It Didn't Take Them Long, Tea Party/Conservatives Imply "No Jobs for Americans"

Five Years Later

And not a damn thing has changed. Any real plan to increase jobs in a big way are STILL acting as a brick wall;



Bank of America Cutting 30,000 Jobs ...

... and the Tea Party/Conservatives today just started chanting "no new jobs, no new jobs, no ...", well sort of. What they are really saying is "no new investment which will hire Americans" and "no increase in taxes on wealthy Americans (which DO NOT kill jobs by the way) to help pay for the investment.

Eric Cantor and John Boehner both came out swinging today, Tuesday, September 12, 2011, saying yes, we should extend the payroll tax cuts for the middle class but not increase taxes on the wealthy to pay for it. Instead, their solution is to increase unemployment and therefore unemployment benefit costs by firing thousands upon thousands of federal workers and private workers working on federal contracts.

Now, Eric and John, or Mitch McConnell for that matter, don't come right out and say "fire", of course, that is politically incorrect, instead, they sugar-coat it and call it budget cutting; it is the same thing though; the 30,000 jobs that Bank of America is eliminating, the reason is budget cutting, $5 billion worth! What are the Conservatives trying save on the backs of federal workers? A couple of trillion? You do the math.

Thoughts on , hehe, "Job Killing" Tax Hikes

Also, a note on my parenthetical comment in the first paragraph that I have been wanting to dilate on; raising taxes on the wealthy is a "job killing idea" ... NOT, no it isn't, no way, no how, nope, not on your life, etc. I have been wanting to address this but have neglected to do so; now I have my chance.

The Conservative argument makes one huge FALSE assumption - Most millionaires and billionaires use much of their wealth to create jobs.This statement has to hold true for the Conservative's claim to make any sense; if any part is false, their whole argument falls apart; that should be obvious and go without further analysis for any rational person. So, the real questions are: 1) Do the very rich use there money in a way that is intended to create jobs, 2) do those very rich who do so, use most of their money to do so, and 3) do most of the very rich pursue this goal of creating jobs?

Here is who makes up the very rich:

  1. According to surveys from CNBC, health care professionals hold 14 of the top 20 of the highest paying jobs in America; according to Forbes, health care professionals hold 14 (the same ones) of the top 25.
  2. In both, CEOs, the first non-healthcare profession listed was 9th and 10th, respectively.
  3. Next are lawyers, 15th and 16th, respectively.
  4. From there we finish up with various managers and air traffic controllers.
  5. Only one of the above is really responsible, in a big way, for hiring people, the CEOs; they represent a very small percentage of the total, however.
  6. Others, from 17th place on down, generally are managers of one sort or another.

Given the above, it seems like most of the wealthiest people are ones who might have the least interest in job creation; CEOs only came in 9th or 10th. I admit, the top CEOs total wealth is probably much higher than many well-to-do surgeons, but there are very few of them so my point probably is robust.

What is the effect of the tax hike on the really, really rich? Well, if you gross one million dollars ($1,000,000), are married, don't have kids, and don't itemize, maybe $40,000. If you itemize, it will be less. If you have capital gains and dividends as almost all the very rich do, it will be much less.

So, back to the question, since physicians (612,000 strong) make the most money when compared to CEOs (102,000 strong), and constitute the majority of the very rich in this country, do they focus on spending most of their discretionary money the same way the Conservatives are telling you the CEOs are, on investments whose sole purpose is "job creation"? If you think so, I have bridge in Brooklyn and some swamp in Florida that I want to sell you, lol. (BTW, that result surprise me.)

Bottom line, the Conservative propaganda campaign to make America's believe a tax hike on the wealthy will "kill jobs" is just that, propaganda and, because it is, must be repeated often before the lie becomes truth.

© 2011 My Esoteric

More by this Author

Comments 34 comments

HSchneider 5 years ago from Parsippany, New Jersey

Great analysis My Esoteric. The Tea Partiers are clueless when it comes to economics. They have been sold a bill of goods from Corporate America saying that cuts in our social safety net are good. Even though these cuts are totally against their interests. They call for lower taxes and no revenue raisers of any kind. This does not save or grow jobs. It has been shown by every study to be false. Why do these people swallow this nonsense whole without thinking? Take our country back? Please let's take our education back and give these peoples some economic lessons.

Ty Gillis profile image

Ty Gillis 5 years ago from Palm Bay, Florida

your absolutely right,when that poor guy gives me that job, we'll have Obama to thank. This is more Class division based on Socialist ideals. The only way that we can move forward with the economy is for the "rich" to spend more money, not donate it to the next failed Obama Stimulus plan.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks once more, HScheider and to answer your question, I have no idea.

@Ty Gillis, I appreciate your sarcasm, but it would help if you gather facts and gain an understanding on how the world actually works rather than how you hoped it would work.

Your system works if, and only if, you do not want the federal government providing any services, other than maybe an Army and Navy, much like what was in the Articles of Confederation. Maybe you would like to even have it such that the federal government would have to beg the States for money to fund even that, like they did to pay for the Continental Army (several States refused, btw). That way, your vision of a limited federal government with low or zero taxes will work; no services, no money needed to provide them, no taxes needed to pay for them, simple, isn't it.

As for, hehe, "socialist" Obama bilking the rich, God, I would to see what you would call Nixon (whose marginal rate was what, twice what Obama wants; what Clinton had?) or even Eisenhower (whose highest marginal rate was maybe three times today's rate). I guess you would call them Communists, wouldn't you. Socialist, Indeed.

American Romance profile image

American Romance 5 years ago from America

Remember when the yacht tax was raised by Demcrats? It killed thousands of boat builder jobs? Now Obama is talking about raising taxes on corporate jet holders? You guys love to argue and point fingers but your tactics have been tried and FAILED! Insane is when a person tries the same thing over and over in the hope of obtaining a different result! We all ready had stimulus! result? Failure! If you watched the news today you all noticed the $535 MILLION dollars Solyndra left US the American people to repay! That half a billion dollars came from the STIMULUS! I did what the president asked and called my reps today,........I told them to vote HELL NO to anything this president wants passed!

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Greetings American Romance, thanks for the comment, it got me thinking again; a terrible thing, I know.

Yes, I remember the 10% luxury tax on yachts, it killed the yacht industry. Why, because the Democrats didn't understand microeconomics then (I hope they do now) any better than Conservatives understand macroeconomics today. The first difference in your analogy that makes it fail as an analogy, American, is that the "yacht" tax is a targetted tax against an industry that is "elastic", meaning the rich had a choice not to pay the extra cost of the tax on the yacht, something they don't really need or want, on something else, but spend it they did.

In the Clinton, with his "best of the century economic growth" history behind him,/Obama, who just wants to match the Clinton tax rates for the wealthy but keep them lower for you (unless you are one of the lucky ones), marginal tax increase on the very rich case, that is very different. It is a general tax increase, not targeted at anything in particular; just a return to a previous tax rate. The money is gone, no spending choice involved other than 1) where to save less (preferred) or more and 2) where not to spend the money that went to the IRS. With the latter option there are several choices as well: 1) to invest less in domestic companies (this is one place where the "job killing", argument "might" hold, 2) invest less in international companies, 3) invest less in bonds or other investing instruments, 4) buy less domestic products (another place where the "job killing" argument "might" hold, and 5) buy less in foreign products.

Now, American, you tell me how much of the extra $10,000, $50,000, or $100,000 the very rich paid stopped a domestic company from "hiring" an American worker. Exactly how do your Conservative leaders actually back up their claim with either numbers or even logic?

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain, btw.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@American, the second concern raised in your great comment caused me to go look up the articles on "Solyndra", I have been wanting to do that. Before going further, I offer you a challenge: Defend our contracts with Halliburton for me. While they have not gone bankrupt, they have ripped off the American taxpayer for far more dollars, according to the GAO, than Solyndra has in a successful attempt to employ American workers at a time when they had no work. (Given they couldn't keep those jobs two years later ... well, that is now under possible criminal investigation, yeah Enron)

Back to Solyndra. In reading the article, it seems like in its rush to look good and get the stimulus money out there, the Obama administration, sigh, did the same thing every other administration in a crisis did before it, cut administrative corners. We are talking administrations you admire, I admire, and we both admire: W. Bush-Iraq war, Johnson (well, I really don't admire him)-Vietnam, Lincoln-Civil War, Washington-Revolution. They were all guilty of overseeing the contracting of companies before they were fully vetted as finacially stable or ethical companies which cost the taxpayer untold millions of dollars.

When the dust settles, Solyndra may be added to the sordid pile, but, in and of itself, it doesn't condemn the stimulus. In fact, according to CBO and other estimates, the stimulus did what it set out to do, save or create about 4 million jobs; seems like Rick Perry had it wrong last night, I think he said zero jobs, several times; he even used arithmetic with the number zero (and got it right.) Did he lie to the American public on purpose, American Romance?

James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 5 years ago from Chicago

I think the federal government should own all the property, money, and wealth in America. And it should should dole it out equally to all people. A street-sweeper should have the same pay and benefits as a brain surgeon.

To solve our immediate crisis, the government should mail out checks to each citizen TOMORROW for $100,000 each. They have a printing press: use it!

Anyone who disagrrees with me is simply greedy and hates the poor.

Ty Gillis profile image

Ty Gillis 5 years ago from Palm Bay, Florida

You people are astounding. first of all you try putting words in all our mouths about what we believe. My proud to be a Tea Partier if that's what you want to call me, because what we are really about is trying to up hold the Constitution. I know you are going to try to twist my words to say something else, but we are not talking about the 2 dimensional world that you people seem to live in.

The socialist comment pertains to the class warfare that you libs keep going on about. Every time you get in a corner you start squawking about the rich paying more taxes. We know how Economics work, that's why we have different ideas. You people are one note jonnies. No one is talking cuts in social; safety nets, the only people you get that from is the left, trying to scare you.

If you knew anything about Economics you would know that you can't raise revenue by taxing the populous to death. You build revenue by gaining off the taxes that's in place sponging from the consumption of goods and services. It's win win. Try reading this :

It's elementary Economics.And yes we the people do want our Country back.

TeaPartyCrasher profile image

TeaPartyCrasher 5 years ago from Camp Hill, PA


I see you've managed to stir to HP 'Tea Pot' a bit.

Can only mean one thing, you've told the TRUTH about them and their 'handlers' like the Koch's. . .

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Tea Party Crasher, LOL. However, I hope they all voted in my other hub though, Obama is winning 67% to 17% to 17% for other.

@TY - "You people ..." does that imply that you aren't people?? just kidding, I know you are, just of a different persuation. Do me a favor though, write down a list of things the Tea Party and today's Conservatives say they are for; things that you believe are being done that are not in the U.S. Constitution and its associated Amendments. Then take that list and compare it what statesmen like George Mason, Henry Lee wrote and said back in late 1700s in their,strenuous fight to keep the U.S. Constitution from being ratified. (See, I didn't say shove it, lol) I did and guess what I found, that is where the Tea Party and the Conservative have gotten their playbook, from the same arguments the anti-federalists used trying to prevent this country from being created in the first place. Check it out, I don't think you will find I am smoking dope. Is this what you really want? A repeal of the U.S. Constitution and a reinstatement of the Articles of Confederation? If it isn't, then you probably should be careful in what you are asking for, because, like it or not and know it or not, that is the Tea Party/Conservative agenda. I think it is called unintended consequences.

@James, are you a Communist or something? It didn't work, give it up. Capitalism rocks!!

Tea Party Crasher 5 years ago


Because folks like Beck and Limbaugh tell them so and FOX News(?) affirms it.

nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

"and "no increas e in taxes on wealthy Americans (which DO NOT kill jobs by the way) to help pay for the investment."

You may want to research the yacht industry and what taxes on that industry did to the middle class jobs when wealthy folks stopped buying boats.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Nicomp, you pick on a great example of unintended consequences of Democrats not getting a read from micro economists before insisting on this very dumb idea. Unfortunately, it makes a terrible example to counter what I present in my hub.

Your example is about a specific tax that targets a special kind of product that happens to be very elastic with many alternatives that the rich could spend their money on.

What I am talking about is a generalized tax that removes the money from their accounts and uses it to reduce the deficit and provide stimulus which, if everything works, increases growth and ultimately puts more money back into their pockets.

Au fait profile image

Au fait 5 years ago from North Texas

I've been immersed in politics and a political junky for a long time, but I promised myself I would not engage in politics on this site. It's tough and I've slipped a couple of times, but I'm trying.

So, in the interest of keeping my own counsel let me just say, I'm voting you up and useful/interesting/awesome. ;)

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 5 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you Au Fait for partially breaking your vow and your votes. I am sure the hubworld is worse off without your insights, however.

Mark Pitts profile image

Mark Pitts 4 years ago from United States

Why would a flat tax on all, without regard to income, not be fair? The more you make, the more you would pay in real dollars, but the percentage would be the same. And why was the country doing so well under Reagan then? I personaly think a flat tax, and a means based social security and medicaid beneifit would be not a bad thing. I disagree with the rhetoric of Obama and his policies, because in my belief, he does want to use social jealousy and envy to maintain power. All politicians seem to ignore that what actually took the USSR down, and now the EU, is what both parties, but especially the liberals, are doing now. I disagree with the stimulus of both Bush and Obama, and have voted against both. But there are no honest leaders out there, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, who seems to be out of touch on some things even if he is honest. I ask the questions out of humility, by the way. I would really like to know. If I see you at Gizmo, I'll say "hi."

nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"What I am talking about is a generalized tax that removes the money from their accounts and uses it to reduce the deficit and provide stimulus which, if everything works, increases growth and ultimately puts more money back into their pockets."

@My Esoteric - What you are talking about is oblivious to a basic principle of economics called Opportunity Cost and also typical of the big-government mindset pervasive in Progressive thought. It's terrifying to imagine that "removes the money from their accounts" is considered to be a valid fiscal policy by anyone.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@nicomp, thanks again for you thoughts, but exactly what do you think a tax is, if not removing money from the accounts of citizens and businesses and redistributing it elsewhere, mainly to other citizens and businesses in order to pay for expenditures on government and national security operations?

“Opportunity costs”, on the other hand, have little to no bearing in my arguments because the amount and kind of money I am referring to is not something that would be used for investment.

What is certain, and arithmetically simple, is that the debt and deficit must come down; and that takes money either in the form of more taxes or reduced government spending.

Only fools and masochistic Conservatives believe 1) we can do it all by spending reductions or 2) that it is OK to do without the goods and services, including national security, that level of spending cuts will require to be done away with. Consequently, as I have proven elsewhere, there must be a tax increase of some kind; 98% of economists agree with that assessment.

So, where does it come from, the poor and middle class who fuel consumer spending in America, or the wealthy, whose gain, since 1981, I can prove has been disproportionate and at the expense of the rest of America? It is time for the wealthy to give some of that back, so I go with the wealthy, as do many of the wealthy themselves.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Mark, I appreciate your thoughts and questions as well. First let me say that I am a proponent of a flat tax, actually, to be more precise, a national sales tax, but that will never fly. I caveat my proponency, however, by requiring the first 'x' thousand dollars be exempted before the flat tax is applied because a flat tax, when applied to the real world is not a fair tax; at least the way Moderates and Liberals view things.

Here is why. It takes a certain amount of money to maintain a "reasonable" standard of living in this country (however statisticians and socialogists define it); if you earn less than this amount, you are doing without something that it would reasonably expected you should not have to do without. For arguments sake, let’s make this amount $30,000. So, if, without any tax at all, a person who is making $30,000 is said to be able to live at a reasonable standard of living. Add a tax, however, and now that person will be living below a normal standard of living. This is the problem Moderates and Liberals, as well as myself, have with a “no-strings-attached” flat tax.

The question we ask is why should someone who earns $40,000 pay a tax and still be able to live above a normal standard of living while a person who earns $30,000 cannot? So, the answer that Moderates and Liberals, who support a flat tax, have come up with is exempt the first $30,000 and only tax the amount earned above that at the flat rate; in there eyes, that is fair. (Keep in mind, many Conservative presidential hopefuls have adopted this idea as well.) To others, who don’t have an issue with an "evenly" applied flat tax forcing some Americans below a normal standard of living, they will probably object to making an exemption because it is unfair to the wealthy.

