I don't get it

[MaggieMae]

What's wrong with this picture?

America's millionaires rebound in 2009 - Mar. 9, 2010

U.S. households worth $1 million or more grew to 7.8 million in 2009, up 16%
from 2008, according to a survey from Spectrem Group, a Chicago-based market
research and consulting firm.

And

More Layoffs, Bigger Payoffs: CEOs Who Cut More Jobs Got Paid 42% More Money in 2009 - DailyFinance

But

Census Bureau Report: 1 in 7 in U.S. living in poverty | News-Leader.com | Springfield News-Leader

The overall poverty rate climbed to 14.3 percent, or 43.6 million people, the
Census Bureau said Thursday in its annual report on the economic well-being of
U.S. households. The report covers 2009, President Barack Obama's first year in
office.

If (according to low-taxes-for-wealthy proponents), tax relief is needed because they are the 'real' job creators, after 8 years of already enjoying tax cuts, where are the jobs, if that's what they do so well?

 

[loosecannon]

China!

 

[Baruch Menachem]

This is the last year. The fact that there are increases in income disparity during bad times was noted by Adam Smith. As the economy increases, income disparity decreases. As you noted, the year of a really long intense recession with counterproductive and stupid public policy saw huge increases in income disparity.

Had we cut taxes, the economy would have improved, and there wouldn't have been this problem.

Businesses survive by selling stuff where marginal cost = marginal revenue. Any time there is a recession, they cut costs hard, and they cut inventories even harder. Inventory is expensive.

We have had a two year resesession now. The longer it lasts, the harder on the poor.

0bama and friends used the recession to move policy. They knew stimulus would not work. In all the times they try it, (and it has been a continual refrain in lefty policy circles) it has never worked.

You cut the taxes as a long term thing, you get the effects of stimulus.

As far as who gets it, it doesn't matter. Money flows back into the economy, the economy grows and folks hire more folks.

Revenues for business is the engine here. More revenue= more jobs.

Stimulus entirely goes to rich connected folks who have a firm hand on the public teat.

 

[Ravi]

If (according to low-taxes-for-wealthy proponents), tax relief is needed because they are the 'real' job creators, after 8 years of already enjoying tax cuts, where are the jobs, if that's what they do so well?

When Dubya introduced and campaigned for his tax cuts he claimed they would help small business and create jobs.

Well guess what?

They didn't.

 

[Samson]

As long as you can distract Americans with Bill Gate's income of $56 B, they won't wonder WTF happened to $750 B the US Government spent.

Got it now?

Good.

 

[Ravi]

January 11, 2004


Two of President Bush's top advisers said Sunday they remain confident the administration's tax cuts will spur job creation soon despite a disappointing hiring report last week.


"The tax relief the president has given to this economy is working," Commerce Secretary Don Evans told CNN's "Late Edition." "On three separate occasions over the last three years, he's provided additional tax relief for American workers, American families, businesses across America, and guess what? It's working. The results are showing that it's working."


Bush economic advisers: Tax cuts will create jobs - CNN

 

[Ravi]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]November 18, 2005 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NEW YORK - Despite considerable opposition from lawmakers, including some within his Republican party, President George W. Bush seems determined to push ahead with plans to introduce further cuts in taxes for the rich, continuing to assert that it would create more jobs for the poor. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But the findings of a new study suggest that Bush's claim on job creation is based more on political rhetoric than actual facts related to the nation's economic realities.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It's a great sound bite that unfortunately does not hold true in the real world economy," say authors of the report, entitled, "Nothing to Be Thankful For: Tax Cuts and the Deteriorating U.S. Job Market."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Changes in tax policy suggest no evidence of their impact on job creation or destruction, according to the 22-page study released Tuesday by United for a Fair Economy (UFE), an independent group that tracks the growing economic divide between the nation's haves and have-nots.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Since 1950, significant tax increases and decreases have both been followed by job losses and job gains, say the researchers. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Based on statistical analysis of changes in tax polices and rates of job growth in the past 60 years, the report points out that tax reduction does, however, disproportionately lead to economic disparity between the rich and poor.[/FONT]


Research Dispels Bush Claims That Tax Cuts Create Jobs

 

[Ravi]

Feb 24, 2004



President Bush defended his tax cuts yesterday as economic fuel for the small-business sector in response to mounting criticism from Democratic presidential candidates that the cuts chiefly benefited the wealthiest Americans.
But the president's contention that upper-income tax cuts primarily benefit entrepreneurs conflicts with some of the government's own data.


Bush Claims His Tax Cuts Help Small Business, Government Data Disagrees

 

[MaggieMae]

China!

Fine. Then they don't need tax cuts, right?

 

[MaggieMae]

This is the last year. The fact that there are increases in income disparity during bad times was noted by Adam Smith. As the economy increases, income disparity decreases. As you noted, the year of a really long intense recession with counterproductive and stupid public policy saw huge increases in income disparity.

Had we cut taxes, the economy would have improved, and there wouldn't have been this problem.

Businesses survive by selling stuff where marginal cost = marginal revenue. Any time there is a recession, they cut costs hard, and they cut inventories even harder. Inventory is expensive.

