Republicans to destroy 2.5 million jobs

by Ben Hoffman

John “the town crier” Boehner announced today that the Republicans propose $100 billion in spending cuts.

WASHINGTON — The incoming Republican majority in the House is moving to make good on its promise to cut $100 billion from domestic spending this year, a goal eagerly backed by conservatives but one carrying substantial political and economic risks.

Read more…

Factoring in an average salary of $40,000 a year, that would result in the destruction of 2.5 million jobs. At a time when unemployment is hovering at near 10%, that move is questionable, but right-wingers across the nation are expected to support the move. We can expect “dittos” from right-wing bloggers far and wide.

I could have sworn their “number one concern” was job creation, not job destruction.


9 Comments to “Republicans to destroy 2.5 million jobs”

  1. Rep. Jan Schakowsky wants to raise taxes to solve the deficit problem.

    This is how a tax-and-spend liberal’s mind works. Let’s say a liberal is a small business owner (yes, I know it’s a stretch, but play along). The business has $2 million in annual revenue, derived from sales of 200,000 widgets that each are priced at $10. But it also has $3 million in annual expenses, for a deficit of $1 million. How does the liberal plan to come up with the extra mil? By raising the price of each widget by $5, or 50 percent! On paper, that’s 200,000 units at 5 bucks each, for an even mil. Problem solved.

    Let’s say people don’t want to pay $15 for a widget that cost $10 last year, and 50 percent of them decide they don’t need a widget or they buy them somewhere else.

    Now her sales are 100,000 widgets at $15, or $1.5 million. She’s lost half-a-million dollars in revenue.

    When businesses need to make money, they lower prices to encourage economic activity. Have you ever heard of a coupon, Rep. Schakowsky?

    All the time businesses are cutting prices in the hopes it will result in more sales. Governments are no different–by cutting taxes, you can increase the revenue to the government, and cut deficits.

    Or, like the widget company, you can repeat the same mistakes Democrats (and sometimes Republicans) make by raising “prices” and watching economic activity plummet.

    And no, Schakowsky doesn’t want to just increase widgets by 50 percent. She wants to raise cap gains taxes from 15 percent to 28 percent. That’s almost a 100 percent hike!

    The name of this economic principle is the Laffer Curve. It states that if you raise taxes past a certain point, you will get less revenue. If you lower taxes past that point, you will get more revenue.

    Liberals don’t believe in this principle. But try this exercise. (Ventura County Star)

  2. We’re all familiar with the Laffer Curve. It’s just a useless theorem in the real world.

    • We’re all familiar with the Laffer Curve.

      I don’t think you are.

      If you were, you would understand that at one end, 0% taxes, the government would receive no money; no income. On the other end, 100% taxation, the government again would receive no money; no income.

      At some point in between there is a point at which the tax rate is it’s most efficient. Take that point, adhere to proper government roles, and you can begin to have a better conversation when it comes to taxation.

      But the idea that the only way to beat a deficit is by raising taxation is silly.

      And the only thing sillier is the concept that “the rich” don’t pay their “fair” share.

      • We are far to the left of the Laffer Curve equilibrium point.

      • We are far to the left of the Laffer Curve equilibrium point.

        I try to avoid “show me the data” types of arguments; we are amateurs and often don’t have time or maybe even expertise. But if a Liberal and a Conservative could speak calmly about where we are on that curve, combine it with a calm and rational discuss of the role of government, we all would be better off.

      • Just look at the data. After Reagan and Bush cut taxes, there was a huge jump in deficits. When Clinton increased taxes, there was a decrease in deficits and an actual surplus for several of those years.

        In addition, right-wingers like to cite Kennedy’s tax cuts as being good for our country, but that’s exactly when we started operating under perpetual deficits.

  3. No no no, they’re not destroying 2.5 million jobs when those peasants can simply join the military and become cannon fodder in defense of our glorious corporations.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: