IF higher taxes will create jobs, why did the stimulus fail?

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

March of 2009. It was part of the stimulus package.

They cut taxes? I don't recall a tax cut for the wealthy in 2009.

The stimulus package contained around $300B in tax cuts including items such as a payroll tax deduction, sales tax deductions for vehicle purchases and an extension of the AMT patch. All of those, and others, cut taxes for the rich.

8537 did say it "cut taxes for the rich" but did not say "ONLY cut taxes for the rich"

The issue others had with your comment 8537 is that, over the years, many on the liberal side of issues have falsely labelled the bush tax cuts as "Tax cuts for the rich" and by doing so have ignored the facts of the bush tax cuts. Those facts being that the rich got the smallest percentage of a reduction while the poor got a complete elimination of their tax burden (federal income tax in all instances here)

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Who said they only affected the rich?

See your post above.

yes indeed! The stimulus included tax cuts for the rich.

I'm still waiting for someone to point out where i said the tax cuts were only for the rich.

I'll keep waiting.

Ok, fair enough. Then let's agree that everybody got a little break as part of porculous since now you are saying that was your point.

Then why focus so on 1% of the people who received the breaks?

 

[RDD_1210]

See your post above.

yes indeed! The stimulus included tax cuts for the rich.

I'm still waiting for someone to point out where i said the tax cuts were only for the rich.

I'll keep waiting.

Ok, fair enough. Then let's agree that everybody got a little break as part of porculous since now you are saying that was your point.

Then why focus so on 1% of the people who received the breaks?

Because we were told that giving those breaks to the rich was vital to creating jobs. The rich got those breaks and we haven't seen those jobs created.

 

[RDD_1210]

I stopped trying to have discussions with Rabbi. He's an outright racist and probably legally insane. His posts are purely for entertainment value and not to be taken seriously.

Well Rabbi and I dont always agree, heck we were bickering about something just the other day, but that doen't mean he is racist, insane, and has no value in his opinion.

Ok im not defending other people anymore...i said my piece.

When RDD runs out of steam, which usually only takes a few posts... then comes the name calling. He's probably not a bad person, but he's all over the map usually.

Run out of steam? I'll never get tired of pointing out that Rabbi is a racist. I disagree with many people on this site, but that doesn't mean I think they are bad people.

Rabbi however is worthless and a racist, I will never get tired of pointing that out.

 

[Jarhead]

yes indeed! The stimulus included tax cuts for the rich.

I'm still waiting for someone to point out where i said the tax cuts were only for the rich.

I'll keep waiting.

Ok, fair enough. Then let's agree that everybody got a little break as part of porculous since now you are saying that was your point.

Then why focus so on 1% of the people who received the breaks?

Because we were told that giving those breaks to the rich was vital to creating jobs. The rich got those breaks and we haven't seen those jobs created.

Well...using the explanantion that Mr. Obama used in regard to the stimulus...

'Imagine how bad the employment numbers would be if we didnt giuve the job creators the tax breaks we gave them.'

 

[8537]

See your post above.

yes indeed! The stimulus included tax cuts for the rich.

I'm still waiting for someone to point out where i said the tax cuts were only for the rich.

I'll keep waiting.

Ok, fair enough. Then let's agree that everybody got a little break

OK then.

Then why focus so on 1% of the people who received the breaks?

Because I was responding to your inquiry, which was "We cut taxes on the rich?".

The only correct answer was "yes".

 

[Jarhead]

See your post above.

yes indeed! The stimulus included tax cuts for the rich.

I'm still waiting for someone to point out where i said the tax cuts were only for the rich.

I'll keep waiting.

Ok, fair enough. Then let's agree that everybody got a little break as part of porculous since now you are saying that was your point.

Then why focus so on 1% of the people who received the breaks?

There are a lot of people on this board that lack the ability to debate and, instead, fall into the name calling game when their backs are against the wall.

RDD is a debater....one of the best on this board. If he calls one a name, it is likely that person deserved it.

 

[Jarhead]

yes indeed! The stimulus included tax cuts for the rich.

I'm still waiting for someone to point out where i said the tax cuts were only for the rich.

I'll keep waiting.

Ok, fair enough. Then let's agree that everybody got a little break

OK then.

Then why focus so on 1% of the people who received the breaks?

Because I was responding to your inquiry, which was "We cut taxes on the rich?".

The only correct answer was "yes".

Actually....

Those of us that believe those tax cuts were necessary do not refer to them as "the rich".
We refer to them as the job creators.

The idea of giving job creators a tax break sounds a lot more reasonable than saying "giving the rich" tax breaks.

 

[RDD_1210]

Ok, fair enough. Then let's agree that everybody got a little break as part of porculous since now you are saying that was your point.

Then why focus so on 1% of the people who received the breaks?

Because we were told that giving those breaks to the rich was vital to creating jobs. The rich got those breaks and we haven't seen those jobs created.

Well...using the explanantion that Mr. Obama used in regard to the stimulus...

'Imagine how bad the employment numbers would be if we didnt giuve the job creators the tax breaks we gave them.'

Haha, good point.

 

[RDD_1210]

yes indeed! The stimulus included tax cuts for the rich.

I'm still waiting for someone to point out where i said the tax cuts were only for the rich.

