The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up

[Riot]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

wow did you read what you wrote..the unemployed american may get a new job now..even socalist need jobs at some point..we like to call it ..get off the couch economics.

In what fantasy world do you think that extending tax cuts, the same tax cuts that have been present during the loss of 800,000 jobs since 2001 and 2003, will magically create jobs?

"Trickle down economics" didn't work for Reagan (his deficit deepened), they didn't work for Bush, and they are not magically going to work now.

As I said before, even Reagan's economic advisor, Mr. Trickle Down himself David Stockmann, says do NOT increase the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, it's bad for the economy!

Let's hope there are tons of jobs suddenly created with the next 2 years, for the GOP's sake. Because the sunset on these tax cuts, if passed, will be right in the middle of the election. Actually, we need 4 million jobs right now, because that's who is losing their jobless benefits in December that this "deal" won't cover.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

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..

[Riot]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

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:

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:

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."

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Riot

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:

ok lets say you are a small busness owner with some of your own money invested. you have 4 employees.and not making head way you keep employee number 4 on because hes loyal shows up on time ect. now if you lose your tax break. what happens.. hes gone period..you down size..in hopes of the big economic bounce back your waiting for..and waiting for..now this owner may make 300k or higher..whats good about this picture.
there arent enough chairs..

[Riot]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

ok lets say you are a small busness owner with some of your own money invested. you have 4 employees.and not making head way you keep employee number 4 on because hes loyal shows up on time ect. now if you lose your tax break. what happens.. hes gone period..you down size..in hopes of the big economic bounce back your waiting for..and waiting for..now this owner may make 300k or higher..whats good about this picture.
there arent enough chairs..

As an experienced small business owner I'll say the mistake in your business scenario above is that it's unrealistic: keeping on one employee too many when "you're not making headway". That's a very bad business decision. You don't run a business as a charity. Losing a small tax break has zero to do with that poorly run business in the example. It was doomed with the much larger expense of an employee the business couldn't afford.

And any owner taking out $300K from a business that "isn't making head way" is a complete moron. "Some" of your own money invested? Try all of it. That's how small businesses work.

Look at this "deal" that Obama has made - first, it is all unfunded. All of it.

Secondly, look at what was important to the GOP: they voted no on tax cuts to the middle class, they voted no on tax cuts for those up to a million, they voted yes only for tax cuts to those millionaires and above. They voted yes for lowering the estate tax from 55% to 35%. Where are the GOP priorities? Not jobs, not deficit reduction, not the unemployed. Only with concerns of the wealthy.

Aside from the above, it's a massive unfunded stimulus bill (payroll tax deductions, unemployment, etc) Now, I've already seen details that say it should generate about 176 billion in stimulus, which is a good, job creating thing.

But the key is "unfunded". Adding to the deficit. The tax cut for those earning over 1 million should be thrown out to help fund this.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

In what fantasy world do you think that extending tax cuts, the same tax cuts that have been present during the loss of 800,000 jobs since 2001 and 2003, will magically create jobs?.

I would think revenue is an indicator of jobs.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts-and the Facts

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-bush-tax-cuts

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I would think revenue is an indicator of jobs.

Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts-and the Facts

Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low.
Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.

Myth #2: The Bush tax cuts substantially reduced 2006 revenues and expanded the budget deficit.
Fact: Nearly all of the 2006 budget deficit resulted from additional spending above the baseline.

Myth #3: Supply-side economics assumes that all tax cuts immediately pay for themselves.
Fact: It assumes replenishment of some but not necessarily all lost revenues.

Myth #4: Capital gains tax cuts do not pay for themselves.
Fact: Capital gains tax revenues doubled following the 2003 tax cut.

Myth #5: The Bush tax cuts are to blame for the projected long-term budget deficits.
Fact: Projections show that entitlement costs will dwarf the projected large revenue increases.

Myth #6: Raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue.
Fact: Tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates.

Myth #7: Reversing the upper-income tax cuts would raise substantial revenues.
Fact: The low-income tax cuts reduced revenues the most.

Myth #8: Tax cuts help the economy by "putting money in people's pockets."
Fact: Pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for productive behavior.

Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy.
Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.

Myth #10: The Bush tax cuts were tilted toward the rich.
Fact: The rich are now shouldering even more of the income tax burden.

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...-bush-tax-cuts

It's not about facts. It's not about increasing revenue either.