Up-to-date analysis of the local political landscape
Monday, October 24, 2011
Yup
10 comments:
Mike D.
said...
What kind of language is necessary in a bill for you to consider it a "jobs" bill? If one truly believes that lowering taxes spurs jobs growth, then one could argue that they have introduced 522 jobs bills. Must a bill include massive spending for you to consider it beneficial to job growth?
Can you point to any jobs created by those bills? Because we had a decade of tax cuts under Bush and as far as I can tell that didn't help much, so I'm skeptical of this whole tax cuts = jobs equation. Right now what I see is teachers and other state workers losing their jobs so that everyone else can keep a penny or two more on their dollar. To me that's not a good trade off.
The $278,000 per job figure is typical misdirection. That figure includes all the material and indirect economic uplift of major construction projects. At the end of the day, we have new infrastructure and new jobs - not just expensive jobs. http://api.ning.com/files/Oew22GbKxphodUKnVhrBltCtZg13HTuEK5rjdgHxBVMS1m9oWcFJ56V7XaWE3pSh9eml5qjuIK7WSdYxZsGlK7BS4EBJaPbj/Chart.bmp
Look at where the jobs would have gone if not for the stimulus.
Anonymous - The chart you reference says very little, if anything, about the relationship between the top tax rate (which is all it is using - and you don't even know which top rate that is referenced by the DOL here) and job creation. And, if anything, it refutes your argument in many of the years over the past 30. Your going to need more than just a relatively meaningless graph to make your argument cogent. Of course, I rarely come to this site anymore because all I usually see is the same cast of characters calling those they don't agree with all kinds of names and displaying mostly angry rhetoric, much like the author of the blog.
J.W. Williamson was the founding editor in 1972 of the Appalachian Journal: A Regional Studies Review, which he edited until July of 2000. He has taught college classes in Appalachian history, cultural politics, and literature, and he has lectured widely on the pop-culture history of "Appalachia" in the American consciousness. His books include Interviewing Appalachia, Southern Mountaineers in Silent Films, and Hillbillyland: What the Mountains Did to the Movies and What the Movies Did to the Mountains. He has won the Thomas Wolfe Award given by the Western North Carolina Historical Society, the Laurel Leaves Award given by the Appalachian Consortium, a special Weatherford Award given by Berea College, and the Cratis Williams-James Brown Award given by the Appalachian Studies Association.
The views expressed on WataugaWatch are solely those of J.W. Williamson or individual contributors and are not necessarily shared nor endorsed by the Watauga County Democratic Party nor by any other adults of sound mind in this or any other universe.
10 comments:
What kind of language is necessary in a bill for you to consider it a "jobs" bill? If one truly believes that lowering taxes spurs jobs growth, then one could argue that they have introduced 522 jobs bills. Must a bill include massive spending for you to consider it beneficial to job growth?
If there were 522 bills on cutting taxes, there were 522 bills on job creation.
You guys are trying to use logic to change the conclusions of a man who didn't use any logic in initially reaching those conclusions.
Good luck.
According to Obama's own economists, the Stimulus cost us $278,000 per job "saved or created." Why the hell would we want any more bills like that?
What evidence can you present to support your contention that lowering taxes creates jobs?
I can present plenty of evidence against it.
Mike D. and Anon,
Can you point to any jobs created by those bills? Because we had a decade of tax cuts under Bush and as far as I can tell that didn't help much, so I'm skeptical of this whole tax cuts = jobs equation. Right now what I see is teachers and other state workers losing their jobs so that everyone else can keep a penny or two more on their dollar. To me that's not a good trade off.
The $278,000 per job figure is typical misdirection. That figure includes all the material and indirect economic uplift of major construction projects. At the end of the day, we have new infrastructure and new jobs - not just expensive jobs. http://api.ning.com/files/Oew22GbKxphodUKnVhrBltCtZg13HTuEK5rjdgHxBVMS1m9oWcFJ56V7XaWE3pSh9eml5qjuIK7WSdYxZsGlK7BS4EBJaPbj/Chart.bmp
Look at where the jobs would have gone if not for the stimulus.
http://www.truthfulpolitics.com/images/job-creation-top-tax-rate.jpg
Do lower taxes = jobs - not hardly!
"Do lower taxes = jobs - not hardly!"
You are right. Lower taxes increase jobs inevitably.
Anonymous - The chart you reference says very little, if anything, about the relationship between the top tax rate (which is all it is using - and you don't even know which top rate that is referenced by the DOL here) and job creation. And, if anything, it refutes your argument in many of the years over the past 30. Your going to need more than just a relatively meaningless graph to make your argument cogent. Of course, I rarely come to this site anymore because all I usually see is the same cast of characters calling those they don't agree with all kinds of names and displaying mostly angry rhetoric, much like the author of the blog.
Post a Comment