How Bush's tax policies exacerbate the lack of jobs

[superdave]

http://www.slate.com/id/2106372/

It's not the easiest argument to follow, but it's compelling. See, the Bush tax policies encourage the purchase of labor-saving devices.

Two points. First, this is another example of why Dems are better for the economy than GOPs. GOPs reflectively ask business what they need, and what do businesses need? They need more revenue and less costs. Employees are a cost.

Second, if the cliche' sci-fi dystopic scenario comes to pass, and because of machines/technology there's nowhere near enough work for the number of workers, what are we going to do about it? Whom do you trust to make those decisions, the party that favors workers, or the party that favors employers/owners? The answer is obvious, isn't it?

[mozilla]

Where was the brave Kerry when the other Dems bent over to vote for more EVIL tax cuts?

Profile in courage :D

[Matt in the Hat]

Isn't favoring workers over quicker and more efficient machines a little wasteful? I have to think that this is a flawed argument in the same way that the redistribution of wealth is. This assumes that there is a finite amount of work/capitol in this country. The fact is that is false.

[Matt in the Hat]

Where was the brave Kerry when the other Dems bent over to vote for more EVIL tax cuts?

Profile in courage :D
Could you please think once in a while? It would be nice to have some conservative opinions around here but not if they are going to be of this nature

[argentine soccer fan]

http://www.slate.com/id/2106372/

It's not the easiest argument to follow, but it's compelling. See, the Bush tax policies encourage the purchase of labor-saving devices.

Two points. First, this is another example of why Dems are better for the economy than GOPs. GOPs reflectively ask business what they need, and what do businesses need? They need more revenue and less costs. Employees are a cost.

Second, if the cliche' sci-fi dystopic scenario comes to pass, and because of machines/technology there's nowhere near enough work for the number of workers, what are we going to do about it? Whom do you trust to make those decisions, the party that favors workers, or the party that favors employers/owners? The answer is obvious, isn't it?

That is a ridiculous argument. If businesses have to pay more in taxes, they will look even harder to cut cost in other areas. If, as you claim, workers are a cost, then raising taxes will result in more workers being laid off, because the need for businesses to cut other costs will be greater. That argument doesn't wash at all.

Besides, if we can get machines to do all our work, then we all will have more time to argue about all kinds of BS in Bigsoccer, which is what we want to do, right? :D

Seriously, Superdave, leaving aside arguments like the above, which are a bit of a reach, it is true that economists are divided about the net result of tax cuts to the economy in the long term. But I think most economists will agree that at least in the short term the Bush tax cuts provided a boost to the economy at a time that it sorely needed, due to the recession and terrorists attacks.

[mozilla]

Could you please think once in a while? It would be nice to have some conservative opinions around here but not if they are going to be of this nature

List of Democrats who voted for evil "Bush's tax policies" that "exacerbate the lack of jobs"

Yea : 339 Members

Robert Cramer (D-AL)
Artur Davis (D-AL)
Mike Ross (D-AR)
Vic Snyder (D-AR)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Joe Baca (D-CA)
Howard Berman (D-CA)
Dennis Cardoza (D-CA)
Susan Davis (D-CA)
Calvin Dooley (D-CA)
Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
Sam Farr (D-CA)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Michael Honda (D-CA)
Tom Lantos (D-CA)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Robert Matsui (D-CA)
Grace Napolitano (D-CA)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Linda Sanchez (D-CA)
Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)
Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Brad Sherman (D-CA)
Hilda Solis (D-CA)
Ellen Tauscher (D-CA)
F. Allen Boyd (D-FL)
Jim Davis (D-FL)
Peter Deutsch (D-FL)
Kendrick Meek (D-FL)
Robert Wexler (D-FL)
C.W. Bill Young (R-FL)
Denise Majette (D-GA)
Jim Marshall (D-GA)
Charles Norwood (R-GA)
David Scott (D-GA)
Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
Ed Case (D-HI)
Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
Jerry Costello (D-IL)
Lane Evans (D-IL)
Julia Carson (D-IN)
Dennis Moore (D-KS)
Ben Chandler (D-KY)
William Jefferson (D-LA)
Chris John (D-LA)
Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
James McGovern (D-MA)
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
C.A. Ruppersberger (D-MD)
Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
Albert Wynn (D-MD)
Thomas Allen (D-ME)
Michael Michaud (D-ME)
John Dingell (D-MI)
Dale Kildee (D-MI)
Sander Levin (D-MI)
Bart Stupak (D-MI)
Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Richard Gephardt (D-MO)
Ike Skelton (D-MO)
G.K. Butterfield (D-NC)
Bob Etheridge (D-NC)
Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
Brad Miller (D-NC)
David Price (D-NC)
Melvin Watt (D-NC)
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)
Steven Rothman (D-NJ)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Shelley Berkley (D-NV)
Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Tim Bishop (D-NY)
Joseph Crowley (D-NY)
Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
Steve Israel (D-NY)
Nita Lowey (D-NY)
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
Michael McNulty (D-NY)
Gregory Meeks (D-NY)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Jose Serrano (D-NY)
Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY)
Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)
Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Tim Ryan (D-OH)
Ted Strickland (D-OH)
Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH)
Brad Carson (D-OK))
Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Darlene Hooley (D-OR)
David Wu (D-OR)
Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA)
Tim Holden (D-PA)
Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)
James Langevin (D-RI)
James Clyburn (D-SC)
John Spratt (D-SC)
Lincoln Davis (D-TN)
John Duncan (R-TN)
Harold Ford (D-TN)
Bart Gordon (D-TN)
Chris Bell (D-TX)
Chet Edwards (D-TX)
Martin Frost (D-TX)
Charles Gonzalez (D-TX)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Nicholas Lampson (D-TX)
Solomon Ortiz (D-TX)
Silvestre Reyes (D-TX)
Max Sandlin (D-TX)
Charles Stenholm (D-TX)
Jim Turner (D-TX)
Jim Matheson (D-UT)
Rick Boucher (D-VA)
James Moran (D-VA)
Brian Baird (D-WA)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Ron Kind (D-WI)
Nick Rahall (D-WV)