We have had a two year resesession now. The longer it lasts, the harder on the poor.

0bama and friends used the recession to move policy. They knew stimulus would not work. In all the times they try it, (and it has been a continual refrain in lefty policy circles) it has never worked.

You cut the taxes as a long term thing, you get the effects of stimulus.

As far as who gets it, it doesn't matter. Money flows back into the economy, the economy grows and folks hire more folks.

Revenues for business is the engine here. More revenue= more jobs.

Stimulus entirely goes to rich connected folks who have a firm hand on the public teat.

Baloney. Compare a higher tax rate of 39.6 (I think) during the Clinton Administration and the economy was booming. The tax cuts of 2001-2003 were intended to keep the economy booming. So why did it begin to falter in 2007?

Revenue will start flowing back into the economy when people have JOBS, provided by the businesses run by the wealthy, and they can start spending again.

 

[Ravi]

January 30, 2004

This large cost will add substantially to the budget deficits the nation faces. A number of analyses by respected institutions and leading economists — including studies by the Congressional Budget Office, the Joint Committee on Taxation, and economists at Brookings — find that the increased deficits the tax cuts will create will reduce national saving and may weaken the economy over the long run as a result. These studies do not support Administration claims that the tax cuts will significantly increase long-term economic and job growth.

The President?s Proposal to Make Tax Cuts Permanent — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[MaggieMae]

As long as you can distract Americans with Bill Gate's income of $56 B, they won't wonder WTF happened to $750 B the US Government spent.

Got it now?

Good.

I prefer less snarky explanations. Like the truth.

tax.com: So How Did the Bush Tax Cuts Work Out for the Economy?
A lengthy analysis well worth the time to read. Here's a couple of inyourface excerpts:

The tax cuts cost $1.8 trillion in the first eight years, according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, whose reliability the last administration went out of its way to praise.

In the two years since 2008, the cuts' total cost grew to $2.3 trillion, the Tax Policy Center estimated.
...

The tax cuts did not spur investment. Job growth in the George W. Bush years was one-seventh that of the Clinton years. Nixon and Ford did better than Bush on jobs. Wages fell during the last administration. Average incomes fell. The number of Americans in poverty, as officially measured, hit a 16-year high last year of 43.6 million, though a National Academy of Sciences study says that the real poverty figure is closer to 51 million. Food banks are swamped. Foreclosure signs are everywhere. Americans and their governments are drowning in debt.

 

[loosecannon]

Baloney. Compare a higher tax rate of 39.6 (I think) during the Clinton Administration and the economy was booming. The tax cuts of 2001-2003 were intended to keep the economy booming. So why did it begin to falter in 2007?

Perhaps a better question is : since we have been stimulating the economy since 2001 why has the economy collapsed?

Deficit spending is stimulus.

 

[loosecannon]

I stopped reading after this:

"according to an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, whose reliability the last administration went out of its way to praise. "

 

[Samson]

As long as you can distract Americans with Bill Gate's income of $56 B, they won't wonder WTF happened to $750 B the US Government spent.

Got it now?

Good.

I prefer less snarky explanations. Like the truth.

Oh.

Well, then, the truth is that Bill gates founded Microsoft, which employs about 90,000 people that made sales revenue of $26,000,000,000 last year.

Their income was taxed to help pay for a $4,000,000,000,000 Federal Budget,

including a $750,000,000,000 stimulous program that has "created" 3,000,000,000, "jobs."

At least 11 of these jobs are making pies in Tennessee. Not sure where the others are.

And you wanna complain that the rich aren't taxed enough? Like that would put more people to work?

Absurd.

 

[MaggieMae]

Baloney. Compare a higher tax rate of 39.6 (I think) during the Clinton Administration and the economy was booming. The tax cuts of 2001-2003 were intended to keep the economy booming. So why did it begin to falter in 2007?

Perhaps a better question is : since we have been stimulating the economy since 2001 why has the economy collapsed?

Deficit spending is stimulus.

Ooohh, ouch. Tell that to the Tea Party! Although Cheney once declared that deficits are good.

You need to read the entire article I linked. It explains why tax cuts did nothing to "stimulate" the economy. Frankly, I don't really 'blame" George Bush because I think his approach was to use the standard philosophical standards that have worked in the past. Nope, I blame greed on the part of already wealthy individuals who thought because of Bush's majority, that gave them carte blanche to do anything they wanted. And they invested overseas, slashed employee benefits, and kept incomes of their American employees low. In other words, the tax-cut-trickle-down theory backfired.

 

[Samson]

Baloney. Compare a higher tax rate of 39.6 (I think) during the Clinton Administration and the economy was booming. The tax cuts of 2001-2003 were intended to keep the economy booming. So why did it begin to falter in 2007?

Perhaps a better question is : since we have been stimulating the economy since 2001 why has the economy collapsed?

Deficit spending is stimulus.

Ooohh, ouch. Tell that to the Tea Party! Although Cheney once declared that deficits are good.

