Why Republicans Are Afraid to Reveal Their Job Creation Ideas

Maybe, maybe not.
From the same link.

The book is great at looking past today’s economic myths by using long forgotten facts to set the record straight. For example, in explaining President Reagan‘s great economic recovery of the 1980s it is often attributed to the stimulative impact of major tax cuts (ERTA.) But in reality the 1981 tax cuts backfired, leading to massive deficits and a weaker economy with a double dip recession as unemployment soared. So in 1982 Reagan signed (TEFRA) the largest peacetime tax increase in our nation’s history. In his tenure Reagan signed 9 tax bills – 7 of which raised taxes!

So was Reagan wrong to raise taxes? Get the economy moving?

 

No maybe about it......

by the time Obama is out of office.......the (R) 2.5* to the National Debt will no longer be valid..........its already is not..... (D)s will own more of it

 

So is decreasing taxes the way to prosperity for the country?
Reagan thought not.
Better economies under D presidents say not. Do you deny this?

 

Taxes are not making anyone prosperous...........they are only a means to pay for (*)(*)(*)(*)

history has shown that no matter what the tax rate is, people are going to pay what they want to pay

You raise the rate and the rich and middle class will find a way to pay exactly what they always paid.

most of us on this board have only lived through 2 maybe 3 democrat presidents, and NONE of them were stellar.

Clinton, had the .com boom.................NOTHING government did encouraged this.

The best Clinton years had Republicans in charge of the purse strings

Quite frankly, in this day and age the president is nothing more than a figure head to take the blame for what the rest of their party does.

Congress has all the real power.

 

they don't seem to have any. they should be coming up with better solutions at lower cost.

 

Presidents specifically, and the govt generally, have little immediate impact on the economy, jobs or any other indicators of economic health. Government does create impact on the real economy over time by siphoning off and wasting resources and creating costly regulations and social policies. Regardless of which side is doing it, correlating immediate economic results with other than extreme govt action is erroneous.

To the topic, we have been conditioned by statism over decades to expect results from government that our grandparents knew were ridiculous. Government creates jobs only by fiat and growth of bureaucracies. Voluntary commerce has always been the primary engine of job creation and always will be. Every govt fiat job created costs us two real jobs IMO.

The only rational job creation policy of any stripe of govt is to get out of the way and let the private sector do its work.

 

Not much or any I disagree with you on.
And congress will do what is best for congress most of the time.

 

You are not paying attention to the big picture. Voluntary commerce will not always be the driver of jobs, or job creation. In the not too distant future, most production and much of the service sector will be fully automated, and perhaps 20 percent of the work force if not less will be humans. That presents a monumental problem, for we cannot stop progress in technology.

That we thought about this in the 1930s but no main stream economist is even mentioning it today is incoherent. They are ignoring it, while it is not the 800 pound ape sitting in the corner, but one that won't even fit in the room.

Capitalism requires growth and the exchange of money for goods and services. Traditionally the money to buy came from making what was consumed. And so there is a great flaw here, with capitalism, given the advance of technology. Something will have to change. And we don't have a choice.

And so market capitalism plus high technology that keeps advancing is turned into a cancer, that consumes its host. And so it has served its purpose but will be outdated, no, self destroyed is more apt.

So enjoy it while you can, it won't be around that much longer. Because it will no longer fit in with social needs.

 

Oh, my! It isn't capitalism that's imploding. It's heavy taxes, fees, and penalties that are the causes of what we've come to.

Nix the silliness of liberals and their anti-business ways and capitalism returns with a vengeance; then, all will be well.

 

Who controlled congress under those presidents? Republican or Democrat?

 

So now tell me how you blame the job elimination on Obama.

 

That is true but the tax cuts sure did contribute to the defecit.

 

As I said, you used her as an example and yet you clearly don't know anything about how she makes her living. And my income last year if you really care was over four hundred thousand mostly from investments since I am now retired.

 

I get the idea. None of those articles say anything about any bill that will create any significant number of jobs. I thought you were posting articles that demonstrated how the Democrats were frustrating Republican bills that would create jobs but these articles have nothing to do with job creation.

 

This is the weakest recovery in generations. Record numbers of people are too discouraged to hunt for jobs. The number of people on disability and on food stamps or other relief is higher than in the past. Democrats have controlled the agenda, first with the presidency and legislation under their control and now with a Senate and president which prevent Republican solutions from getting a hearing. We need fewer regulations and other laws which encourage job creation. Even Bush's record is better than Obama's. After his tax cuts to spur the economy during a rrecession made worse by the 9/11 attacks, the New York Times reported around 2004 that tax revenues were unexpectly higher. The unemployment rate also had fallen below 5%.