http://congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=472&chamber=H&congress=1082&printer=1

[irishFS1921]

List of Democrats who voted for evil "Bush's tax policies" that "exacerbate the lack of jobs"

Yea : 339 Members

Robert Cramer (D-AL)
Artur Davis (D-AL)
Mike Ross (D-AR)
Vic Snyder (D-AR)
Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Joe Baca (D-CA)
Howard Berman (D-CA)
Dennis Cardoza (D-CA)
Susan Davis (D-CA)
Calvin Dooley (D-CA)
Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
Sam Farr (D-CA)
Bob Filner (D-CA)
Michael Honda (D-CA)
Tom Lantos (D-CA)
Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Robert Matsui (D-CA)
Grace Napolitano (D-CA)
Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)
Linda Sanchez (D-CA)
Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)
Adam Schiff (D-CA)
Brad Sherman (D-CA)
Hilda Solis (D-CA)
Ellen Tauscher (D-CA)
F. Allen Boyd (D-FL)
Jim Davis (D-FL)
Peter Deutsch (D-FL)
Kendrick Meek (D-FL)
Robert Wexler (D-FL)
C.W. Bill Young (R-FL)
Denise Majette (D-GA)
Jim Marshall (D-GA)
Charles Norwood (R-GA)
David Scott (D-GA)
Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
Ed Case (D-HI)
Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
Jerry Costello (D-IL)
Lane Evans (D-IL)
Julia Carson (D-IN)
Dennis Moore (D-KS)
Ben Chandler (D-KY)
William Jefferson (D-LA)
Chris John (D-LA)
Stephen Lynch (D-MA)
James McGovern (D-MA)
Benjamin Cardin (D-MD)
Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
C.A. Ruppersberger (D-MD)
Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
Albert Wynn (D-MD)
Thomas Allen (D-ME)
Michael Michaud (D-ME)
John Dingell (D-MI)
Dale Kildee (D-MI)
Sander Levin (D-MI)
Bart Stupak (D-MI)
Collin Peterson (D-MN)
Richard Gephardt (D-MO)
Ike Skelton (D-MO)
G.K. Butterfield (D-NC)
Bob Etheridge (D-NC)
Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
Brad Miller (D-NC)
David Price (D-NC)
Melvin Watt (D-NC)
Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
Bill Pascrell (D-NJ)
Steven Rothman (D-NJ)
Tom Udall (D-NM)
Shelley Berkley (D-NV)
Gary Ackerman (D-NY)
Tim Bishop (D-NY)
Joseph Crowley (D-NY)
Eliot Engel (D-NY)
Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
Steve Israel (D-NY)
Nita Lowey (D-NY)
Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY)
Michael McNulty (D-NY)
Gregory Meeks (D-NY)
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Charles Rangel (D-NY)
Jose Serrano (D-NY)
Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY)
Nydia Velazquez (D-NY)
Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Tim Ryan (D-OH)
Ted Strickland (D-OH)
Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH)
Brad Carson (D-OK))
Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Darlene Hooley (D-OR)
David Wu (D-OR)
Joseph Hoeffel (D-PA)
Tim Holden (D-PA)
Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)
James Langevin (D-RI)
James Clyburn (D-SC)
John Spratt (D-SC)
Lincoln Davis (D-TN)
John Duncan (R-TN)
Harold Ford (D-TN)
Bart Gordon (D-TN)
Chris Bell (D-TX)
Chet Edwards (D-TX)
Martin Frost (D-TX)
Charles Gonzalez (D-TX)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX)
Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
Nicholas Lampson (D-TX)
Solomon Ortiz (D-TX)
Silvestre Reyes (D-TX)
Max Sandlin (D-TX)
Charles Stenholm (D-TX)
Jim Turner (D-TX)
Jim Matheson (D-UT)
Rick Boucher (D-VA)
James Moran (D-VA)
Brian Baird (D-WA)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Ron Kind (D-WI)
Nick Rahall (D-WV)

