EPIC FAIL: Senator says tax cuts don't create jobs, unemployment benefits do

[MichelleHeart]

Sherrod Brown: Tax Cuts Don't Create Jobs, Unemployment Benefits Do (http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/30/sherrod-brown-tax-cuts-dont-create-jobs-unemployment-benefits-do)
Fox Nation


"Congressman Cantor (R-VA) either failed English class or failed logic class or failed history class because these tax cuts for the rich that Bush did twice, in '01 and '03, resulted in very little economic growth. We saw only one million jobs created in the Bush years, 22 million created in the Clinton years when we reached a balanced budget with a fairer tax system," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said on MSNBC.

"There is no real history illustrating that these tax cuts for the rich result in jobs. It's extending unemployment benefits that creates economic activity that creates jobs, not giving a millionaire an extra ten or twenty or $30,000 in tax cuts that they likely won't spend," Brown said.

[roho76]

Unemployment creates jobs? I always like to go to the extreme to disprove peoples points.

What if everybody was on unemployment? How would that create jobs, Brown?

Why don't we just print out a Million dollars for everybody? Then we'll all be rich, right?

EDIT* Sorry I meant Brown in my OP.

[Zippyjuan]

Give somebody with a million dollars another $1000. Will they spend more and create more demand for goods? Give that same $1000 to somebody who only has $5000 and will they spend more of it on goods and services? From a purely economic viewpoint, IF your goal is to have people spend money to try to create more jobs then you would want to give the money to a poorer person since they would be more likely to increase their spending with it. They buy a TV from Sears so now they can hire a new TV sales person. He can then take that money he gets paid and go buy some food at the grocery store. The grocery store can then hire somebody else or increase the hours for somebody else. IF that is your goal. The rich guy has pretty everything he needs or wants so he will be less likely to spend all of the money. The unemployed person is having troubles paying his bills so he will definately spend the money.

If your goal is to reduce the government deficit, you want to get rid of both the tax cuts and the unemployment payments. Depends on your goal. Unfortunately I think we will see both happen- keeping the tax cuts and the unemployment benefits. Short term benefits but longer term costs. Avoid hard choices. The government way.

The tax cuts are already in place so keeping them does nothing to stimulate the economy and the unemployment benefits are also already in place so keeping them will not improve the economy but cutting them may slow it more. IF that is your goal.

[Fox McCloud]

I've never liked this guy; he's one of the most left-wing Senators in Congress......worse, he's Senator of my state >.>

Either way, can't stand him, he's incessantly saying and stating things like of this nature or writing editorials (complete with emotional appeal) about why Obamacare is good for us.

This takes the cake though and is probably the most moronic thing I've heard him state, to date.

He really should look up "broken window fallacy" and contemplate its meaning.

[oyarde]

I've never liked this guy; he's one of the most left-wing senator in Congress......worse, he's Senator of my state >.>

Either way, can't stand him, he's incessantly say and stating things like this, or writing editorials (complete with emotional appeal) about why Obamacare is good for us.

This takes the cake though and is probably the most moronic thing I've heard him state yet.

Either way, he should look up "broken window fallacy" and contemplate its meaning.

I hope the people who voted for him read that .

[Tal]

test

[SilentBull]

What a moron! Even if they don't spend the money, they'll save it, which will then be lent out by the bank to a small business.

[ChaosControl]

Well unemployment benefits provides money to people who have little or none and with that money they go out and buy things that spurs demand, as a result of the demand jobs are needed to service that demand and thus one could say that they create jobs.

Tax cuts, well it depends on the tax cut. If it is a tax cut that stimulates demand by providing additional available money to people who otherwise have little or not, then it would work in the same manner as unemployment benefits. But if it is just a tax cut on mega corps or the mega rich, it won't.

[Rancher]

Well unemployment benefits provides money to people who have little or none and with that money they go out and buy things that spurs demand, as a result of the demand jobs are needed to service that demand and thus one could say that they create jobs.

Tax cuts, well it depends on the tax cut. If it is a tax cut that stimulates demand by providing additional available money to people who otherwise have little or not, then it would work in the same manner as unemployment benefits. But if it is just a tax cut on mega corps or the mega rich, it won't.
Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. Paying people to not do anything cannot create prosperity.

[ChaosControl]

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. Paying people to not do anything cannot create prosperity.

Correct, it cannot create prosperity. But it can temporarily uphold demand so that they can create jobs and thus continue to sustain that demand. Innovation is the only way to create lasting prosperity. The only thing anything else does is keep it in check or change who is prosperous and by what amount.

[kpitcher]

The onion had a great piece about Reaganomics trickle down (http://www.theonion.com/articles/reaganomics-finally-trickles-down-to-area-man,2302/) finally being felt.

[awake]

Wheee... more money please.

[Fox McCloud]

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime. Paying people to not do anything cannot create prosperity.

Light a man on fire and you keep him warm for a day.

Light a man on fire and keep him warm for life.

either way, the error in keeping demand high is that you must necessarily take money from some other sector of society in order to pay for it, which means you're really just practicing central planning and helping guide resources towards a different sector.