• 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!

Estimates Say Fewer Jobs, Larger Deficits if Republicans Were in Charge

The question is why don't results matter to you?

The answer is based on the alternative. Liquidationism is not exactly a strong selling point to a wealthy nation.
 
Last edited:
Speaking purely in terms of policy, and putting ideology aside, the Republicans have a rather difficult case to make that they would have actually done better based upon the policies they have suggested. The idea that lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans creates jobs in America simply does not have any evidence to support it. In fact, with increased globalization and lucrative markets in China and India, it might actually be devastating to our job market to allow those tax cuts, because the wealthiest Americans would probably invest it in the infrastructure of our global competitors.

WHich is exactly why those republicanazi assholes need to barred from outsourcing jobs to other countries. ... and pretty good evidence of why the system must be well balanced. The liberal douchebags need to leave the 2nd amendment alone... and the republicanazi assholes need to stop tea-bagging big business. There needs to be stiff penalties for companies who pay lobbyists to mkake their criminal activities legal.
 
Speaking purely in terms of policy, and putting ideology aside, the Republicans have a rather difficult case to make that they would have actually done better based upon the policies they have suggested. The idea that lower taxes for the wealthiest Americans creates jobs in America simply does not have any evidence to support it. In fact, with increased globalization and lucrative markets in China and India, it might actually be devastating to our job market to allow those tax cuts, because the wealthiest Americans would probably invest it in the infrastructure of our global competitors.

History proves your theory wrong.

Depression of 1920

Austrian School economists and historians argue that the 1921 recession was a necessary market correction, required to engineer the massive realignments required of private business and industry following the end of the War. Libertarian paleoconservative historian Thomas Woods argues that President Harding's laissez-faire economic policies during the 1920-21 recession, combined with a coordinated aggressive policy of rapid government downsizing, had a direct influence (mostly through intentional non-influence) on the rapid and widespread private-sector recovery.[11] Woods argued that, as there existed massive distortions in private markets due to government economic influence related to World War I, an equally massive "correction" to the distortions needed to occur as quickly as possible to realign investment and consumption with the new peace-time economic environment.

Harding reduced taxes on the wealthiest Americans from 73% to 25%. The size of the federal government was downsized and one of the worst recesions in our history was quickly turned around. Kennedy's tax cuts of the 60's and Reagan's tax cuts of the 80's had the same result.

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

The Reagan tax cuts, like similar measures enacted in the 1920s and 1960s, showed that reducing excessive tax rates stimulates growth, reduces tax avoidance, and can increase the amount and share of tax payments generated by the rich. High top tax rates can induce counterproductive behavior and suppress revenues, factors that are usually missed or understated in government static revenue analysis. Furthermore, the key assumption of static revenue analysis that economic growth is not affected by tax changes is disproved by the experience of previous tax reduction programs.

Sorry, but tax cuts do stimulate the economy and actually bring in more tax revenue as history has proven repeatedly.
 
History proves your theory wrong.

Depression of 1920

Harding reduced taxes on the wealthiest Americans from 73% to 25%. The size of the federal government was downsized and one of the worst recesions in our history was quickly turned around. Kennedy's tax cuts of the 60's and Reagan's tax cuts of the 80's had the same result.

The Reagan Tax Cuts: Lessons for Tax Reform

Sorry, but tax cuts do stimulate the economy and actually bring in more tax revenue as history has proven repeatedly.

Actually, Hugh, you are mistaken. Tax cuts from the wealthy do not create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy kill the middle class. It's time for the wealthy business scum of this world to be held responsible for their actions. Tax cuts for the wealthy are a bad idea. When they wealthy get taxed they lose LUXURIES. When the poor get taxed they lose NECESSITIES. There is a difference and republicans either don't care or aren't bright enough to see it.\
 
Actually, Hugh, you are mistaken. Tax cuts from the wealthy do not create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy kill the middle class. It's time for the wealthy business scum of this world to be held responsible for their actions. Tax cuts for the wealthy are a bad idea. When they wealthy get taxed they lose LUXURIES. When the poor get taxed they lose NECESSITIES. There is a difference and republicans either don't care or aren't bright enough to see it.\
You can almost see the spittle on the screen ...
 
WHich is exactly why those republicanazi assholes need to barred from outsourcing jobs to other countries. ... and pretty good evidence of why the system must be well balanced. The liberal douchebags need to leave the 2nd amendment alone... and the republicanazi assholes need to stop tea-bagging big business. There needs to be stiff penalties for companies who pay lobbyists to mkake their criminal activities legal.

You probably know that BOTH parties suck up to corporations to get their money. Clinton was a huge proponent of those free trade agreements. Obama promised in the Iowa primary to fix some of the worst parts of these agreements. To the best of my knowledge he has done NOTHING in this area.

Obama helps out his cronies who head up labor unions to pay for their support. However he has done zilch to protect manufacturing jobs in general which used to be the backbone of the U.S. middle class. Not that Bush did anything positive in this area, but I find it hard to say that one side is materially worse in this area.
 
Actually, Hugh, you are mistaken. Tax cuts from the wealthy do not create jobs. Tax cuts for the wealthy kill the middle class. It's time for the wealthy business scum of this world to be held responsible for their actions. Tax cuts for the wealthy are a bad idea. When they wealthy get taxed they lose LUXURIES. When the poor get taxed they lose NECESSITIES. There is a difference and republicans either don't care or aren't bright enough to see it.\

Hisroty proves you wrong. Did you read my links? The rich are the business owners, both big business and small business. Many of them are not hiring because of the high tax rates and the behemoth of a tax increase (aka HC Bill) that are coming their way. Explain to me how the roaring 20's came to be with all those rich people not creating the massive amount of jobs that were created due to A) tax cuts and B) decreasing the size of the federal government? You can argue all day long about tax cuts not creating jobs, but you will be wrong each and every time.
 
You probably know that BOTH parties suck up to corporations to get their money. Clinton was a huge proponent of those free trade agreements. Obama promised in the Iowa primary to fix some of the worst parts of these agreements. To the best of my knowledge he has done NOTHING in this area.

Obama helps out his cronies who head up labor unions to pay for their support. However he has done zilch to protect manufacturing jobs in general which used to be the backbone of the U.S. middle class. Not that Bush did anything positive in this area, but I find it hard to say that one side is materially worse in this area.

Yeah, I agree with you there. Both sides are guilty in this area. What have republicans done to help the average citizen lately? Not that democrats have done much but ... at least they have done SOMETHING. Republicans want to horde everything for themselves and leave the rest of us to die.
 
Hisroty proves you wrong. Did you read my links? The rich are the business owners, both big business and small business. Many of them are not hiring because of the high tax rates and the behemoth of a tax increase (aka HC Bill) that are coming their way. Explain to me how the roaring 20's came to be with all those rich people not creating the massive amount of jobs that were created due to A) tax cuts and B) decreasing the size of the federal government? You can argue all day long about tax cuts not creating jobs, but you will be wrong each and every time.

This is simple republican rhetoric. Business don't want to hire because doing so shirnks their corporate bonus opportunities. If the money is being spent on labor, corporate scum cannot give it to themselves. What it boils down to is they can hire people or they can spend the money on paying themselves bonues... but to not both. Its as simple as that.
 
Yeah, I agree with you there. Both sides are guilty in this area. What have republicans done to help the average citizen lately? Not that democrats have done much but ... at least they have done SOMETHING. Republicans want to horde everything for themselves and leave the rest of us to die.

Republicans cut taxes, how is a lesser tax burden bad for the average citizen? Democrats have done too much and are hurting the average citizen. The average citizen needs a job, and a good one. Increasing taxes (aka not renewing the Bush tax cuts) and passing a health care bill that only expands the size of the federal government and further intrudes into our daily lives doesn't help the average citizen in the least. The best thing government can do is remain in a constant state of gridlock. Neither side, as they have proven for the past several years, aren't doing much of anything to actually help the average citizen (aside from the tax cuts). But to paint republicans as "wanting to horde everything and leave the rest to die" is absoultely ridiculous. You might as well just go ahead and remove that "Centrist" label you have listed because I see nothing "centrist" about anything you state.
 
This is simple republican rhetoric. Business don't want to hire because doing so shirnks their corporate bonus opportunities. If the money is being spent on labor, corporate scum cannot give it to themselves. What it boils down to is they can hire people or they can spend the money on paying themselves bonues... but to not both. Its as simple as that.

I love it when you use big words like "corporate scum". It just lends so much credibility to your "opinion". I guess you forgot that small businesses provide just over half of all private sector employees or that small business make up 99.7% of all employer firms (Frequently Asked Questions). How many of those small businesses even have a corporate office? Since the vast majority of small businesses have fewer than 100 employees, I don't think there's a lot of "corporate scum" to kick around. You're simply painting with a very broad brush and you're getting paint all over the place.

You are making some vast generalizations (you're good at that) and ignoring things like facts when you formulate your "opinions". And for the record, I'm no republican, yet another fact you ignored.
 
This is simple republican rhetoric. Business don't want to hire because doing so shirnks their corporate bonus opportunities. If the money is being spent on labor, corporate scum cannot give it to themselves. What it boils down to is they can hire people or they can spend the money on paying themselves bonues... but to not both. Its as simple as that.

What if they grow the business, hire more workers to handle the business then pay themselves a larger bonus since they'll now have more profit to pull from? Is that not possible in the worldview of the average centrist?
 
This is simple republican rhetoric. Business don't want to hire because doing so shirnks their corporate bonus opportunities. If the money is being spent on labor, corporate scum cannot give it to themselves. What it boils down to is they can hire people or they can spend the money on paying themselves bonues... but to not both. Its as simple as that.

With such a refined business acumen, it's a wonder you're not a C-level employee at a F50 company yet.
 
Hisroty proves you wrong. Did you read my links? The rich are the business owners, both big business and small business. Many of them are not hiring because of the high tax rates and the behemoth of a tax increase (aka HC Bill) that are coming their way. Explain to me how the roaring 20's came to be with all those rich people not creating the massive amount of jobs that were created due to A) tax cuts and B) decreasing the size of the federal government? You can argue all day long about tax cuts not creating jobs, but you will be wrong each and every time.

What about the explosion of private debt became the end result of the roaring 20's? Using the post WWI recession as a means to glamorize laissez faire creates false confidence; as new tax schemas (unprecedented at the time) were a much bigger systemic shock than they are in the current. WWI was also responsible for a heavily inflated US economy.
 
This is at the end of the day speculation and theory. Nothing truly solid.

But I will say for some Republicans and Conservatives out there.

I'll bet you anything that John McCain would have done a stimulus bill and continually renewed unemployment benefits.

Not just speculation, but as history illustrates... pin heads often have nice theories that turn out to be tragically wrong. Keynes and Galbraith were two guys that had it wrong.

As for McCain... perhaps. That too is speculation, but I do know many R's were pissed the RINO was nominated (thanks to D's and I's) because he wasn't too far from Obi on a lot of issues during the campaign.

We can assume McCain (RINO) would have had some overlap with Obi, but could never have screwed the nation as Obama has done.

.
 
Last edited:
What about the explosion of private debt became the end result of the roaring 20's? Using the post WWI recession as a means to glamorize laissez faire creates false confidence; as new tax schemas (unprecedented at the time) were a much bigger systemic shock than they are in the current. WWI was also responsible for a heavily inflated US economy.

I believe the operative word there is "private" debt instead of taxpayer funded Federal Debt. In our economy there are consequences for poor choices and the problem is liberals want to bailout those people who make bad choices and therein lies the problem. Free enterprise operates on the basic principles of personal responsibility and individual wealth creation. If you take risk and succeed you are entitled to the "fruits of your labor" but if you take risk and fail there should be consequences for that failure.

I do not and never will support the bailouts of private business that fail thus I did not support TARP. I do not support the massive expansion of govt. under FDR and now Obama. Liberal social engineering by these two Administrations along with others has created the 13.4 trillion debt we have today. that debt is unsustainable.
 
Hisroty proves you wrong. Did you read my links? The rich are the business owners, both big business and small business. Many of them are not hiring because of the high tax rates and the behemoth of a tax increase (aka HC Bill) that are coming their way. Explain to me how the roaring 20's came to be with all those rich people not creating the massive amount of jobs that were created due to A) tax cuts and B) decreasing the size of the federal government? You can argue all day long about tax cuts not creating jobs, but you will be wrong each and every time.

Could it be that they are not hiring becuase there are no consumers buying their products?
IMO, we need more consumers before business will hire more employees to satisfy demand.
No business man in his right mind hires more workers during a consumer shortage.