On another point you make.

Since you object to the stimulus and the TARP, then am I to assume you either 1) don’t believe all of the top Conservative economists, let alone Liberal ones, in America who warned Bush and Obama that without TARP and the stimulus, America was guaranteed a Depression or 2) you believed a depression the size of 1929 would happen but thought it would be a good thing in order for the ensuing devastation to "cleanse" the American soul?

Finally, you might find my hubs on the economy during Reagan’s Presidency interesting, they show it wasn’t so happy as you believe. The first two years were a recession, the second two years are the ones you are remembering; in the last four the economy was declining finally ending in the 1990 recession driven by the largest deficits and debt America had ever known. In sum, the Reagan-Bush 12 years were not so rosy at all. This is also the period where the wealthy, because of Reagan’s tax cuts, left the rest of America behind. Income inequality, while increasing since the 1929 – 1937 economic downturns, had been doing it slowly. After the tax cuts, rich-get-richer and poor-get-poorer syndrome materialized in America and the middle class began to shrink. Today, as you will see in a hub I am putting together, America ranks with many other third world nations in terms of wealth dispersion, with most of it concentrated at the top.

nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"“Opportunity costs”, on the other hand, have little to no bearing in my arguments because the amount and kind of money I am referring to is not something that would be used for investment."

You don't get to make the rules. Opportunity costs are not dependent on how the money would have been spent. On a lower level, you cannot possibly speculate with any fathomable accuracy how someone else would have spent their money. A hallmark of Progressive Thought is the belief that they know better than everyone else. Thank you for a succinct illustration.

Mark Pitts profile image

Mark Pitts 4 years ago from United States

As regards a flat tax, I don't beleive there should be an exemption for any income level. I have been poor, and if someone is making only $200/week, to take 15% won't really hurt extra. As regards TARP, the way it was distributed helped few. Unemployment is gamed by all sides, and is much higher than what is reported. I say this because when you leave out those who stop looking,and have no way to include underemployed in the figure, the figure becomes meaningless and useless, except as a propaganda tool one way or the other. Inflation numbers are a total joke and even more meaningless because of the goods left out. An HONEST depression may or may not have been worse than the secret depression we have had. Then maybe we would have looked at real solutions, even drastic ones instead of doing small corrections spread out over ten years, and with no accountability for today's leaders. There has to be a reason why no Democrat, with the exception of Clinton, who made a lot of the decisions about welfare reform and balanced budgets because of pressure from the Republican House and Senate, has been elected to a second term for a very long time. I refuse to belileve without some rational proof that it is because the majority of Americans get it wrong. Deficit and debt do matter, as much for the nation as it does for my house. If I accumulate as much debt as a household (figuritivly) as this country has I will have to eat ramien noodles and peanut butter until I take care of that debt. I won't be able to do that by borrowing more. I realize some will say it is not that simple. The solution for a nation is not that simple, but the basic facts and the need for drastic correction is that simple, and if not done this country will go the way of the USSR, Greece, and Socialist Europe.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Well, Nicomp, I sort of agree and sort of disagree with you, sorry. I agree that I can’t make the rules but I disagree that 1) ”Opportunity costs are not dependent on how the money would have been spent” – for they certainly are, depending on the context, and 2) “On a lower level, you cannot possibly speculate with any fathomable accuracy how someone else would have spent their money …” – yes I can, given enough good data about that person or about a group of people; the accuracy, of course, depends on the quantity and quality of the data I have to work with.

As to 1). Yes, you are right there is always an “opportunity cost” to the way money is spent for once spent, you have forgone any other alternative way of spending it … you have lost that opportunity. But, its relevancy is context dependent and my context is this: would the dollar be 1) invested, 2) spent on necessities, 3) spent on luxuries, or 4) taxed? Those are your four “opportunities”, as it were. The money I am referring to is the money the wealthy would have spent on luxuries.

