Political & Elections

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

RE: I was just thinking...

longprime · Guru

it must be the fish. bleh

-- Edited by longprime on Sunday 12th of December 2010 08:54:19 PM

amazing · Veteran Member

ImSoAnarchist, on your line here "I can reason why tax cuts do create jobs".

Because of Ricardian equivelance, tax cuts only create jobs if spending is also reduced. (Ricardian equivelance is the idea that the government is going to have to pay back debt at some point, so a tax cut now means a tax increase later) So its not really the decrease in taxes that are creating the jobs, its the decrease in spending.

Yes, Ricardian equivelance doesn't technically hold, so there is some strength to argument that tax cuts now will create jobs now, even if not followed with a spending decrease, but the concept is useful to the extent that we are not going to be creating as much jobs as we might 'think'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_equivalence

There is actually a fairly funny moment in history when, I think, Milton Friedman, on his Birthday, (who was some sort of informal advisor at the time to Bush?) yelled the line to Bush "To Spend is to Tax!"

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

Longprime,

The statement is made to be a statement of fact without basis or examination.

What? Examine it all you want.

The conclusion, "the outcome could be greatly beneficial to the poor!", is a conclusion that is based upon a questionable statement, "miles more efficient and effective."

The top 200 charities have an efficiency rate of 89%, as seen in the quote from the link I provided previously. Whether you accept this, or whether you have contradictory evidence is not so relevant to the point of the thread. I've said you can substitute private charity for the US Treasury department if you so wish twice now.

My real question is whether the OP is factitious or making a true statement.

This is the dichotomy? Then I'll take "true," please! :)

No it wasn't. In terms of job creation Bush has the lowest rate (1.9%) during his second term since Eisenhower's last term.

Bush Sr. (no new taxes) also wasn't a very good job creator (2.6%).

Clinton, who raised taxes, created 11.5% more jobs in his first term and 7.4% more jobs in his second term.

So Bush II slowly destroyed job creation with his tax cuts and the economy under Clinton's tax increases created tons of jobs.

Bolded mine.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc , once again. Blatantly committing logical fallacies must be in style or something.

Can someone tell me how the republicans get away with saying the rich need tax cuts to create jobs when it didn't work in such recent history?

I'd just love any statistical information you have regarding job growth absent the tax cuts, or even with tax increases in that specific time frame.

This is why it is so obvious to many that the tax cuts have nothing to do with job creation or economic stimulus and everything to do with - what??

Bolded mine.

There must be something wrong here. And this is " so obvious" to "many" others? Oh gosh...

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I brought some threads over to this site that might be good conversation starters. Since this is the public forum, having a slew of topics with responses seemed like a good way to encourage others to post.

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

How the heck did the thread get here? :P

Sorry to neglect everybody. I had no idea where it went!

Cartera · Guru

Can someone tell me how the republicans get away with saying the rich need tax cuts to create jobs when it didn't work in such recent history?

Not a popular question Jordcin. Bush = biggest private job killer in decades and since it worked so well, let's do it again. This is why it is so obvious to many that the tax cuts have nothing to do with job creation or economic stimulus and everything to do with - what??

Jordcin · Veteran Member

busdriver11 wrote:

Actually, employment was pretty decent during the Bush administration, wasn't it? Except for the last few months?

No it wasn't. In terms of job creation Bush has the lowest rate (1.9%) during his second term since Eisenhower's last term.

Bush Sr. (no new taxes) also wasn't a very good job creator (2.6%).

Clinton, who raised taxes, created 11.5% more jobs in his first term and 7.4% more jobs in his second term.

So Bush II slowly destroyed job creation with his tax cuts and the economy under Clinton's tax increases created tons of jobs.

Can someone tell me how the republicans get away with saying the rich need tax cuts to create jobs when it didn't work in such recent history?

Bill Clinton	D	1993–1997	109,725	121,231	+11.5	+2.6%
Bill Clinton	D	1997–2001	128,580	135,999	+7.4	+1.4%
George W. Bush	R	2001–2005	135,999	140,241	+4.2	+0.8%
George W. Bush	R	2005–2009	140,241	142,094	+1.9	+0.5%

Bill Clinton	D	1993–1997	109,725	121,231	+11.5	+2.6%
Bill Clinton	D	1997–2001	128,580	135,999	+7.4	+1.4%
George W. Bush	R	2001–2005	135,999	140,241	+4.2	+0.8%
George W. Bush	R	2005–2009	140,241	142,094	+1.9	+0.5%

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I was testing out different threads that didn't have the "reply" button. It seemed like the threads that I responded to ended up having a reply button.

I made an adjustment in the settings panel and it is working fine, now.

longprime · Guru

why would you ever want to bump this thread?

Is it the fish?

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

thread bump

BigG · Guru

Back in the dim mists of antiquity, during the one and only Food Science course I endured, the official, academic explanation for fish "breading" was that it greatly reduced "freezer burn" susceptibility. Freezer burn being an undesired "freeze drying" phenomena.

Is there a darker, more nefarious reason? I would LOVE to hear it.

"If you don't have anything good to say about anyone, come sit by me!"

