balanced budget by 2023, Mr. Ryan has trotted out the same three elements of Mr. Kemp’s formula: drastic curbs on spending, paring loopholes in unspecified ways and cutting tax rates even further, well below the roughly 40 percent top rate on income that was reintroduced by President Obama’s recent tax increase.

    “The goal of tax reform should be to curb or eliminate loopholes and use those savings to lower tax rates across the board — not to fund more wasteful government spending,” Mr. Ryan’s budget plan states. Echoing Mr. Forbes, he called the new Republican proposal “a pro-growth tax system that benefits families and businesses.”

    Problem is, there is little evidence that tax cutting has worked as advertised.

    Thomas L. Hungerford, an economist with the Congressional Research Service, got into trouble with Republicans last year when he published a study suggesting that the sharp drop in top tax rates since 1945 did little to lift economic growth but probably did contribute to soaring income inequality.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/bu...anted=all&_r=0

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #815
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Over the years, I've provided many. How about this one:

    . . . it is still interesting that regardless of when we start the sample, higher top marginal tax rates are associated with higher not lower growth. Moreover, a narrative reading of postwar US economic history leads to the same conclusion. The period of highest growth in the United States was in the post-war era when top marginal tax rates were 94% (under President Truman) and 91% (through 1963). As top marginal rates dropped, so did growth. Moreover, except for 1984, a recovery year, the highest per capita growth rates since 1980 were all in the late 1990s, after the top marginal tax rate had been increased from 28% under President Reagan to 31% under the first President Bush and then 39.6% under President Clinton.

    (snip)

    What does this mean for public policy? Given the large rise in inequality in the United States over the past 40 years, if the historical evidence tells us that it is unlikely that taxing the wealthy has a large negative impact on growth (and it might even have a positive impact), shouldn't we increase rates on the wealthy from their current top rates of 35%?

    Economist's View: Does Taxing the Wealthy Hurt Growth?

    or this:

    Yet this belief, which has been subject to extensive research and analysis, does not fare well under scrutiny. As three leading tax economists recently concluded in a comprehensive review of the empirical evidence, “there is no compelling evidence to date of real responses of upper income taxpayers to changes in tax rates.”[1] The literature suggests that if the alternative to raising taxes is larger deficits, then modest tax increases on high-income households would likely be more beneficial for the economy over the long run.

    Recent Studies Find Raising Taxes on High-Income Households Would Not Harm the Economy — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

    or this:

    The argument has proved extraordinarily successful. Under Republican presidents, the top income tax rate fell as low as 28 percent, less than half the 70 percent level it was in 1980.

    The top corporate income tax rate was 46 percent when President Reagan took office. Today it is 35 percent. Taxes on investment income, which primarily flows to the wealthy, are even lower. In laying out his plan for a balanced budget by 2023, Mr. Ryan has trotted out the same three elements of Mr. Kemp’s formula: drastic curbs on spending, paring loopholes in unspecified ways and cutting tax rates even further, well below the roughly 40 percent top rate on income that was reintroduced by President Obama’s recent tax increase.

    “The goal of tax reform should be to curb or eliminate loopholes and use those savings to lower tax rates across the board — not to fund more wasteful government spending,” Mr. Ryan’s budget plan states. Echoing Mr. Forbes, he called the new Republican proposal “a pro-growth tax system that benefits families and businesses.”

    Problem is, there is little evidence that tax cutting has worked as advertised.

    Thomas L. Hungerford, an economist with the Congressional Research Service, got into trouble with Republicans last year when he published a study suggesting that the sharp drop in top tax rates since 1945 did little to lift economic growth but probably did contribute to soaring income inequality.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/bu...anted=all&_r=0
    All this does is prove that you have no idea what business expenses are including business taxes, operating expenses, debt service, and then the personal income taxes. Your argument that regulations, higher taxes, and Obamacare affect only the rich who you believe can afford it shows really how poorly informed and biased you are. Not all small business owners are rich and not all small businesses can afford the expenses being imposed by the Obama Administration. Until you are in their shoes all the studies and reports you post are nothing more than the opinion of others, still opinions

  6. #816
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    All this does is prove that you have no idea what business expenses are including business taxes, operating expenses, debt service, and then the personal income taxes. Your argument that regulations, higher taxes, and Obamacare affect only the rich who you believe can afford it shows really how poorly informed and biased you are. Not all small business owners are rich and not all small businesses can afford the expenses being imposed by the Obama Administration. Until you are in their shoes all the studies and reports you post are nothing more than the opinion of others, still opinions
    So, you choose to ignore the history, fully studied and recorded, that proves you wrong.



    I'm shocked . . . . not!

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #817
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    So, you choose to ignore the history, fully studied and recorded, that proves you wrong.



    I'm shocked . . . . not!
    And what history is that? You post information on personal income taxes that have absolutely nothing to do with business operating expenses or the cost of regulations, higher taxes, and Obamacare

  8. #818
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Sorry but it seems that you want a simple yet secure job for life and that is never going to happen in the real world. People change, demands change, buying habits change and those that adapt to change will benefit the most from changing with that change. Many of the industries are gone replaced by new industries created from technological or demand changes. Manufacturing jobs have been lost in this country only to be replaced by high tech jobs that replaced them. The only thing constant in this world is change. Too bad liberals don't understand that
    I understand the change, but here is the problem:


  9. #819
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by pbrauer View Post
    I understand the change, but here is the problem:

    What are you trying to show here, that the net deficit has gone up the last three years and is approaching 2008 levels? Do you have any idea what percentage trade deficit is of GDP and how that impacts jobs? If you cut off all foreign imports what will that do to product costs in this country or have you given that any thought? Who does higher costs impact the most and do you always go out and shop American at higher prices?

    By the way where are exports in your numbers?

  10. #820
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    And what history is that? You post information on personal income taxes that have absolutely nothing to do with business operating expenses or the cost of regulations, higher taxes, and Obamacare
    The first issue was taxes. That's what you asked for evidence on. First, do you concede I'm correct about taxes and the historical evidence? We have to have that before I move on.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •