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

[buckeye45_73]

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.

You don't borrow the money to give it to the people who got the cuts. You simply don't take it from them. You borrow the money to SPEND it. Stop spending it.

You are giving government to EVERYONE (whether they want it or not) and to make some people pay for it and others not is wrong, but it isn't transferring wealth. Government is not wealth.

Yes, someone will have to pay it back, so stop spending it.

Tax cuts ARE NOT a transfer of wealth. Wealth belongs to the people who earn it and not the government. The government spending money it has to borrow is not the fault of the taxpayers, that's idiotic.

Tax cuts are a transfer of wealth if money is borrowed to pay for what the tax revenues would have paid for because the people getting the government are not paying for it.

Someone else pays for it. That's what a transfer is.

No you're wrong....just because the government borrows money doesnt mean it's a transfer...they COULD cut spending or reform entitlements......why not have working people have their own account? and if you never work in your life...uhoh.........get a fucking job

 

[thanatos144]

Jealousy of the rich sure as fuck never created a job.

Michael Moore.

He was the rich.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't borrow the money to give it to the people who got the cuts. You simply don't take it from them. You borrow the money to SPEND it. Stop spending it.

You are giving government to EVERYONE (whether they want it or not) and to make some people pay for it and others not is wrong, but it isn't transferring wealth. Government is not wealth.

Yes, someone will have to pay it back, so stop spending it.

Tax cuts ARE NOT a transfer of wealth. Wealth belongs to the people who earn it and not the government. The government spending money it has to borrow is not the fault of the taxpayers, that's idiotic.

Tax cuts are a transfer of wealth if money is borrowed to pay for what the tax revenues would have paid for because the people getting the government are not paying for it.

Someone else pays for it. That's what a transfer is.

No you're wrong....just because the government borrows money doesnt mean it's a transfer...they COULD cut spending or reform entitlements......why not have working people have their own account? and if you never work in your life...uhoh.........get a fucking job

Is the word 'transfer' that is bothering you people?

The OP was saying - and he can correct me if I'm wrong -

If cutting taxes for the top 2%, and thus letting them keep more of their money creates jobs,

why aren't we swimming in jobs?


I would ask the question this way:

"When did the Bush tax cuts stop being of any use to create jobs (if they ever were) and why did that stop?"

 

[NYcarbineer]

The latest Romney position is that the Rich don't need any more tax cuts.

Is that correct? Has trickle-down been maxed out, or is Romney rejecting the theory itself?

(or is Romney simply lying to get elected?)

 

[thanatos144]

Tax cuts are a transfer of wealth if money is borrowed to pay for what the tax revenues would have paid for because the people getting the government are not paying for it.

Someone else pays for it. That's what a transfer is.

No you're wrong....just because the government borrows money doesnt mean it's a transfer...they COULD cut spending or reform entitlements......why not have working people have their own account? and if you never work in your life...uhoh.........get a fucking job

Is the word 'transfer' that is bothering you people?

The OP was saying - and he can correct me if I'm wrong -

If cutting taxes for the top 2%, and thus letting them keep more of their money creates jobs,

why aren't we swimming in jobs?


I would ask the question this way:

"When did the Bush tax cuts stop being of any use to create jobs (if they ever were) and why did that stop?"

When Obama raised other taxes to make it null and viod.....Tell me how well is that Tax on the poor Obama created in his first year???? You remember the sin tax on tobacco right? Obama learned well form his big bank backers by installing hidden fees.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are the loons, tjvh. The TP will not agree to tax cuts because they will not agree to the administration's policies on how to do it.

Because of that, the tax cuts will expire for everybody, sequestration will go into effect, and a new recession will destroy Romney's administration.

We are going into another recession because the Tea Party will not agree to tax cuts period.

I thought the Tea Party was nothing but a small group of extremists? Now they have the power to decide whether we can have Tax cuts? I wish you loons would make up your minds.

 

[PredFan]

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.

What kind of an argument is that? What is that an argument for?

If you ended the food stamp program completely, you wouldn't balance the budget either.

Is that an argument for not cutting a nickel out of the food stamp program?

The argument is the often held belief that ending the Bush tax cuts is the answer to our debt and deficit.

 

[PredFan]

We are going into another recession because the Tea Party will not agree to tax cuts period.

The Tea Party doesn't have a say in it nit wit.

 

[PredFan]

Typical Rethug drivel.

Can't raise taxes on real rich people. Can't cut military spending. Can't cut tax breaks to big oil. Can't stop subsidizing agriculture.

What they can do is cut anything and everything that benefits rather poorer people.
Cause everybody knows they can't do anything about it.

Poor people have sucky lobbyists. They need to fire them and get better representation.

Nice strawman you've built there. Have fun beating it up and crowing about your prowess.

 

[PredFan]

We are going into another recession because the Tea Party will not agree to tax cuts period.

I thought the Tea Party was nothing but a small group of extremists? Now they have the power to decide whether we can have Tax cuts? I wish you loons would make up your minds.

The won't by definition, they are loons.

 

[PredFan]

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.

You don't borrow the money to give it to the people who got the cuts. You simply don't take it from them. You borrow the money to SPEND it. Stop spending it.

