View Single Post
  #1  
Old 12-06-2010, 07:56 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead View Post
without calling names..and its hard..if the wealthier people ie small owners dont keep the tax breaks they have there is no way they will hire new or stay at least the way they are..do you agree..
I just googled and searched, and I could not find one economist who said extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest would create jobs. I did find where even Dick Cheney says they do not But he's not an economist.

Find me one economist that says this is true, that the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy will create jobs.

I can find 20 that say not to do it. Find me one that says it's a good idea. Go ahead, convince me to change my mind.

Tax cuts that reward putting money in a business owners pocket does not make that person chose to rather invest it into his business. It takes money out of the business. People do not hire more, produce more, make more capital investment until the consumer demand is there, first. They do not do any of that just because they have a little extra money in their pocket. That's a good way to go broke - have more business than you have demand for!

And let's get straight what the "wealthiest" pay in taxes: it averages about 17-18% (because they have deductions and accountants and tax shelters). And the tax cuts for those up to $250K? That is on adjusted gross, not gross. So extending tax cuts up $250 covers people whose gross is up to $300 at least.

----------------------
And this appears to NOT be a done deal in the House:
Quote:
Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) circulated a letter to his colleagues urging them to oppose the deal on grounds that it is "fiscally irresponsible." Addressed to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the letter reads as follows:

Quote:
We oppose acceding to Republican demands to extend the Bush tax cuts to millionaires and billionaires for two reasons.

First, it is fiscally irresponsible. Adding $700 billion to our national debt, as this proposal would do, handcuffs our ability to offer a balanced plan to achieve fiscal stability without a punishing effect on our current commitments, including Social Security and Medicare.

Second, it is grossly unfair. This proposal will hurt, not help, the majority of Americans in the middle class and those working hard to get there. Even as Republicans seek to add $700 billion to our national debt, they oppose extending unemployment benefits to workers and resist COLA increases to seniors.

Without a doubt, the very same people who support this addition to our debt will oppose raising the debt ceiling to pay for it.

We support extending tax cuts in full to 98 percent of American taxpayers, as the President initially proposed. He should not back down. Nor should we.
A staffer for the congressman said that he was sending the letter to all Democratic offices and would be announcing co-signatories likely tomorrow. Opposition to the measure within the halls of Congress is abundantly clear. The Huffington Post's Howard Fineman reported that House Democrats could pose a problem for a potential deal over the weekend. And a "Democratic congressional source" told CNN on Monday that "we won't rubber stamp a deal between the White House and [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell...we want to make it clear. Don't take our support for granted."
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts

Last edited by Riot : 12-06-2010 at 08:08 PM.
Reply With Quote