The Rich now have a mandate to create jobs - Page 2

Region Rat · 21st December 2010, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Paris Hilton is rich because she created jobs?

No, so you're right there, but she is doing one heck of a job of spending that wealth. Is that not helping the economy?

YoPopa · 21st December 2010, 06:40 PM

Originally Posted by Molinaro

Post #25. I guess you missed it.

I did not miss post 25. You have misread it to fit your wishful thinking. Even post 25 starts off with an admission that the thread OP was poorly phrased. That was being extremely generous IMHO. The thread OP was "cleverly" phrased to create a straw man argument.

Let me see you pull out the quotes where some rich people promised to create jobs if the tax rates were not increased.

TraneWreck · 21st December 2010, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by YoPopa

I did not miss post 25. You have misread it to fit your wishful thinking. Even post 25 starts off with an admission that the thread OP was poorly phrased. That was being extremely generous IMHO. The thread OP was "cleverly" phrased to create a straw man argument.

Let me see you pull out the quotes where some rich people promised to create jobs if the tax rates were not increased.

Now that Russ Feingold has been voted out of office, there's not a single US Senator with a net worth under $1 million.

John Boehner is a wealthy man. The other republicans speaking in their roles as Congresspeople are wealthy. They're saying the tax cuts will create jobs.

I don't know if that qualifies as a "promise," but it's certainly a causal argument:

tax cuts----->jobs.

But I get your point. There wasn't a clamoring by wealthy Americans explaining how they'd use their cuts to create jobs. There were more folks clearly saying they didn't need the cut. The OP could be stated much better.

Molinaro · 21st December 2010, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by YoPopa

I did not miss post 25. You have misread it to fit your wishful thinking. Even post 25 starts off with an admission that the thread OP was poorly phrased. That was being extremely generous IMHO. The thread OP was "cleverly" phrased to create a straw man argument.

Let me see you pull out the quotes where some rich people promised to create jobs if the tax rates were not increased.

Everyone quoted in post #25 is rich. Or does it have to be some other rich people?

We had rich people speaking on behalf of rich people, but for you only certain rich people will do?

YoPopa · 21st December 2010, 08:20 PM

Originally Posted by TraneWreck

Now that Russ Feingold has been voted out of office, there's not a single US Senator with a net worth under $1 million.

John Boehner is a wealthy man. The other republicans speaking in their roles as Congresspeople are wealthy. They're saying the tax cuts will create jobs.

I don't know if that qualifies as a "promise," but it's certainly a causal argument:

tax cuts----->jobs.

But I get your point. There wasn't a clamoring by wealthy Americans explaining how they'd use their cuts to create jobs. There were more folks clearly saying they didn't need the cut. The OP could be stated much better.

I respect your desire to change the subject of this thread as it was DOA. But you have not exactly provided quotes which support even your modified assertion that the rich Republicans promised that not raising taxes for the rich would create jobs.

#1 link to kwtx.com was not a quote but a paraphrase by the reporter.

#2. The huffingtonpost? Oh please, gag me with a yellow rag. More paraphrasing by lefty loonies with not a single verifiable quote by anyone on the right.

#3. A blog. OMG. Not even one quote in that. I don't see why you bothered to include it.

I'll do a little paraphrasing of my own. The promise made was primarily that raising any taxes in the current economy would be destructive. That is not the same thing as saying that keeping the rates the same would be a guarantee of job creation.

YoPopa · 21st December 2010, 08:22 PM

Originally Posted by Molinaro

Everyone quoted in post #25 is rich. Or does it have to be some other rich people?

We had rich people speaking on behalf of rich people, but for you only certain rich people will do?

Show me those actual quotes. Not paraphrasing by left leaning bloggers or HufPo loonies, but real quotes.

thaiboxerken · 22nd December 2010, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by Region Rat

No, so you're right there, but she is doing one heck of a job of spending that wealth. Is that not helping the economy?

Yes. But I doubt letting her taxes stay the same will make any difference in her spending habits.

Region Rat · 22nd December 2010, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by thaiboxerken

Yes. But I doubt letting her taxes stay the same will make any difference in her spending habits.

So she's just not able to spend it fast enough for you, and needs help from congress to do so?

I absolutely hate the fact that you've led me into the trap of seeming to defend Paris Hilton, and I'll never forgive you for it.

TraneWreck · 22nd December 2010, 11:37 AM

Originally Posted by YoPopa

I respect your desire to change the subject of this thread as it was DOA. But you have not exactly provided quotes which support even your modified assertion that the rich Republicans promised that not raising taxes for the rich would create jobs.

#1 link to kwtx.com was not a quote but a paraphrase by the reporter.

So you're arguing Boehner does not think that tax cuts create jobs?

More often then not, those articles are written from press releases from Congressional offices. I didn't want to spend hours digging through transcripts so I just grabbed the easily available info.

Originally Posted by YoPopa

#2. The huffingtonpost? Oh please, gag me with a yellow rag. More paraphrasing by lefty loonies with not a single verifiable quote by anyone on the right.

Come on now, we're not morons here. If there's something wrong with the article, say what. Broad-based source slandering is lazy, at best.

Fox News isn't wrong because they're Fox News. They're wrong because when you examine a claim or story, it's factually incorrect. Same is true of Huffington.

Originally Posted by YoPopa

#3. A blog. OMG. Not even one quote in that. I don't see why you bothered to include it.

Here was the right link for that quote. Must have copied the wrong one:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...t-the-tax-deal

Originally Posted by YoPopa

I'll do a little paraphrasing of my own. The promise made was primarily that raising any taxes in the current economy would be destructive. That is not the same thing as saying that keeping the rates the same would be a guarantee of job creation.

Of course, that's wrong, but I get your point. He's claiming that somehow increased taxes on the highest marginal income bracket will kill job creation. Of course, it could depending on how that tax revenue was spent, but the increased taxation itself won't have that effect.

Spending that increased revenue on boosting aggregate demand, however, would lead to job growth.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing. The Republican position is that cutting taxes and spending will create jobs. There's no good evidence to suggest this will happen, but it's clearly their position.

Boehner's "2 Step Plan" is to extend the tax cuts and cut spending:

Quote:

In a statement, the Ohio Republican identified the "two main problems hampering job creation" as "excessive government spending and the uncertainty Washington Democrats' policies -- especially their massive tax hike -- are causing small businesses."

Boehner called on House Republicans to take on the problems in two ways.

For one thing, he suggested passing a bill that "cuts non-security related government spending for the next year back to FY 2008 levels -- before all of the bailouts, government takeovers and 'stimulus' spending sprees began."

[...]

As the second point, he suggested the Congress "enact a two-year freeze on all current tax rates to stop job-killing tax hikes on families and small businesses."

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes

Again, this is a statement he released.

I'm not sure how he thinks this will work in a country with an aggregate demand problem, but there you have it. He's claiming that raising taxes on the wealthy will destroy jobs. That's as false as pretending like tax cuts will magically create them.

And here's evidence that the tax cuts combined with spending cuts actually will cause a loss of jobs:

http://www.epi.org/page/-/pdf/pm171.pdf

We can argue about the specific way the OP is phrased, but the important point is that the clearly voiced Republican notion of job growth is just silly.

thaiboxerken · 22nd December 2010, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Region Rat

So she's just not able to spend it fast enough for you, and needs help from congress to do so?

Not at all. I'm just saying that her tax rates probably play no role in how she spends money.

Mr. Purple · 26th December 2010, 08:07 PM

Only as a devil's advocate- I hear this argument a lot:

The so-called 'rich' are usually small ma & pa businesses. Or some variation of the theme that those affected are no what would commonly come to mind as 'rich'.

I don't know how to look at the data myself in an unbiased way. I am sure there are dozens of factors that I am ignorant of regarding tax law for the "rich". It is all I can do to fill out a 10-40 and schedule C.

Perhaps others could shed some light here.

21st December 2010, 06:22 PM	#41
Region Rat Stinky Cheese Eater Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sprung from Da Calumet Region Posts: 2,827	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Paris Hilton is rich because she created jobs? No, so you're right there, but she is doing one heck of a job of spending that wealth. Is that not helping the economy?
	__________________ The Optimist sees the glass as half full. The Pessimist sees the glass as half empty. The Engineer sees the glass as twice as big as it needs to be.

21st December 2010, 06:56 PM	#43
TraneWreck Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Chicago Posts: 6,414	Originally Posted by YoPopa I did not miss post 25. You have misread it to fit your wishful thinking. Even post 25 starts off with an admission that the thread OP was poorly phrased. That was being extremely generous IMHO. The thread OP was "cleverly" phrased to create a straw man argument. Let me see you pull out the quotes where some rich people promised to create jobs if the tax rates were not increased. Now that Russ Feingold has been voted out of office, there's not a single US Senator with a net worth under $1 million. John Boehner is a wealthy man. The other republicans speaking in their roles as Congresspeople are wealthy. They're saying the tax cuts will create jobs. I don't know if that qualifies as a "promise," but it's certainly a causal argument: tax cuts----->jobs. But I get your point. There wasn't a clamoring by wealthy Americans explaining how they'd use their cuts to create jobs. There were more folks clearly saying they didn't need the cut. The OP could be stated much better.
	Last edited by TraneWreck; 21st December 2010 at 06:57 PM.

21st December 2010, 07:39 PM	#44
Molinaro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 3,032	Originally Posted by YoPopa I did not miss post 25. You have misread it to fit your wishful thinking. Even post 25 starts off with an admission that the thread OP was poorly phrased. That was being extremely generous IMHO. The thread OP was "cleverly" phrased to create a straw man argument. Let me see you pull out the quotes where some rich people promised to create jobs if the tax rates were not increased. Everyone quoted in post #25 is rich. Or does it have to be some other rich people? We had rich people speaking on behalf of rich people, but for you only certain rich people will do?
	__________________ 100% Cannuck!

22nd December 2010, 12:20 AM	#47
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,988	Originally Posted by Region Rat No, so you're right there, but she is doing one heck of a job of spending that wealth. Is that not helping the economy? Yes. But I doubt letting her taxes stay the same will make any difference in her spending habits.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

22nd December 2010, 10:42 AM	#48
Region Rat Stinky Cheese Eater Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sprung from Da Calumet Region Posts: 2,827	Originally Posted by thaiboxerken Yes. But I doubt letting her taxes stay the same will make any difference in her spending habits. So she's just not able to spend it fast enough for you, and needs help from congress to do so? I absolutely hate the fact that you've led me into the trap of seeming to defend Paris Hilton, and I'll never forgive you for it.
	__________________ The Optimist sees the glass as half full. The Pessimist sees the glass as half empty. The Engineer sees the glass as twice as big as it needs to be.

21st December 2010, 06:40 PM	#42
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: State of Yo Posts: 1,497	Originally Posted by Molinaro Post #25. I guess you missed it. I did not miss post 25. You have misread it to fit your wishful thinking. Even post 25 starts off with an admission that the thread OP was poorly phrased. That was being extremely generous IMHO. The thread OP was "cleverly" phrased to create a straw man argument. Let me see you pull out the quotes where some rich people promised to create jobs if the tax rates were not increased.

21st December 2010, 08:20 PM	#45
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: State of Yo Posts: 1,497	Originally Posted by TraneWreck Now that Russ Feingold has been voted out of office, there's not a single US Senator with a net worth under $1 million. John Boehner is a wealthy man. The other republicans speaking in their roles as Congresspeople are wealthy. They're saying the tax cuts will create jobs. I don't know if that qualifies as a "promise," but it's certainly a causal argument: tax cuts----->jobs. But I get your point. There wasn't a clamoring by wealthy Americans explaining how they'd use their cuts to create jobs. There were more folks clearly saying they didn't need the cut. The OP could be stated much better. I respect your desire to change the subject of this thread as it was DOA. But you have not exactly provided quotes which support even your modified assertion that the rich Republicans promised that not raising taxes for the rich would create jobs. #1 link to kwtx.com was not a quote but a paraphrase by the reporter. #2. The huffingtonpost? Oh please, gag me with a yellow rag. More paraphrasing by lefty loonies with not a single verifiable quote by anyone on the right. #3. A blog. OMG. Not even one quote in that. I don't see why you bothered to include it. I'll do a little paraphrasing of my own. The promise made was primarily that raising any taxes in the current economy would be destructive. That is not the same thing as saying that keeping the rates the same would be a guarantee of job creation.