I'll keep waiting.

Ok, fair enough. Then let's agree that everybody got a little break as part of porculous since now you are saying that was your point.

Then why focus so on 1% of the people who received the breaks?

There are a lot of people on this board that lack the ability to debate and, instead, fall into the name calling game when their backs are against the wall.

RDD is a debater....one of the best on this board. If he calls one a name, it is likely that person deserved it.

Thanks! I'll be sure to send that $20 I promised you for saying that.

 

[Jarhead]

Because we were told that giving those breaks to the rich was vital to creating jobs. The rich got those breaks and we haven't seen those jobs created.

Well...using the explanantion that Mr. Obama used in regard to the stimulus...

'Imagine how bad the employment numbers would be if we didnt giuve the job creators the tax breaks we gave them.'

Haha, good point.

amazing what a little spin can do....

 

[Jarhead]

Ok, fair enough. Then let's agree that everybody got a little break as part of porculous since now you are saying that was your point.

Then why focus so on 1% of the people who received the breaks?

There are a lot of people on this board that lack the ability to debate and, instead, fall into the name calling game when their backs are against the wall.

RDD is a debater....one of the best on this board. If he calls one a name, it is likely that person deserved it.

Thanks! I'll be sure to send that $20 I promised you for saying that.

uh....20?

I have the PM saved...there is another "0" attached to thast number.

 

[8537]

Ok, fair enough. Then let's agree that everybody got a little break

OK then.

Then why focus so on 1% of the people who received the breaks?

Because I was responding to your inquiry, which was "We cut taxes on the rich?".

The only correct answer was "yes".

Actually....

Those of us that believe those tax cuts were necessary do not refer to them as "the rich".
We refer to them as the job creators.

I didn't chose the term rich. The person I was responding to asked a question:

"We cut taxes on the rich"?

My answer was simply "yes".

The idea of giving job creators a tax break sounds a lot more reasonable than saying "giving the rich" tax breaks.

The idea of giving people who create demand a tax break sounds pretty good too. That's why we cut taxes for both.

 

[RDD_1210]

There are a lot of people on this board that lack the ability to debate and, instead, fall into the name calling game when their backs are against the wall.

RDD is a debater....one of the best on this board. If he calls one a name, it is likely that person deserved it.

Thanks! I'll be sure to send that $20 I promised you for saying that.

uh....20?

I have the PM saved...there is another "0" attached to thast number.

Talk about spin!

Ok, the $2 is on its way.

 

[GoneBezerk]

Obama blew money on building roads, funding art projects, funding bogus collge research studies, etc...things not focused on creating more jobs through more capital wealth.

He just stole taxpayer money and gave it out to his friends, then wondered why it didn't employ people beyond a couple Govt jobs that he created to dole out the money.

 

[Jarhead]

OK then.



Because I was responding to your inquiry, which was "We cut taxes on the rich?".

The only correct answer was "yes".

Actually....

Those of us that believe those tax cuts were necessary do not refer to them as "the rich".
We refer to them as the job creators.

I didn't chose the term rich. The person I was responding to asked a question:

"We cut taxes on the rich"?

My answer was simply "yes".

The idea of giving job creators a tax break sounds a lot more reasonable than saying "giving the rich" tax breaks.

The idea of giving people who create demand a tax break sounds pretty good too. That's why we cut taxes for both.

I agree.
I have no issue with tax breaks across the board.

I have a big issue when our law makers create class warfare when they say a certain class of people dont deserve a tax break.

When it comes to our lawmakers, they should make laws for "the people" as a whole.

Isnt that what we pay them to do?

 

[rightwinger]

IF higher taxes will create jobs, why did the stimulus fail?

The stimulus failed because 40% of it was set aside for tax cuts

 

[Jarhead]

Obama blew money on building roads, funding art projects, funding bogus collge research studies, etc...things not focused on creating more jobs through more capital wealth.

He just stole taxpayer money and gave it out to his friends, then wondered why it didn't employ people beyond a couple Govt jobs that he created to dole out the money.

I dont blame Obama. He simply signed it inot law.

I blame the creators and the subsequent passers of the law...and the spin they attached to it as they tried to explain to the American people (their employers) why it is such a good thing.

In essence, they lied to us as we allowed them to pay back their political supporters.

 

[Jarhead]

IF higher taxes will create jobs, why did the stimulus fail?

The stimulus failed because 40% of it was set aside for tax cuts

So then those that voted for it voted for a failed program that cost us over 800 billion in borrowed money.

Tax cuts or not, they rpomised us it was a good investment. They were wrong. They gambled a hell of a lot of money on an obvious long shot.

 

[JRK]

Thanks for confirming that we did indeed cut taxes for the rich.

I am un sure that anyone claimed we had not

You must be reading a different thread.



Who said that?


Who said that?

The liberal thinks if we raise taxes we will raise revenue
that 900 billion Obama put us on the hook for is no different than raising taxes is it?

Will we have to pay off the loans some day? Sure.

Will we pay it off in fewer real dollars than what we borrowed? Probably.

Would we owe more if we instead allowed the economy to collapse? Yes.

Why did it fail?

Who said it failed? Not me.

Ok if it did not fail then what grade would you give it?
and why?