Now to 2), how do I know they spend some of their money on luxuries rather than 100% on investments or necessities? Well the first way is through common sense and observation … I observe them spending tons of money on luxury, don’t you? The second way, of course, is through data analysis, something I spent a lot of my working career doing; it is easy show, at least in aggregate, through their tax returns that there is substantial sums of money left over after accounting for investments and paying for reasonable standard of living necessities.

The meaningful “opportunity costs” is if the government, through its tax, was making the individual or group reduce 1) their reasonable standard of living or 2) their level of investment. Well, that is not the case, so, the only “opportunity cost” is whether the dollar is going to be spent on a luxury item or given to the people in the form of a tax to help reduce borrowing which, in turn, helps stimulate the economy.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Mark, I wish I could agree with you to, but I can’t. Like you, I have been poor as well, but have known people much worse off than I. Unlike you, however, there was a short time getting $170 a week instead of $200 a week would have made the difference in whether I kept my telephone or water or electric service or not; and I have had each one turned off at one time or another.

Let’s consider it another way, which I have in another hub, let’s say you spend $400/mo on a substandard apartment, whose toilet doesn’t work all of the time; paying $50 per month for a clunker to get you to work 30 miles away with no mass transit available; very basic utilities cost you $150/mo; and you allow yourself only $8/day or $320/mo to eat on. That totals $920/mo or $212/week. Further assume you work full-time at a job that doesn’t have to follow minimum wage laws, like McDonalds, and earn $5.74/hour or $229/week. NOW, we are in MY flat tax world and after social security and Medicare and zero income tax, you take home $212 each week and can live, barely.

Tell me, what happens in your flat tax world where you would take home only $180.20? What is it you would do without: your rent, car, utilities, or food, for one must go or be reduced permanently.

Your comment on TARP is intriguing – “… helped few”; to me, of course, it helped save the nation. You do understand, don’t you, that without TARP, 2009 and 1929-1930 would have been at least equivalent; and no amount of Obama stimulus would have saved the day until the world economic collapse had completed its course. After that, about 10 Obama stimulus’ would have been needed to dig us out of that hole, can you say Franklin Roosevelt and the “New Deal”?

Yes, you are right about the “official” unemployment numbers, I took that to task in another hub as well. By itself, you are most correct in saying it is meaningless. It does, however, pick up meaning, if the measurement is internally consistent, which it is, and is calculated the same way each time over time, which it is. If it meets those two criteria, then you can use it to compare what is happening over time even though any given number doesn’t represent reality. But even using the actual unemployment, which they do calculate, by the way, it just isn’t the one put out as official, the 2009 high, somewhere around 15%, I believe, doesn’t touch the 30 to 40% of previous depressions. It is this latter number, 30 to 40%, which is trying to be avoided, first with TARP, and now with those small corrections over 10 years, rather than one correction now all by spending cuts or tax hikes alone.

I won’t touch inflation numbers with a 10-foot pole, although that is what I spent my government career working with in accomplishing some of the things I allude to in my reply to @Nicomp.

Your right … a very long time indeed, but it is only three times … Kennedy, because he was assassinated; Johnson, who chose not to run for a second full-term, because of the unpopularity of the Vietnam War; and Carter, because of fumbling Iran. I am not sure what your point was in drawing our attention to this, but I do find it interesting that the only long-term, true, society-wide “boom” economies America has seen since WWII were during and a little after the Kennedy-Johnson 8 years and Clinton’s 8 years. Reagan’s “boom” was more of a fizzle and only benefited the wealthy anyway as did G.W. Bush’s housing bubble based economic times, until the predictable recession occurred.

What the Republicans forced Clinton to do, vis-à-vis, the out-of-control Great Society is probably the only good contribution Conservatives have made to this nation, in my opinion.

I take it from your last few sentences then that you think America needs a good depression to set itself straight again?

nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"I observe them spending tons of money on luxury, don’t you? "

No. I don't judge how other people spend their money. It's their freedom to spend it as they see fit.

By the way, please define 'luxury.' Should Starbucks be shut down?

By the way again, every dollar spent on 'luxury' stimulates the economy in a direct manner, providing far more impetus than filtering it through bureaucrats and social engineers in Washington. Having a job is significantly more stimulating than receiving a check that wasn't earned.