-- Edited by BigG on Saturday 11th of December 2010 08:11:24 AM

longprime · Guru

BigG, "Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Create a fish inspection bureaucracy and thousands of people eat for years."

There is/used to be a fish inspection bureau. DW used with the fish inspection bureau, for Icelandic brand.

Why do you think they bread fish.?

-- Edited by longprime on Friday 10th of December 2010 08:23:36 PM

-- Edited by longprime on Friday 10th of December 2010 08:27:32 PM

longprime · Guru

Twilighting

BigG · Guru

Congratulations on the Red Cross milestone.

Truly a gift that keeps on giving.

longprime · Guru

OP said:

"Private charity is miles more efficient and effective than the federal government, so the outcome could be greatly beneficial to the poor!"

The statement is made to be a statement of fact without basis or examination.

The conclusion, "the outcome could be greatly beneficial to the poor!", is a conclusion that is based upon a questionable statement, "miles more efficient and effective."

My real question is whether the OP is factitious or making a true statement. confuse

Personally, my favorite charities are the ones where I know what I get for my money & blood:

I got a laser printer from the Assistant League (at half price), a wireless camera unit from Goodwill, and cookies and three T-shirts from Red Cross ( 8 gallons). evileye

-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 9th of December 2010 08:02:33 PM

crescent22 · Veteran Member

That Charity Navigator site (or Guidestar, can't remember which) shows several charities with a 0% administration expenses, which is beyond credulity.

I once gave some to Operation Blessing during some natural disaster partly because they had a 100% spend / revenue rate or whatever they called the statistic. Then of course I got floods of mailings and even some calls over the next few years - you can't tell me those cost nothing. Either the administration expense category excludes some things you can bury your costs in or they are reporting revenues net of expenses (i.e. raise $100, spend $60 in marketing, report $40 as revenue, report $0 as expenses).

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

It's usually considered bad form when charities print their own money to ease their debt burden. Oh that's right, they can't.

Charities definitely have their place and can often provide goods and services that are out of the scope of what the government provides.

Not all charities have bad reputations. There are ways to look up how much a charity spends in administrative costs.

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

Well, I don't get it.

Here we can see that private (are non-profits considered private?) charities are extremely efficient when compared to the US government:

Charitable commitment shows how much of the total expenses went for the stated charitable purpose, excluding management, certain overhead and fundraising. Average this year: 85%, up 1%. Fundraising efficiency, perhaps the most closely watched indicator, calculates the share of gifts left after deducting fundraising expenses. Average: 89%, unchanged from last year.

http://www.forbes.com/2005/11/18/largest-charities-ratings_05charities_land.html

But even if they were not, or if he does not accept my conclusion, I've said one can donate directly to the US Treasury. I don't care where the donation go to; that's not the point.

-- Edited by ImSoAnarchist on Thursday 9th of December 2010 06:55:10 PM

BigG · Guru

For now.

He'll be back.

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

I give up.

longprime · Guru

OP:

"Private charity is miles more efficient and effective than the federal government, so the outcome could be greatly beneficial to the poor!"

is this being factitious or something else?

-- Edited by longprime on Thursday 9th of December 2010 05:51:58 PM

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

What? 20 worst charities in Oregon ?

Would you mind just stating your point, because you're awfully difficult to understand. Are you claiming private charities are less efficient than government? Well, that's silly, but you could always donate to directly to the US Treasury if you so prefer.

longprime · Guru

Charities

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

RE: I was just thinking...

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

> Of course, there is no apples to apples comparison here between the two time periods.

There are various reasons for the long-term decline of the US but I look at education as the long-term negative driver. We've done a poor job overall on that for quite some time (I don't care to get into the reasons here). I think that tax cuts do spur job creation but not necessarily for all that receive the cuts.

I think that tax cuts can only slow the decline of the country without us fixing some of the
other issues and basically the culture issues put us at a disadvantage compared to many other economies.

Cartera · Guru

I'mSoAnarchist - the connection, in my mind, is that there has to be an economic reason to retain the tax cuts since we are looking at sky high deficits. They will add to the deficit in no small way so to justify them, those in favor of them - largely the Republicans - say that they will lead to job creation. They will only lead to job creation if those benefitting use the money in the ways BC has described. This was the rationale used when the cuts were put forth by Bush. It would seem to make sense to look at that time period to see if the those benefitting from them did with the money what was hoped. Of course, there is no apples to apples comparison here between the two time periods. However, my suggestion that tax cuts haven't created jobs is not any more fallacious than arguing that they will.

Considering the price of our debt wasn't all that high I'm not sure what sort of negative job effect would occur in the short term (01-09).

Abyss - I'm not really getting what you're saying here.

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

I read about that last night. I think that Buffett and Gates have 19 of them with the pledges.

I think the charity stuff is fine but I'd prefer to see these guys starting new businesses or making new investments in their existing businesses.

