"If transferring wealth to the top 2% creates jobs, wouldn't we be swimming in jobs?"

[Grandma]

When Mitt Romney asserted in a recent interview that his tax rate was fair and that it was necessary for job creation, I wish the interviewer would have followed up and asked him for some details and examples of how HE has created jobs in the US since he thinks his tax rate causes job creation. And then I would have asked for some specific examples from other people who are wealthy and get the same tax breaks.

In a report on Sensata (a Romney/Bain enterprise) laying off employees and outsourcing jobs, one person about to lose his job asks, "If transferring wealth to the top 2% creates jobs, wouldn't we be swimming in jobs?" (instead of outsourcing them which obviously creates more wealth due to much lower wages for the investors).

It doesn't impact the public with more jobs at all.

LINK

Its something the GOP won't bring up:

If tax cuts lead to prosperity and job creation; the Bush tax cuts that were extended would have delivered prosperity.

So explain this to me, Candy...if raising taxes WILL deliver prosperity then why didn't Barry, Harry and Nancy get rid of the Bush tax cuts Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 2009?

I think we both know that the reason that didn't happen was because all three of your progressive leaders were only too aware that to do so would bring an already anemic economic recovery to a shuddering halt. Oh, they would have LOVED to...but they were scared shitless that they'd get blamed for putting us back into a recession.

Actually they did try to end the Bush tax cuts but were hindered by the Party of No who held tax reform hostage in order to put forth their own failed agenda.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It all comes down to the fact of getting that 2% to invest in America. Raise the taxes=bye, bye as the rich offshore.

 

[idb]

It all comes down to the fact of getting that 2% to invest in America. Raise the taxes=bye, bye as the rich offshore.

They send their money offshore anyway, what's the difference?

 

[Stephanie]

So we had the Bush tax cuts, which are still in effect. Where the hell are the jobs? Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, did we have an economic bust under Clinton like we did under Bush?

tsk tsk, blame your dear leader for NO JOBS, with threats of raising taxes, his radicals in the EPA piling on new regulations, and his signature OBAMACARE..Not exactly a environment for asking people to create jobs in and how about that 800 billion stimulus Obama said would "create all them shovel" ready jobs...and you all bitch because the Guberment gives us some of our taxpayer monies back through TAX CUTS

 

[zeke]

Cutting taxes doesn't transfer wealth to anyone, nitwit.

Yes it does. When you cut taxes in the face of government spending that needs to be paid for,

but you don't pay for it because you cut the taxes that would have paid for it,

you are transferring wealth to the beneficiaries of the tax cuts,

by borrowing the wealth and passing the debt on to future generations.

We didn't pay for two wars in Bush's presidency; tax cuts that would have paid for them forced borrowing that still hasn't been paid off. That was a transfer of wealth to everyone who got a tax cut in the 2000's.

Good luck getting these right wing fuking rich worshipping suckers to understand the info you posted above.

 

[PredFan]

It never ceases to amaze me, the depths of stupidity that the left will dive to. Like the two in the post right above this one.

 

[PredFan]

1. You aren't transferring weath with tax cuts. That's moronic. The money belongs to the person who earned it. A tax cut means you just aren't taking their money.

2. We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.

3. You could tax all of the people who make over $250k a year 100% of their salary and not put a dent in the debt or the deficit.

4. The jobs happened shortly after the Bush tax cuts went into effect, we are a long ways out from that and a lot of obama job destruction since.

 

[bripat9643]

Who says transferring wealth to the top 2% will create jobs?

Oh yeah, nobody says that.

When you cut taxes and give subsidies to the top 2% because they are the "job creators" you don't have to say it. It's obvious.

What "subsidies" does the government give to the top 2%?

 

[007]

 

[PredFan]

Who says transferring wealth to the top 2% will create jobs?

Oh yeah, nobody says that.

When you cut taxes and give subsidies to the top 2% because they are the "job creators" you don't have to say it. It's obvious.

What "subsidies" does the government give to the top 2%?

rdean has no idea what is "obvious", he's "oblivious".

 

[Skull Pilot]

When Mitt Romney asserted in a recent interview that his tax rate was fair and that it was necessary for job creation, I wish the interviewer would have followed up and asked him for some details and examples of how HE has created jobs in the US since he thinks his tax rate causes job creation. And then I would have asked for some specific examples from other people who are wealthy and get the same tax breaks.

In a report on Sensata (a Romney/Bain enterprise) laying off employees and outsourcing jobs, one person about to lose his job asks, "If transferring wealth to the top 2% creates jobs, wouldn't we be swimming in jobs?" (instead of outsourcing them which obviously creates more wealth due to much lower wages for the investors).

It doesn't impact the public with more jobs at all.

LINK

Letting people keep more of their own money is not "transferring" it.

Tell me how much money has been taken from you and given to a random rich person?

 

[Skull Pilot]

So we had the Bush tax cuts, which are still in effect. Where the hell are the jobs? Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, did we have an economic bust under Clinton like we did under Bush?

No we just had the tech bubble and set the foundation for the real estate collapse in 2008

 

[P@triot]

Nice try with your bullshit, but nobody TRANSFERS wealth to anyone, the wealthy EARN it.

 

[candycorn]

When Mitt Romney asserted in a recent interview that his tax rate was fair and that it was necessary for job creation, I wish the interviewer would have followed up and asked him for some details and examples of how HE has created jobs in the US since he thinks his tax rate causes job creation. And then I would have asked for some specific examples from other people who are wealthy and get the same tax breaks.

In a report on Sensata (a Romney/Bain enterprise) laying off employees and outsourcing jobs, one person about to lose his job asks, "If transferring wealth to the top 2% creates jobs, wouldn't we be swimming in jobs?" (instead of outsourcing them which obviously creates more wealth due to much lower wages for the investors).

It doesn't impact the public with more jobs at all.

LINK

Its something the GOP won't bring up:

If tax cuts lead to prosperity and job creation; the Bush tax cuts that were extended would have delivered prosperity.

So explain this to me, Candy...if raising taxes WILL deliver prosperity then why didn't Barry, Harry and Nancy get rid of the Bush tax cuts Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 2009?

Good question. I'm not sure of the expiration date of the tax cuts. And I didn't say "raising taxes will delivery prosperity" by the way.

I think we both know that the reason that didn't happen was because all three of your progressive leaders were only too aware that to do so would bring an already anemic economic recovery to a shuddering halt. Oh, they would have LOVED to...but they were scared shitless that they'd get blamed for putting us back into a recession.

It's conjecture on your part but it is a good question nonetheless.

 

[candycorn]

Its something the GOP won't bring up:

If tax cuts lead to prosperity and job creation; the Bush tax cuts that were extended would have delivered prosperity.

So explain this to me, Candy...if raising taxes WILL deliver prosperity then why didn't Barry, Harry and Nancy get rid of the Bush tax cuts Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in 2009?

I think we both know that the reason that didn't happen was because all three of your progressive leaders were only too aware that to do so would bring an already anemic economic recovery to a shuddering halt. Oh, they would have LOVED to...but they were scared shitless that they'd get blamed for putting us back into a recession.

Actually they did try to end the Bush tax cuts but were hindered by the Party of No who held tax reform hostage in order to put forth their own failed agenda.

That was back when the President was naive enough to believe the Congress would work with him.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So we had the Bush tax cuts, which are still in effect. Where the hell are the jobs? Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy, did we have an economic bust under Clinton like we did under Bush?

No we just had the tech bubble and set the foundation for the real estate collapse in 2008

The stock market boom in the nineties was caused by overzealous investment. How could that be,

since it followed the Clinton tax increases on the Rich? I thought raising taxes on the Rich killed investment?

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. You aren't transferring weath with tax cuts. That's moronic. The money belongs to the person who earned it. A tax cut means you just aren't taking their money.

2. We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.

3. You could tax all of the people who make over $250k a year 100% of their salary and not put a dent in the debt or the deficit.

4. The jobs happened shortly after the Bush tax cuts went into effect, we are a long ways out from that and a lot of obama job destruction since.

Yes you are transferring wealth if you're borrowing to fund the tax cuts.

You're giving government to current taxpayers without making them pay for all of it. You're borrowing money to give them tax cuts,

and someone else in the future will have to pay that money back.

Tax cuts paid for with borrowed money are a transfer of wealth from your descendants to you.

 

[tjvh]

When Mitt Romney asserted in a recent interview that his tax rate was fair and that it was necessary for job creation, I wish the interviewer would have followed up and asked him for some details and examples of how HE has created jobs in the US since he thinks his tax rate causes job creation. And then I would have asked for some specific examples from other people who are wealthy and get the same tax breaks.

In a report on Sensata (a Romney/Bain enterprise) laying off employees and outsourcing jobs, one person about to lose his job asks, "If transferring wealth to the top 2% creates jobs, wouldn't we be swimming in jobs?" (instead of outsourcing them which obviously creates more wealth due to much lower wages for the investors).

It doesn't impact the public with more jobs at all.

LINK

How does a lower Tax rate equate to a transfer of income? Numbskull.

 

[JakeStarkey]

All of this is immaterial if Obama loses and the Dems keep the senate.

Either the GOP compromises big time on everything, including ACA, during the lame duck session or the Bush tax cuts will expire on everybody in January, with no way for the party in power to repass them.

 

[zeke]

1. You aren't transferring weath with tax cuts. That's moronic. The money belongs to the person who earned it. A tax cut means you just aren't taking their money.

2. We don't have an income problem, we have a spending problem.

3. You could tax all of the people who make over $250k a year 100% of their salary and not put a dent in the debt or the deficit.
4. The jobs happened shortly after the Bush tax cuts went into effect, we are a long ways out from that and a lot of obama job destruction since.

And yet Mitt claims that just by limiting their deductions he will pay for their 20% tax cut.

And you believe that bullshit. Right? Cause one day soon you to will be a billioniare.