Au fait profile image

Au fait 4 years ago from North Texas

Great hub. Promised myself I wouldn't get into politics on this site, so I won't say anymore, but I think we pretty much see eye to eye. Voting you UP! Sharing this hub with my followers.

Thank you for SHARING!

peoplepower73 profile image

peoplepower73 4 years ago from Placentia California

Kudos to you Esoteric. My comment to those that don't agree with you is very simple. What the conservativs are talking about is Trickle Down Economics. It didn't work under Reagan, both Bushes, and it's not going to work now. Evan David Stockman, Reagan's adviser said it didn't work.

American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

To: Peoplepower, A 1986 study by the Cato Institute showed the US economy performed better during the Reagan years than the pre and post Reagan years. Real Median family earnings grew by $4000.........Compar that to real median family earnings falling by $2200 since Obama and what do you have? This crying over federal workers is a joke! Federal employees are nothing but a burden to the working class!

peoplep...........if trickle down doesn't work with common sense explain to me how trickle up works? How many poor people have ever employeed you?

peoplepower73 profile image

peoplepower73 4 years ago from Placentia California

American: Here is what I learned about arguing on the internet. The internet has so much information on it, you can find anything you want to support any argument form either side. Therefore, I'm not going to argue with you. But I will say this: The Cato Institute is a well known Conservative organization, therefore you found something that supports your argument.

To answer your question. There is no such thing as Trickle up. Trickle down is a term that was used by Reagan and other conservatives. I would say that trickle down is really Surge Up, because right now all the wealth is Surging to the top.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you very much Au Fait, I need to come visit your site more often. I hope your followers enjoy my type of commentary and subjects.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Welcome @American. Let me talk some statistics to you, one of my college majors. Putting the $4000 median increase out there in the context you did, has no meaning at all, not one iota, to the point you are trying to make. All it says is that at some undefined interval in time, the amount of money 50% of families who earned less than, increased by $4000. (I will presume Cato converted their data into constant dollars.) It makes a difference because if the interval is one year, that is a pretty good increase. If the interval is 10 years, it is only so-so; if it is 20 years, it is a terrible increase. So, what interval is the Cato study you are referring to prior to 1996, There are several points in the Nixon administration where such a result could be achieved as well as the end of the Carter administration and one year into the Reagan administration. There is, however, no point during the Kennedy-Johnson administration where you could achieve an increase.

Another reason your $4000 misses the mark is that this is a 1986 study; therefore the latest data was 1985, the height of Reagan’s economic triumphs. Starting in 1986, the economy started heading downhill until it ended in recession in 1990, mainly due to Reagan’s mishandling of the debt and deficit, the same thing you are beating Obama up about. It is ironic, that Reagan gets applauded for doing exactly what you mis-accuse Obama of … running the largest debt and deficit America has ever known. It is even more ironic in that Obama wouldn’t be in the position of being your target if it weren’t for the Conservatives’ mishandling of the economy for the previous 8 years.

You tried, in your framing of the comment, to join the $4000 increase for Reagan with the $2000 decrease (again, for an unknown time period, so for the moment, the number is worthless) for Obama. Problem is, that CAN’T be Obama’s number, it MUST be Bush’s. The most likely economic data Cato had available couldn’t have been newer than 2010 at best and Obama took office in 2009. Therefore his economic policies wouldn’t have even begun to have an appreciable effect until 2010 and by then, the damage of the Conservative recession had been done; it is the Conservative’s recession that is the cause of your drop in median income, not Obama.

I rarely get personal in my responses but it is necessary here for your comment about Federal workers, was an absolutely idiotic, empty-headed comment! I didn’t know you hated our military so much, the largest part of our federal workforce, nor the civilians who work for DoD, such as I did for 20 some-odd years; we are the second largest contingent. Then, I suppose you think the FBI, CIA, NSA, Secret Service, etc are all a joke to you, as well as all of those people who manage the National Parks, make the airways safe, and protect our borders; they are just a burden to society. American Romance, I doubt you have any idea of how much credibility you just lost, with that inane statement, as a person to be taken seriously. I would be very curious to see what or how you scored on the Right-wing Authoritarian follower and Social Dominator tendency surveys; I would wager high on both.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

?, @Nicomp, you dodger and weaver you, you also throw hyperbole around with the best of them, shut Starbucks down, indeed. To listen to your counterpoints, you would think we are stripping the willing wealthy of every last dime they have instead of adding a couple of percent to their effective tax rate (you do know, don’t you, that the 5% increase in the marginal rate being proposed does not translate into a 5% increase in their total taxes.)