You need to read the entire article I linked. It explains why tax cuts did nothing to "stimulate" the economy. Frankly, I don't really 'blame" George Bush because I think his approach was to use the standard philosophical standards that have worked in the past. Nope, I blame greed on the part of already wealthy individuals who thought because of Bush's majority, that gave them carte blanche to do anything they wanted. And they invested overseas, slashed employee benefits, and kept incomes of their American employees low. In other words, the tax-cut-trickle-down theory backfired.

Tell it to the Tea Party?

Why? Do you even have the slightest inkling as to what you're talking about?

BTW: When will BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooOOOOOSHHHH references ever get stale enough for you to begin trying to defend you're own absurd notions?

 

[asterism]

This is the last year. The fact that there are increases in income disparity during bad times was noted by Adam Smith. As the economy increases, income disparity decreases. As you noted, the year of a really long intense recession with counterproductive and stupid public policy saw huge increases in income disparity.

Had we cut taxes, the economy would have improved, and there wouldn't have been this problem.

Businesses survive by selling stuff where marginal cost = marginal revenue. Any time there is a recession, they cut costs hard, and they cut inventories even harder. Inventory is expensive.

We have had a two year resesession now. The longer it lasts, the harder on the poor.

0bama and friends used the recession to move policy. They knew stimulus would not work. In all the times they try it, (and it has been a continual refrain in lefty policy circles) it has never worked.

You cut the taxes as a long term thing, you get the effects of stimulus.

As far as who gets it, it doesn't matter. Money flows back into the economy, the economy grows and folks hire more folks.

Revenues for business is the engine here. More revenue= more jobs.

Stimulus entirely goes to rich connected folks who have a firm hand on the public teat.

Baloney. Compare a higher tax rate of 39.6 (I think) during the Clinton Administration and the economy was booming. The tax cuts of 2001-2003 were intended to keep the economy booming. So why did it begin to falter in 2007?

A natural downturn in the business cycle kicked it off and that was exacerbated by the financial situation not being addressed. Impending tax increases and other government actions expected to raise the costs of doing business had an effect also.

Revenue will start flowing back into the economy when people have JOBS, provided by the businesses run by the wealthy, and they can start spending again.

How does a tax increase help there?

 

[MaggieMae]

Perhaps a better question is : since we have been stimulating the economy since 2001 why has the economy collapsed?

Deficit spending is stimulus.

Ooohh, ouch. Tell that to the Tea Party! Although Cheney once declared that deficits are good.

You need to read the entire article I linked. It explains why tax cuts did nothing to "stimulate" the economy. Frankly, I don't really 'blame" George Bush because I think his approach was to use the standard philosophical standards that have worked in the past. Nope, I blame greed on the part of already wealthy individuals who thought because of Bush's majority, that gave them carte blanche to do anything they wanted. And they invested overseas, slashed employee benefits, and kept incomes of their American employees low. In other words, the tax-cut-trickle-down theory backfired.

Tell it to the Tea Party?

Why? Do you even have the slightest inkling as to what you're talking about?
Tell the Tea Party "deficits are good." READ. If you don't, you won't get what's said.

BTW: When will BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooOOOOOSHHHH references ever get stale enough for you to begin trying to defend you're own absurd notions?

Because an entire global economy doesn't crash in less than 2 years, genius.

My my my, you just hate anyone denigrating YOUR president, eh? Well now you know how I feel about you and your ilk constantly denigrating mine. Yours is 99% to blame for this economic mess; mine 1%. And I'll point that out every fucking chance I get. Deal with it.

 

[MaggieMae]

This is the last year. The fact that there are increases in income disparity during bad times was noted by Adam Smith. As the economy increases, income disparity decreases. As you noted, the year of a really long intense recession with counterproductive and stupid public policy saw huge increases in income disparity.

Had we cut taxes, the economy would have improved, and there wouldn't have been this problem.

Businesses survive by selling stuff where marginal cost = marginal revenue. Any time there is a recession, they cut costs hard, and they cut inventories even harder. Inventory is expensive.

We have had a two year resesession now. The longer it lasts, the harder on the poor.

0bama and friends used the recession to move policy. They knew stimulus would not work. In all the times they try it, (and it has been a continual refrain in lefty policy circles) it has never worked.

You cut the taxes as a long term thing, you get the effects of stimulus.

As far as who gets it, it doesn't matter. Money flows back into the economy, the economy grows and folks hire more folks.

Revenues for business is the engine here. More revenue= more jobs.

Stimulus entirely goes to rich connected folks who have a firm hand on the public teat.

Baloney. Compare a higher tax rate of 39.6 (I think) during the Clinton Administration and the economy was booming. The tax cuts of 2001-2003 were intended to keep the economy booming. So why did it begin to falter in 2007?

A natural downturn in the business cycle kicked it off and that was exacerbated by the financial situation not being addressed. Impending tax increases and other government actions expected to raise the costs of doing business had an effect also.

Revenue will start flowing back into the economy when people have JOBS, provided by the businesses run by the wealthy, and they can start spending again.

How does a tax increase help there?

Stop referring to this as a "tax increase," because it is NOT. If the percentage was going to be raised above 39%, that would be a tax increase. As it stands, the percentage will be dropped to where it was in the 90's when those same businesses were flourishing. They don't need the tax cuts to be extended.