I started slowly ramping up a new idea for a business myself. I'm spending a few hours a week on phase one and will require some time from my son and daughter to work on it. I've made a lot of money in the stock market this year and the tax cuts going forwards has given me some confidence that the economy will pick up and that there will be more demand for the product going forward. I've had some meetings and conversations indicating that demand for this product is out there but it's in its infancy. At any rate, I expect to be in phase I for six months and then see where it goes from there.

BTW, for those against the tax cuts: we have two choices. No tax cuts and the Fed has to do monetary easing or tax cuts where we have Fiscal easing. In monetary easing, the winners are generally the banks and those in the stock markets. Those outside those two feeding trough get the leftovers. I'm truly shocked that the Democrats in the Congress are pushing so hard against the bill.

pima · Guru

Actually on GMA today they talked about the Billionaire pledges. The FB guy just donated 100 million to the NY school system.

Flip side a Billionaire from S.A. stated that he would not donate to charities because he feels that they do not add jobs to the economy.

Charities, are great, and I am sure the NY school system will do wonders with this windfall, but will it actually create any "real" jobs in the long run? Some would say that it won't because many cities are in the red, thus, you are bailing them out, and not creating one job.

BCEagle91 · Senior Member

These uber-rich could just donate their money to the US Treasury.

BigG · Guru

Regarding the OP;

In terms of job generation, I would suggest the government is more effective than private charity. The efficient nature of private charity means they disperse resources to beneficiaries with minimal staff. The government uses more people so more jobs are created. Plus, these are good jobs with great benefits.

This is not as effective at creating societal wealth as jobs in "for profit" enterprises which actually generate "new" assests, but we have to take what we can get.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Create a fish inspection bureaucracy and thousands of people eat for years.

Abyss · Senior Member

Cartera wrote:

There isn't any dispute that private sector job growth was the worst in history under Bush - the charts and articles are too numerous to list. The tax cuts were put in place as an answer to the recession, with the goal of stimulating the economy. The Republicans argue that everything would have been hunky dory were it not for 9/11. Not sure what level of fallacious argument that is.

Yeah, you'd have to make an argue about what the situation would be like without the cuts. Considering the price of our debt wasn't all that high I'm not sure what sort of negative job effect would occur in the short term (01-09).

I'm sure your rebuttal will be immediately forthcoming.

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

I have no idea what this has to do with Republicans, honestly. What's the obsession with partisanism?

There isn't any dispute that private sector job growth was the worst in history under Bush - the charts and articles are too numerous to list.

I don't think anybody is disputing this (though, as Busdriver has noted, it's more detailed than you've implied - many of the job losses happened in the housing collapse). The question is, "why?"

I want to note that we're diving into a sea of irrelevance. I'm still unsure the connection this all has to with my opening post.

Cartera · Guru

There isn't any dispute that private sector job growth was the worst in history under Bush - the charts and articles are too numerous to list. The tax cuts were put in place as an answer to the recession, with the goal of stimulating the economy. The Republicans argue that everything would have been hunky dory were it not for 9/11. Not sure what level of fallacious argument that is.

busdriver11 · Guru

Apparently there were huge job losses in 2008 (many at the end of the year, when everything was falling apart). Claims of 2.6 million jobs lost that year.

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

How come there is a Christmas but we don't believe?

Your argument is faulty.

I wish I could pick up on these type statements as soon as I read them, but I can't. Would you mind being a bit less ambiguous?

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

The net private sector job gains over the Bush administration (2001-2009) were negative. I don't know if there was growth in the beginning, and then following job losses that offset it, but the numbers are as follows:

Private Sector Jobs:

Jan 2009 = 110,961,000
Jan 2001 = 111,634,000
Net change = -673,000

How this is proof that tax cuts do not create job growth, I do not know.

longprime · Guru

You are just thinking...Wrongly

busdriver11 · Guru

RE: I was just thinking...

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

I've found sometimes people ignore* logic, so I use words that make it slap them in the face.

*Is that not what you're doing here?

Cartera · Guru

Absolutely fallacious? Is that worse than being just fallacious?

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

I don't see your point.

Of course, if the tax cuts really created jobs, then Bush wouldn't have presided over the worst record of job creation in history.

This makes for nice rhetoric, but it's a textbook post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, and so you're claim is absolutely fallacious.

-- Edited by ImSoAnarchist on Wednesday 8th of December 2010 10:09:11 PM

Cartera · Guru

Since, the idea behind it, at least according to the Republicans, is that the tax cuts create jobs and stimulate the economy, then they need to hire people and spend every penny. Of course, if the tax cuts really created jobs, then Bush wouldn't have presided over the worst record of job creation in history.

berurah · Senior Member

ImSoAnarchist wrote:

Can you imagine if all the "wealthy" individuals who support higher taxation on themselves an their peers were to just donate what they would pay in future taxation to private charity?

Hmmmm, well, I've been suggesting this emphatically to the people on TV for the past several days, but for some reason, I never seem to get a reply....

ImSoAnarchist · Senior Member

Can you imagine if all the "wealthy" individuals who support higher taxation on themselves an their peers were to just donate what they would pay in future taxation to private charity?

Private charity is miles more efficient and effective than the federal government, so the outcome could be greatly beneficial to the poor!

So how 'bout it, tax advocates?