If you reread my comment, you should be able to infer my definition of “luxury” as money spent on something that is not an “investment” or “a necessity for living” or “taxes”. Also, economists, as well as myself, are very aware that when you tax somebody, it takes money out of the economy via a tax, it reduces spending and therefore acts as a drag, or depressant. Economists, as well as myself, also know that when inordinately large deficits and debts are reduced in a depressed economy, that stimulates the economy both mechanically and psychologically.

So, the question is … does the small tax increase on the wealthy hurt the economy more or less than the benefit from using the increase to reduce the debt and deficit in this depressed economy. Most economists, including conservative ones, say it is the latter and many of the wealthy apparently agree it is better to tax than not to tax. It worked for Bush-Clinton, it will work here.

By the way, I applaud you on your ability to translate deficit reduction into welfare payments; quite a slight-of-hand.

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for visiting and commenting @PeoplePower. Yes, you are correct,” trickledown” economics, more formally known as the Austrian School of economics has proved to be a flop both here and in England. Conservatives have tried to make it work in America from about 1812 to 1929, 1981-1990, and 2001-2009, and have failed … miserably. The only period of relative economic calm in America came when Roosevelt began switching to Keynesian economics, which started in 1934 and was complete after WW II. It ended in 2001, when the Conservatives finished undoing all of the protections put in place after the Great Depression. The 2008 Conservative recession was of a scale not seen except under Austrian economic theory from 1812 to 1929. Check out my “The American Dream, A Conservative View …” series.

nicomp profile image

nicomp 4 years ago from Ohio, USA

"So, the question is … does the small tax increase on the wealthy hurt the economy more or less than the benefit from using the increase to reduce the debt and deficit in this depressed economy."

1. A small tax increase on the wealthy would have no effect whatsoever on the economy, as I hope you understand. The small tax increase would pander to those who consider themselves to be members of the oppressed 99% and also placate those who anoint themselves social engineers, but beyond that no tangible impact would be felt.

2. Upon reflection, apparently you don't understand the current state of the US economy. A small tax increase on the wealthy would have no impact whatsoever on the debt nor the deficit. Please do the math, which progressives are loath to attempt, but I have faith in you. :)

My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 4 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I do do the math, @Nicomp, I am, or use to be, a mathematician, again one of my degrees (Math-stat, computer science, accounting, operations research (masters) and a professional cost (re economic) analyst for 20+ years), so, I know a little about my subject. I also am a partner in a successful $5 million/yr business for the last 12 years that employs about 32 people and manages about 200 independent contractors, so I think I understand how the business world works as well. I just wanted you to understand that when I do what you ask, do the math (which, since you read my hubs, you know that is about all this moderate Progressive does).

The current proposal, which most economist agree is the minimum needed to make a meaningful difference, is to reduce the deficit by about $4 trillion over ten years. It is drawn out like that because, economists tell us, that to do it faster will drive the economy into a recession. (If you want proof that it will, go read up on what caused the 1937 recession, the last big one before the one in 2008 beat it. In that one, Franklin Roosevelt followed the prescription Conservatives want us to follow today; if we do, the result will be the same, a recession.) So, where do we get the $4 trillion? Well, $3 trillion comes from spending cuts and guess where the other trillion comes from? That is right, that small tax increase on the wealthy.

So, what does the math tell us? It tells us that the tax increase portion of the plan makes up a full 25% of the amount needed to make a noticable dent on the problem. Now in my book, maybe not yours, 25% is a significant portion of the solution and not, as you put it, "have no effect whatsoever on the economy..."; it certainly will have an effect, a big one, and my math proves it, assuming all of the economists are correct in their analysis of the situation, rather than you and other Conservatives.

I am glad you had faith in me :-).

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article