How will John Kerry's Plans create 3 million jobs?

I died laughing here.

Something to understand about BigSoccer banner ads, Michael. You're not really the ten millionth visitor, you're not actually an instant winner, and the Republicans aren't actually helping the economy.

 

Michael Russ does it again!

Is John Kerry actually Robert Young from "Father Knows Best".

Government run economies don't work efficiently. Please see www.USSR.com for more info.

John Kerry wants to "invest" in education and healthcare. How does govt. invest? They spend tax payer money.

From my own experience in NY, we spend alot on education,err, uhm, invest alot on education. In my county we invest $15,000 per child per year for K-12 education. For that amount of money, we are able to produce children that receive an average score of about 74 on their state exams.

I, personally pay $12,000 in property taxes to help cover part of the $15,000 investment per child. My children couldn't stand our school system. They were bored. So, while I pay my $12,000 tax, I also spend $9,000 per child for my (2) children to attend a private school that has 7th graders getting from 1000-1250's on real SAT's. The tests that HS juniors and seniors take.

In my area, the private sector for education destroys the public sector in terms of output. They put out a better product for less cost.

But, John Kerry promises to change this by INCREASING INVESTMENT. Yeah, he's right. Let's increase the federal give back to poorly functioning schools.

Is is slogan, "Let's reward mediocrity."

 

Woah, $9,000? That's A LOT for SAT prep. I'll do it for $50/hour. You should give me a call.

 

Neither do privately run ones if the number of business failures is anything to go by...

As for your screed on public education, while I agree that there are things I'd change about the system, one of the things I'd change is the way schools are funded to remove the savage inequalities inherent in the current funding methods that turn some inner city or rural schools into horror shows with textbooks saying "Our current President, Dwight D. Eisenhower.." while public schools in wealthy areas have all the resources. Maybe if poor school disctricts had access to the same resources and could hire decent teachers like the rich schools, maybe they'd do better.

Oh, and Michael, "tax giveaways" refers to the kind of corproate wealthfare that sees our tax dollars benig givenaway to corporations that don't need them. For example, why does McDonald's need millions of our tax money to market Chicken McNuggets in Singapore? Isn't that kind of thing supposed to come out of their own Marketing budget? It's time to instill a sense of individual responsibility and self-reliance into Corporate America and get these wealthfare queens off their dependence on the public dime, wouldn't you say?

 

I bet if you offer $75, Demosthenes will throw in a couple of extra classes of Oratory, Logic, Ethics, and Greco-Greco Wrestling....

 

originally posted by Michael Russ

Rolling back the tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans would increase Federal tax receipts. Increasing the receipts would lower the deficit. Lower deficit would lead to lower interest rates. Lower interest rates would provide greater opportunities for companies to invest in their businesses. The new investments would require additional employees; hence greater employment.

Murf

 

Have you factored in the "input" of private and public schools? Do that, and get back to me.

Also, I'd like a source for your "$15,000" figure there, hoss.

 

1. Budget deficits are an economic problem, in the longterm.
2. I think it was before you joined bigsoccer, but I started a thread pointing out the following history.

1. Reagan slashed taxes in 1981, targeting cuts toward the rich. We plunged into a nasty recession.
2. He raised taxes in 1982 and 1983, and the economy grew for most of the rest of the 80s.
3. Clinton raised taxes, and the economy flourished through most of the 90s.
4. Bush II cut taxes, targeting his cuts toward the rich. And given the budget deficits, the effects of those cuts as a budget stimulus could hardly be worse.

There's a very clear correlation, broken only by Bush I's tax increases.

The correlation between the economy, and tax rates, is pretty darned complicated. I'm not arguing that raising taxes automatically grows the economy, while cutting taxes hurts the economy.

I am arguing that the inverse clearly isn't true. There's just too many pieces of data out there.

 

It was a subsidy. And Mcdonalds is not the only one. Several huge corporations like Sunkist and M&M/Mars get government subsidies to market their products overseas.

Anyway, who cares? Even if it was a tax credit, it's tax money the goverment would normally be entitled to that McDonald's isn't paying. Why do the wealthfare queens at McDonald's need the government's help to do this? Isn't this something they should be doing on their own? I see what you believe now: that "personal responsibility" is only something shoved down the throats of the suckers while the VIPs wisely ride the government gravy train. I sure wish the government would give ME a "tax credit" so that I could get primo World Cup tix and go to Germany in 2006. That would be nice. But then, I can't afford to buy any Congressmen so I can hop on the wealthfare wagon.

The activity of Axis Alex, Smiley and manny in these boards means that this isn't a finalist for "Worst Analogy Ever" but it does get an "honorable" mention.

edited to state that giving companies money to market their goods is only one form of needless wealthfare that only encourages corporate dependence on government handouts. Taxpayer-funded research that is just handed over to drug companies who then charge us an arm and a leg for what WE paid to develop is another outrage. There are plenty more examples of corporate wealthfare queens out there if you have the balls to look into the topic. Just Google "wealthfare". If you dare.

 

Well, maybe if you went to a school as highly regarded as the one your kids go to, you would understand the concept of an "average." Public schools serve the children of the ENTIRE community. Not just the top 5% that private schools can pick and choose from. Public schools serve more than just the best and brightest. They serve special education kids, emotionally disturbed kids and kids with more problems at home in one year than most kids experience in a lifetime, and kids who just aren't very smart. Take those kids into account when you berate that 74% average. Of course private schools will get better results. They get to choose the kids who are smart to begin with and also have the benefit of parents who are willing to invest in their child. If I ran a Major League Soccer team and got to start the season by loading my team with the top 5% of players in the league, I wouldn't be too full of myself if that team did well. I'm sorry your kids were bored, but short of kicking average and disadvantaged kids out of the public schools, they won't be able to compete with private schools when you use test scores as the only criteria.

 

http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/ch655_2002/home.html

then proceed to District & County Tables and press Excel 97 spreadsheet.

Go to table 2, where you will find the 2 counties of Long Island, Nassau and Suffolk. This site has the average expense per child by district and by county. The average expense per child is;

Nassau County - $ 13,810
Sufolk County - $ 12,688

These amounts are for 2001. Of course, by 2003 the costs went up quite a bit. If you look through the data, you will see that many districts cost more than $15,000 per child back in 2001.

I don't understand your 1st question. If you can express it better, maybe I can reply.

As usual, I do appreciate the affectionate names that you call me. It shows your tolerance for diverse opinions.

 

You make good points.

Unfortunately, schools in my area changed the way public schools of yesteryear were run. They used to allow everyone to go at their own pace. They would put the smarties in honors or SP classes. They'd put regular kids in regular classes or in advanced classes for their particular talents. They'd take the slower children and have them in a class that reviewed the material more often and was geared to help them.

Now, that's all changed. For the most part, everyone's together. The teachers don't even try to teach to the level of the median grade student. They teach to a level lower than that. Political correctness has run amok.

I agree that the private school kids are cherry picked. But, they spend 60% of what the public schools spend. The private schools have NO economies of scale, which makes that 60% figure all the more amazing.

I moved to a high property tax area so that my kids could get a good education. Now, I'm spending the money both ways.

 

I think your problem is easily solved, NYfutbolfan. Simply endow a $9,000 scholarship at that private school, and take a deduction.

 

The Repub mantra of trickle down economics falls down when you look at it closely.

The idea is if you let the rich keep more of their money, they will naturally spend it on creating new jobs.

Sounds great and logical. I even agree with it in theory.

However, reality usually proves otherwise. What happens is that the rich naturally look out for themselves (just like everyone does) and uses the extra money on other things (like their toys, buying stocks, putting it into Swiss bank acounts, putting it in offshore tax shelters, etc.).

This has been proven by the fact that when Reagan cut taxes for the rich, jobs were lost. Then, when Dubya put in massive tax cuts for the rich (which have been in effect for 3 years now), we have lost 3 million jobs.

Rather than investing in employees, the rich and large corporations are offshoring and slashing jobs in America.

In a market economy, you can always depend on individuals or companies to do what's best for them, not what's best for the job market.

However, I do believe in the idea of trickle down economics. While the rich might spend more on super expensive luxury and/or sports cars and yachts, this market is relatively small and will only create a limited amount of jobs.

By contrast, the government is the biggest entity in the country. Government revenue is much larger than any group of super rich people or any number of super large companies. And what does government do with it's revenue? It invariably spends it. It is the nature of the beast. Government agencies and departments have to spend their budget to in order to get the same or more the next year. Representatives go for big spending projects in their districts. Goverenment will always spend it's money, not horde it, like the rich will often do. And no matter how inefficient or wasteful or poorly allocated that spending might be, it always creates jobs and stimulates the economy.

That wasteful beaurocracy that you hate so much is employing someone. That pork-belly project for Joe Rep's disctrict is creating jobs. That useless text book upgrade that was ordered by your local school district just increased the revenues of some textbook publisher.

And a lot of government spending is not wasteful - infrastructure spending, for instance. Business' completely reley on government infrastructure spending.

And with those jobs comes greater spending in the private sector, and thus, in the long run, the rich receive more revenue, because those that spend and work to make the rich wealthy are better off. Everyone is happy.

See, I believe in trickle down economics. It's just that it only works when it is trickling down from the government. This creates jobs, which drives the market upward, which creates more wealth for the wealthy (and everyone else, for that matter).

The market is the Ox that is pulling the private business cart.

If you are still reading this post my final point is that Kerry's proposals can work. Similar things worked great for FDR, Reagan (the largest defense spending in the history of mankind), and Clinton. Dubya's cutting of taxes for the wealthy has obviously failed.

 

Well I'll be...man that's high. The reason I wanted to call bulls*** is that your numbers were so much higher than we have down here. I stand...well, not corrected. I stand chagrined.

I noticed that the costs for them were much higher than most of the other districts. Any reason why?

It's the same thing Jacen was talking about.

Hoss isn't bad!! I can think of worse.

 

Ugh. I hate it when schools do this. That's a problem with the way the school is run, not the economics of it. Dumbing down school for smart kids is just a stupid way to go.

 

We have high interest rates?

 

We almost certainly will have high interest rates once businesses begin expanding and competing for capital.

 

Ohh Kerry will be creating 3 million new jobs easily. He's going to reclassify fast food workers as manufacturers, thus changing the definition and creating jobs. Or was this the President's idea, I forget.

On the flip side, how will President Bush's plan create more jobs?

 

So you disagree with Murph's statement about lower interest rates then?