Compare that record with now. The unemployment rate is lower because it measures a smaller number of citizens because so many are out of the job pool and not measured. Much of our slow improvement may be in spite of liberal policies, not because of them.

 

you are ducking the issue of defining "wealth creation" obviously because it is just one of those buzz words you use but don't actually understand and can't actually defend.

 

This should provide the documentation:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ard-is-bigger-than-the-gdp-of-germany/260006/

 

John Runyan's site lists "Republican Jobs Bills Passed by the House of Representatives." As of 2011, the list numbered over 30. One can disagree with the intent of proposed legislation or argue that the bills were faulty, but that site alone proves Republicans have introduced legislation to help the economy create jobs.

Google some of the bills and you will see that some of them were passed to help create new jobs or to preserve old jobs.

 

Corporations are sitting on trillions of dollars because they are nervous about current government economic policies. I am sure there are other reasons, but they seem to be behaving differently than they did in the past. The Atlantic writer also hinted at nervousness when he wrote little will change until the economy calms down.

 

But they do, there are at least 30 bills sitting in Harry Reid's top left hand drawer. The reason Reid's says he tabled them is because they contain poisen pills. That makes no sense, the senate has the power to add, delete, change, amend any bill that comes over from the house. Reid and his majority in the senate could delete any of the poison pills and debate and pass the portions they believe in. They could even amend the bill to include their ideas.

No, all of this is pure political. You bought into the idea the Republicans are the only ones being obstructionist. It is both parties with their mentality of my way or the highway. A number of bill were already posted in this thread, but you discount them. Why, poison pills. You forget the power of the senate.

 

I used her as an example of the attitude that people who take advantage of the system have. At no point did I imply I knew how much she makes per year milking the system. I only stated what she said. If you want to know her exact milking system gimmicks you will have to ask her yourself.
Your argument is since I didn't ask her how exactly she milks the system and how much she makes per year that it isn't happening.
Also (since your argument is people pry until they know everything about how other people make a living) please tell me what investments exactly you made 400k on. Please be exact. I also need to know where you got and how much money you invested to begin with. Im using your advice and we are going to get very detailed about your income and how you made it so you cant accuse me of not knowing anything about how someone makes their living. Get your calculator and tax returns ready, Im going to be very detailed.

 

If it werent for war complex military contracts we would manufacture nothing but digital dollars in this country. Why are we paying the government to spy on us?
"After struggling with Congress, as detailed in the video report below, mega war profiteer defense contractor Northrop Grumman has won the day by receiving a new $354 million contract for its much-maligned Global Hawk spy drone. Its initial projected cost was $35 million each in 2005, but ballooned to $222 million by 2013. They’ve now settled on providing 3 new Global Hawks for $354 million, expanding to 37 total surveillance drones. There seems to be no mention of how this latest cost was reduced from previous estimates. But when one considers that Northrop spent $20.6 million lobbying Congress in 2013 – the most among defense contractors – the return on investment is solid."

 

387 bills passed in House stalled in Senate.
http://www.majorityleader.gov/bill-tracker/

 

First of all, the claim that Bush cut taxes to repair a weak economy made worse by 9/11, is false.

Bush's tax cuts became law BEFORE 9/11, and resulted in an immediate reversal of Federal revenue.

We went from surplus to deficit in less than 90 days, and turned a $250 billion surplus into a debt just as large.

Then he started an unnecessary disasterous war in the wrong country and pretended it was free by keeping it "off the books" until the day he walk away from the White House.

The economy wasn't particularly bad in 2001, nothing like it would be after the speculative bubble the the Republicans did everything they could to fuel collapsed.

There isn't any doubt about who in Washington was to blame for the climate that brought us the most stunning financial collapse since 1929. There is also very little doubt that had we had a Republican president in 2010, we'd probably be in a full blown global Depression now.

The GOP wanted to do the same things the GOP did in 1930. And it did everything it could to try and keep anyone else from doing anything. And they're still at it.

 

Not surprising.
When Obama was elected, Senator &itch McConnell, Republican leader, said the No. 1 priority was to get Obama out of office....it wasn't create jobs, it wasn't improve the economy, it wasn't create health care insurance that average Americans could afford, it wasn't What can we do for America and Americans, it wasn't even cut taxes, it was "get Obama"........how hard is it to figure out what slowed Congress down...