Same goes for a business man in his left mind..:2razz:
 
Republicans cut taxes, how is a lesser tax burden bad for the average citizen? Democrats have done too much and are hurting the average citizen. The average citizen needs a job, and a good one. Increasing taxes (aka not renewing the Bush tax cuts) and passing a health care bill that only expands the size of the federal government and further intrudes into our daily lives doesn't help the average citizen in the least. The best thing government can do is remain in a constant state of gridlock. Neither side, as they have proven for the past several years, aren't doing much of anything to actually help the average citizen (aside from the tax cuts). But to paint republicans as "wanting to horde everything and leave the rest to die" is absoultely ridiculous. You might as well just go ahead and remove that "Centrist" label you have listed because I see nothing "centrist" about anything you state.
Some of you guys spend too much time on the TAX issue and too little time on the SPEND issue. The right calls the left "tax and spend", and the left calls the right "borrow and spend". Both are correct. Going back to the very old days of 90% rate for the rich won't do a thing for our national debt if we keep spending money we don't have.
We need to stop getting involved in expensive wars and other foreign issues that are not a direct threat to us. The trillion or so dollars spent in Iraq is just a down payment on future expenses. Some congressman are complaining now about how much the Vietnam war is STILL costing us, thanks to agent orange.
Here is a tip for the right, you can't let domestic pots boil over while tending to the pots boiling halfway around the world. And a tip for the left, you can legislate equal opportunity, but you can't legislate equal results. If a substantial percentage of our poor want to stay poor, there is no amount of money thrown at them that will change that.
 
Some of you guys spend too much time on the TAX issue and too little time on the SPEND issue. The right calls the left "tax and spend", and the left calls the right "borrow and spend". Both are correct. Going back to the very old days of 90% rate for the rich won't do a thing for our national debt if we keep spending money we don't have.
We need to stop getting involved in expensive wars and other foreign issues that are not a direct threat to us. The trillion or so dollars spent in Iraq is just a down payment on future expenses. Some congressman are complaining now about how much the Vietnam war is STILL costing us, thanks to agent orange.
Here is a tip for the right, you can't let domestic pots boil over while tending to the pots boiling halfway around the world. And a tip for the left, you can legislate equal opportunity, but you can't legislate equal results. If a substantial percentage of our poor want to stay poor, there is no amount of money thrown at them that will change that.

Spending is a major problem and I've never said anything to the contrary. In fact, I pointed out that downsizing government was part of the move in the early 20's to stimulate the economy. I see your point regarding war, but it's been clear from the left that the war is OK as long as a D starts it. Did Iraq and Afghanistan cost us a lot of money (and will continue to cost us), sure. But take a look at entitlement spending compared to military spending and get back to me. If we cut entitlements in half, we could have fought both wars and still saved money.
 
Spending is a major problem and I've never said anything to the contrary. In fact, I pointed out that downsizing government was part of the move in the early 20's to stimulate the economy. I see your point regarding war, but it's been clear from the left that the war is OK as long as a D starts it. Did Iraq and Afghanistan cost us a lot of money (and will continue to cost us), sure. But take a look at entitlement spending compared to military spending and get back to me. If we cut entitlements in half, we could have fought both wars and still saved money.
Spending isn't A major problem, it is THE major problem.
Your Entitlement spending comment needs to be clarified. WHICH of it would you cut? and how? Certainly, now that my wife and I are drawing SS (since age 62), we don't want it reduced. We both put into SS for a lot of years, me since 1963 and her since 1978.
But I can see how SS should be changed in the direction of smaller payouts, if only to encourage people to stop thinking that SS should be a livable income. Saving for retirement should be encouraged, and I would make all gains from retirement savings tax free, but also not tax deductible up front, like IRA/401k accounts.
As for saving enough to fight wars, never going to happen. Long term expense is almost never a consideration when we go to war. If we are going to put our younger generations in harms way, we need to be prepared to care for them when they come back damaged, and their families when they don't come back alive...
 
Last edited:
I'd like some feedback, please. I'm not as good with numbers as I could wish to be.

Estimates Say Fewer Jobs, Larger Deficits if Republicans Were in Charge - Newsweek

I'll give some numbers.

45 - The number in months democrats have controlled the house and senate and every bit of legislations signed by EITHER Bush OR Obama
4,000,000,000,000,000.00 (4 trillion) - The number in dollars the democrats increased the national debt in the first 18 months of the Obama presidency.
24 - the number in percentage (%) that the democrats with control of the house and senate increased the national debt
4.3 - The number in percentage of US unemployment figures in Dec 2006, the last month republicans controlled the house and senate.
9.8 - the number in percentage of current unemployment claims, not counting the addition 8-10 percent of potential employees that have run out of unemployment benefits or given up on job seeking.
1 - the number in dollars Newsweek was sold for.
73 - the number in cents overpaid vs actual value
 
Back
Top Bottom