21st December 2010, 08:22 PM	#46
YoPopa Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: State of Yo Posts: 1,497	Originally Posted by Molinaro Everyone quoted in post #25 is rich. Or does it have to be some other rich people? We had rich people speaking on behalf of rich people, but for you only certain rich people will do? Show me those actual quotes. Not paraphrasing by left leaning bloggers or HufPo loonies, but real quotes.

22nd December 2010, 11:37 AM	#49
TraneWreck Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Chicago Posts: 6,414	Originally Posted by YoPopa I respect your desire to change the subject of this thread as it was DOA. But you have not exactly provided quotes which support even your modified assertion that the rich Republicans promised that not raising taxes for the rich would create jobs. #1 link to kwtx.com was not a quote but a paraphrase by the reporter. So you're arguing Boehner does not think that tax cuts create jobs? More often then not, those articles are written from press releases from Congressional offices. I didn't want to spend hours digging through transcripts so I just grabbed the easily available info. Originally Posted by YoPopa #2. The huffingtonpost? Oh please, gag me with a yellow rag. More paraphrasing by lefty loonies with not a single verifiable quote by anyone on the right. Come on now, we're not morons here. If there's something wrong with the article, say what. Broad-based source slandering is lazy, at best. Fox News isn't wrong because they're Fox News. They're wrong because when you examine a claim or story, it's factually incorrect. Same is true of Huffington. Originally Posted by YoPopa #3. A blog. OMG. Not even one quote in that. I don't see why you bothered to include it. Here was the right link for that quote. Must have copied the wrong one: http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign...t-the-tax-deal Originally Posted by YoPopa I'll do a little paraphrasing of my own. The promise made was primarily that raising any taxes in the current economy would be destructive. That is not the same thing as saying that keeping the rates the same would be a guarantee of job creation. Of course, that's wrong, but I get your point. He's claiming that somehow increased taxes on the highest marginal income bracket will kill job creation. Of course, it could depending on how that tax revenue was spent, but the increased taxation itself won't have that effect. Spending that increased revenue on boosting aggregate demand, however, would lead to job growth. I'm not really sure what you're arguing. The Republican position is that cutting taxes and spending will create jobs. There's no good evidence to suggest this will happen, but it's clearly their position. Boehner's "2 Step Plan" is to extend the tax cuts and cut spending: Quote: In a statement, the Ohio Republican identified the "two main problems hampering job creation" as "excessive government spending and the uncertainty Washington Democrats' policies -- especially their massive tax hike -- are causing small businesses." Boehner called on House Republicans to take on the problems in two ways. For one thing, he suggested passing a bill that "cuts non-security related government spending for the next year back to FY 2008 levels -- before all of the bailouts, government takeovers and 'stimulus' spending sprees began." [...] As the second point, he suggested the Congress "enact a two-year freeze on all current tax rates to stop job-killing tax hikes on families and small businesses." http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes Again, this is a statement he released. I'm not sure how he thinks this will work in a country with an aggregate demand problem, but there you have it. He's claiming that raising taxes on the wealthy will destroy jobs. That's as false as pretending like tax cuts will magically create them. And here's evidence that the tax cuts combined with spending cuts actually will cause a loss of jobs: http://www.epi.org/page/-/pdf/pm171.pdf We can argue about the specific way the OP is phrased, but the important point is that the clearly voiced Republican notion of job growth is just silly.

22nd December 2010, 11:42 AM	#50
thaiboxerken Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Portland, Oregon Posts: 20,988	Originally Posted by Region Rat So she's just not able to spend it fast enough for you, and needs help from congress to do so? Not at all. I'm just saying that her tax rates probably play no role in how she spends money.
	__________________ All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine

26th December 2010, 08:07 PM	#51
Mr. Purple Some Other Guy on Some Other Job Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 1,424	Only as a devil's advocate- I hear this argument a lot: The so-called 'rich' are usually small ma & pa businesses. Or some variation of the theme that those affected are no what would commonly come to mind as 'rich'. I don't know how to look at the data myself in an unbiased way. I am sure there are dozens of factors that I am ignorant of regarding tax law for the "rich". It is all I can do to fill out a 10-40 and schedule C. Perhaps others could shed some light here.