http://congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/?votenum=472&chamber=H&congress=1082&printer=1
I think mozilla slammed your dick in the door on that one.

[Matt in the Hat]

I think mozilla slammed your dick in the door on that one.
Not really.

I, like Dave (I assume) wanted an opinion, not another slam on John Kerry who by the way couldn't have displayed his opinion on it yet because it hasn't hit the Senate

[Yankee_Blue]

Smash all the light bulbs and bring back the candle makers.

[Yankee_Blue]

Not really.

I, like Dave (I assume) wanted an opinion,

Naaa. You either agree with supertruth or you are a liar.

[mozilla]

Not really.

I, like Dave (I assume) wanted an opinion, not another slam on John Kerry who by the way couldn't have displayed his opinion on it yet because it hasn't hit the Senate

Wrong again.

In the Senate, the evil Bush tax-cut passed by a 92-3 vote. Even Daschle vote "yes" :)

Rove is a genius!!!!!!!

[mozilla]

In the Senate, the evil Bush tax-cut passed by a 92-3 vote. Even Daschle vote "yes" :)

Rove is a genius!!!!!!!

In fact more Republicans votes against it than Dems.

Olympia Snowe (R - ME)
Lincoln Chafee (R - RI)
Fritz Hollings (D - SC)

Go figure
:p

[VFish]

...who by the way couldn't have displayed his opinion on it yet because it hasn't hit the Senate
As if he'd be there to weigh in on it.

[superdave]

That is a ridiculous argument. If businesses have to pay more in taxes, they will look even harder to cut cost in other areas. If, as you claim, workers are a cost, then raising taxes will result in more workers being laid off, because the need for businesses to cut other costs will be greater. That argument doesn't wash at all.
Not all tax cuts, or tax increases, are the same. If you cut taxes on capital investments, that is going to have a different effect from, say, cutting the employer portion of SS taxes, or cutting taxes on corporate profits.

You always say you own a growing small business, but this post is causing me to call bullsh**. Hell, even *I* know this...and you don't? Life is a lil' more complicated than, ugh, me hatum taxes.

Seriously, Superdave, leaving aside arguments like the above, which are a bit of a reach, it is true that economists are divided about the net result of tax cuts to the economy in the long term. But I think most economists will agree that at least in the short term the Bush tax cuts provided a boost to the economy at a time that it sorely needed, due to the recession and terrorists attacks.
Right, but when you say "the economy" what do you mean? I'm being serious. Let's hypothesize a tax cut plan that causes the richest 5% to see great gains, and the other 95% to see very modest losses, so that overall, the economy grows. (Let's leave aside the fiscal implications for now.) I think you'd say, hey, the economy grew, that's good. If that's your philosophy, OK, I can't argue with you, except to say that very few people would agree with you.

[argentine soccer fan]

You always say you own a growing small business, but this post is causing me to call bullsh**. Hell, even *I* know this...and you don't? Life is a lil' more complicated than, ugh, me hatum taxes.

Superdave, you have a bad habit of accusing people of lying and of bulshit. Don't you, Superdave? Here is some advice. Calling people liars is not conducive to a positive exchange of ideas. And life taught me that those who call others liars are usually considered to be liars themselves, so be careful before calling somebody a liar.

So, you doubt I have a business? I don't need to prove myself to you, but if you want, I can PM you my company website. Just let me know if you are interested in buying wholesale bridal and party supplies or Xmas decorations.

And BTW, no serious economist would agree with the argument from Slate. It is too simplistic. It is true that technology has contributed to take away jobs. As a small businessman I found that with 'word' I may not need a secretary, and with 'excel' I may not need a numbers cruncher. With internet selling I may not need so many sales reps, and so on. Jobs are lost. Depreciation is a very small factor. It is nice to have when April 14th comes around, but it is not really as relevant as you seem to think, when it comes to business decisions. I am sure it is a big help to those business which need lots of equipment, but I strongly doubt that it has in general the effect that you propose.

Truth is, the economy is changing in many ways. We got a lot of new technology jobs in the 90's and that very same technology is causing us to lose jobs. Tech giveth and tech taketh away.

[superdave]

Superdave, you have a bad habit of accusing people of lying and of bulshit. Don't you, Superdave? Here is some advice. Calling people liars is not conducive to a positive exchange of ideas.

Neither is smugly oversimplifying an issue to avoid the contradictions in one's position.

And BTW, no serious economist would agree with the argument from Slate. It is too simplistic. It is true that technology has contributed to take away jobs. As a small businessman I found that with 'word' I may not need a secretary, and with 'excel' I may not need a numbers cruncher. With internet selling I may not need so many sales reps, and so on. Jobs are lost. Depreciation is a very small factor. It is nice to have when April 14th comes around, but it is not really as relevant as you seem to think, when it comes to business decisions. I am sure it is a big help to those business which need lots of equipment, but I strongly doubt that it has in general the effect that you propose.

Right, I get that the impact is at the margins. But then, just about every gvt. action works at the margins. That being the case, it's true that the "margin" this works at is to destroy jobs, not create jobs.

PS...my intention wasn't to call you a liar. When I want to call people liars, I come out and say it. My intention was to highlight how you were, um, smugly oversimplifying an issue to avoid contradictions.

[Quaker]

You always say you own a growing small business, but this post is causing me to call bullsh**. Hell, even *I* know this...and you don't?PS...my intention wasn't to call you a liar. When I want to call people liars, I come out and say it.
You pretty much called him a liar without using the word explicitly.

See, the Bush tax policies encourage the purchase of labor-saving devices.
Good, I hope they do! Investment in technology is the key to progressing as a nation, staying ahead of the curve, and increasing aggregate wealth. Yes, some people lose the jobs they've got, but those are unsustainable positions if technology can do it better.

For example, would you really argue that we'd be better off with hundreds of thousands of telephone switchboard operators that manually connect every call? I'll take the technology that does this automatically and frees up these people to do other productive work any day. That's how our standard of living improves.

[superdave]

Good, I hope they do! Investment in technology is the key to progressing as a nation, staying ahead of the curve, and increasing aggregate wealth. Yes, some people lose the jobs they've got, but those are unsustainable positions if technology can do it better.

For example, would you really argue that we'd be better off with hundreds of thousands of telephone switchboard operators that manually connect every call? I'll take the technology that does this automatically and frees up these people to do other productive work any day. That's how our standard of living improves.
OK, you're right, but that's not the point. The point is, the gvt. is SUBSIDIZING those labor saving purchases. A free marketer like yourself should be saying, why is the gvt. favoring one kind of spending over another?

I can't believe this is so complicated. The gvt. is INTERFERING in the free market and favoring one expenditure over others. If the gvt. is going to do that, you guys are saying that doing that in service of corporate profits, and to the detriment of workers, is a good idea. There are THREE choices here. 1, keep tax policies as they are. 2, change tax policies to favor corporate profits to the detriment of workers. 3, change tax policies to encourage corporations to hire more workers.

I can see arguing in favor of 1, or in favor of 3. But favoring #2 during a recession is just bizarre. I think this is a good example of how the conservative media bias has closed off so many perspectives from the debate. A simple thing like changing tax policy to favor hiring workers, or even keeping tax policy neutral so as not to favor getting rid of workers, it's outside you guys' imagination.

[Attacking Minded]

PS...my intention wasn't to call you a liar. When I want to call people liars, I come out and say it.

I don't think you are telling the truth. I think you only do it on the internet. Why don't you tell us the last time you called someone a liar to their face? Have you ever done it? (Your wife doesn't count.) Was it a man? A southern man? What happend?

[Pauncho]

The ability of machines, off-shoring and generally new efficiencies to replace expensive western employees is a worldwide fact of our times. In general terms, it is irresistable. We can influence it on the margins.

The Republicans want to embrace it, and in some ways even subsidize it. To them, richer rich people and weaker unions is a win-win proposition. Weakening the middle class isn't exactly a desired outcome in and of itself, but it's a bearable cost of those other two good things.

What the Democrats say is they want to shape this irresistable trend to do the most good and the least harm. They say they want to see poor countries and poor people get a little better deal. They say they want to see effective but still limited protections of current workers. What they do is politics: whoever has the most influence will get pork in the form of protections that distort the marketplace. Your opinion on whether these preferences distort the marketplace in worthwhile or just overly expensive ways depends on whose ox is being gored.

Choose your poison.