Debt is bad for the economy and tax cuts are good. We know this because a lot of very serious people in ties keep saying it on the teevee machine. Never mind that these two positions are somewhat contradictory -- tax cuts make it difficult to reduce debt -- that's just the way things are. If we give tax cuts to the "job creators," we're told they'll go all crazy with the job creating and everything will be perfect forever.
Not surprisingly, this isn't really very true. For one thing, the "job creators" aren't job creators at all, consumers are job creators since consumption spurs demand. The "job creators" are actually job providers. If the wealthy suddenly have a bunch more money, they aren't going to use it to provide more jobs -- they aren't in the job providing business. If they don't need workers, they won't hire workers, no matter how many new people they can afford to employ. It just doesn't work that way. No one will hire workers they don't need and the number of workers they need is dictated by demand -- i.e., consumers -- not by how much money they have to spend. The next time you hear someone talk about titans of industry as "the job creators," go ahead and laugh.
If you need some evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy don't create jobs, then I direct you to the fact that we just tried it and it didn't work. George W. Bush's entire economic policy could almost be boiled down to two words; "tax" and "cut." Yet job creation under Bush's two terms was anemic. As Bush was leaving office, the Wall Street Journal took a look at his record on the issue and found that he had "the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records." Conservatives like to pretend that Jimmy Carter couldn't do anything right, but with 10.5 million new jobs, Carter's one term was over three times as successful as Bush's two, when George created just 3 million even. Compared to his predecessor Bill Clinton, Bush's record looks even worse. Clinton created 23.1 million jobs -- nearly eight times as many jobs in the same amount of time. And keep in mind that the US population was smaller under both Carter and Clinton, so taken as a percentage, those numbers would be even higher. If Bush accomplished one positive thing during his eight years of failure, it was in proving conclusively that tax cuts don't do much to create jobs...[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]
Not surprisingly, this isn't really very true. For one thing, the "job creators" aren't job creators at all, consumers are job creators since consumption spurs demand. The "job creators" are actually job providers. If the wealthy suddenly have a bunch more money, they aren't going to use it to provide more jobs -- they aren't in the job providing business. If they don't need workers, they won't hire workers, no matter how many new people they can afford to employ. It just doesn't work that way. No one will hire workers they don't need and the number of workers they need is dictated by demand -- i.e., consumers -- not by how much money they have to spend. The next time you hear someone talk about titans of industry as "the job creators," go ahead and laugh.
If you need some evidence that tax cuts for the wealthy don't create jobs, then I direct you to the fact that we just tried it and it didn't work. George W. Bush's entire economic policy could almost be boiled down to two words; "tax" and "cut." Yet job creation under Bush's two terms was anemic. As Bush was leaving office, the Wall Street Journal took a look at his record on the issue and found that he had "the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records." Conservatives like to pretend that Jimmy Carter couldn't do anything right, but with 10.5 million new jobs, Carter's one term was over three times as successful as Bush's two, when George created just 3 million even. Compared to his predecessor Bill Clinton, Bush's record looks even worse. Clinton created 23.1 million jobs -- nearly eight times as many jobs in the same amount of time. And keep in mind that the US population was smaller under both Carter and Clinton, so taken as a percentage, those numbers would be even higher. If Bush accomplished one positive thing during his eight years of failure, it was in proving conclusively that tax cuts don't do much to create jobs...[CLICK TO READ FULL POST]
