HEARTLESS wrote: Data sources for states approaching bankruptcy, debt, spending more than revenues are very plentiful.
You brought it up. I won't do your research for you. Also, what does the debt of a state have to do with raising the minimum wage? A false equivalency from my perspective.
CEPR was created by Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot in 1999 to promote democratic debate on economic and social lssues. Hardly a non-partisan research organization, and that definition is from their own site. Clearly one single item doesn't explain any change in something as broad as job growth.
HEARTLESS wrote: CEPR was created by Dean Baker and Mark Weisbrot in 1999 to promote democratic debate on economic and social lssues. Hardly a non-partisan research organization, and that definition is from their own site. Clearly one single item doesn't explain any change in something as broad as job growth.
And, as far as your comment regarding "democratic" debate is concerned, read the entire "About Us" page.
The public education portion of CEPR's mission is to present the findings of professional research, both by CEPR and others, in a manner that allows broad segments of the public to know exactly what is at stake in major policy debates. An informed public should be able to choose policies that lead to an improving quality of life, both for people within the United States and around the world.
And:
Our Advisory Board includes Nobel Laureate economists Robert Solow and Joseph Stiglitz; Janet Gornick, Professor at the CUNY Graduate School and Director of the Luxembourg Income Study; and Richard Freeman, Professor of Economics at Harvard University.
Pretty impressive list as far as I'm concerned. You may not think so, but I do.
I did, and researched all the names on About Us. Each one is listed as neo or new Keynesian economist (the economics of the Left). Like I said hardly a non-partisan research group.
HEARTLESS wrote: I did, and researched all the names on About Us. Each one is listed as neo or new Keynesian economist (the economics of the Left). Like I said hardly a non-partisan research group.
ZHawke wrote: Ah yes, the old corporate welfare argument. It's not welfare, not even close but it sounds good when you are running for office and need a boogy man. A simple tax code would eliminate all that but then Dems would find other ways to attack anything BIG, except for government of course.
Ah, yes, the old Republican support for large corporations and the 1%. See how that can work? It doesn't matter what anyone, Republican or Democrat, calls it. It's still a giveaway that arguably is not needed in the form of tax cuts and subsidies. If a simple tax code would suffice, why haven't the Republicans brought one forward? Why have they gone, instead, after those on the lower rung of the ladder who are most in need. And, yes, we are talking about those entitlement programs so many on the right are so eager to eliminate.
As a former colleague of mine used to say, "Call it a frog. It doesn't matter. Still tastes like chicken."
Sorry I will never agree with you, oh well you won't ever agree with me. A deduction is not a giveaway and an expense is the opposite of a deduction. My point is that these big bad people hiring monsters are incentivized to invest and to hire and to innovate by being rewarded for those investment through a reasonable income tax and tax deductions that every business gets. As we are now so global, we have to compete with everybody else on the planet. That means in our own self interest, our businesses need to thrive in order for EVERYBODY to live better. You really think the poor will live better if the big businesses can only make what the government thinks they should make? You're about to see some job losses in our future due to the ACA and the extra costs to businesses. Businesses start making less, they start moving, and laying off, with less investing, and they stop risking as much capital into the economy.
That clown car in Washington needs to come up with a reasonable flat tax for all businesses that will actually attract foreign companies and keep ours here. And I wouldn't be opposed to only having deductions for hiring and It needs allow the trillion in off shore banks to come back at a very low rate... a small chunk of a huge pie is better than nothing, which is what we are getting now.
I know that all sounds insane to most liberals... I see this as my strongest disagreement with the left because I see all businesses big and small as job creators where as the left seems to think that government can create jobs. Well I guess they actually do... when they decide to give the real job creators more rewards than penalties for being successful.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
HEARTLESS wrote: I did, and researched all the names on About Us. Each one is listed as neo or new Keynesian economist (the economics of the Left). Like I said hardly a non-partisan research group.
Come on now Z, are you really suggesting that the vast majority of Liberals in Congress don't bow to the throne of Paul Krugman, one of the biggest Keynesian liberal economists on the planet? There may not be a definition in a business dictionary that includes a political definition because economics is about numbers and how to increase them... it just so happens it fits better with leftist ideology.
The left is angry because they are now being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin.