You are giving government to EVERYONE (whether they want it or not) and to make some people pay for it and others not is wrong, but it isn't transferring wealth. Government is not wealth.

Yes, someone will have to pay it back, so stop spending it.

Tax cuts ARE NOT a transfer of wealth. Wealth belongs to the people who earn it and not the government. The government spending money it has to borrow is not the fault of the taxpayers, that's idiotic.

Tax cuts are a transfer of wealth if money is borrowed to pay for what the tax revenues would have paid for because the people getting the government are not paying for it.

Someone else pays for it. That's what a transfer is.

No, it isn't.

There are plenty of people getting the government and not paying for it. A tax cut means you aren't taking someone's money away. It does not mean you are giving them money. It's their money, not the government's.

If you are spending money you don't have, stop spending it. that is not the fault of the taxpayer, it is a spending problem by the government. Government is not wealth, and there is no wealth being transfered.

 

[healthmyths]

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?

OK ONCE AGAIN YOU idiots KEEP ignoring THE FACTS!!

A) Did the marvelous dot.com that Clinton bubble bust occur? YES! What did it cost?

1) $5 trillion in market losses which meant the taxpayers who had tax liabilities of $166 billion from 2002 and beyond GONE!
2) 300,000 jobs lost due to dot.com busts....billions in payroll taxes!!!

B) Did 9/11 happen??? YES what did that cost?
1) $2 trillion in losses meant $66 billion a year in reduced TAX payments from 2003 and beyond GONE!
2 145,00 jobs lost in NYC alone due to 9/11... what did that cost? Billions in payroll taxes!

C) DID the worst hurricane SEASONS not hurricanes SEASONS occur? YES what did that cost?
1) $1 trillion in losses meaning $33 billion a year in reduced tax revenues!
2) 400,000 jobs due to Hurricanes Katrina/Rita

again NOTHING Bush could do to prevent! After all he is definitely not the Messiah as Obama is considered!

IN spite of those monumental events Bush had at the end of 2008 136 million working versus at
beginning 131 million a gain of 5 million more working IN SPITE of 845,000 jobs lost due to dot.com/9/11/hurricanes!!!

5 million more people working then when Clinton left office!

• 2001...... 131,826 41 0.03% Dot.com bust, 9/11 occurred $5 trillion in real losses, 18,000 businesses
• 2002...... 130,341 -1,485 -1.13% 9/11 residual losses
• 2003...... 129,999 -342 -0.26% tax cuts began
• 2004...... 131,435 1,436 1.10%
• 2005...... 133,703 2,268 1.73%
• 2006...... 136,086 2,383 1.78%
• 2007...... 137,598 1,512 1.11%
• 2008...... 136,790 -808 -0.59%

And IN spite of dot.com/9/11/hurricanes...
GDP when Bush took office 2001 $12.355,271,000,000
GDP when Bush left office 2008 $14,359,490,000,000

A 16% increase in GDP or $2 TRILLION !

SO PLEASES IDIOTS including some of you stupid conservatives EXPLAIN THAT THESE NUMBERS ARE FALSE!
Explain these EVENTS NEVER HAPPENED!

What in the hell has Obama faced?? NOTHING! NO attacks, NO collapses! NO DISASTROUS weather events!

AGAIN PROVE ME WRONG!!! Show the FACTS that counter the above EVENTS!!!

OH... and another minor event that everyone seems to have forgotten!!1

Anthrax ATTACKS!!!
Mail volume and revenue are down at the U.S. Postal Service in the wake of at least three anthrax-laced letters that passed through the mail delivery system, the postmaster general said Tuesday.
"These attacks on our employees, the nation and the mail are unprecedented," John Potter told a subcommittee of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
"They have hurt us financially. The economic slowdown in 2001 already had an impact. Then the tragedy of the attack on September 11 again stunned the economy. The results have been reflected in reduced revenue and mail volumes," he said.
Postmaster general: Anthrax attacks costly - CNN

 

[PredFan]

Tax cuts are a transfer of wealth if money is borrowed to pay for what the tax revenues would have paid for because the people getting the government are not paying for it.

Someone else pays for it. That's what a transfer is.

No you're wrong....just because the government borrows money doesnt mean it's a transfer...they COULD cut spending or reform entitlements......why not have working people have their own account? and if you never work in your life...uhoh.........get a fucking job

Is the word 'transfer' that is bothering you people?

The OP was saying - and he can correct me if I'm wrong -

If cutting taxes for the top 2%, and thus letting them keep more of their money creates jobs,

why aren't we swimming in jobs?


I would ask the question this way:

"When did the Bush tax cuts stop being of any use to create jobs (if they ever were) and why did that stop?"

"Transfer" is what's tripping You up, but let's move on.

We aren't swimming in jobs because of the economic collapse that happened AFTER the Bush Tax Cuts went into effect. A small tax cut would not have offset the fall that occurred then. It's not too hard.

 

[cutter]

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

When you talk about transferring wealth to the wealthy all you are talking about is allowing people to keep more of the money they earn. Transferring wealth to the government only seems to create greater spending that accomplishes nothing. The consumer is the person that transfers wealth to the wealthy. When they "NEED" the latest iphone, ipad, flatscreen, gaming system etc, and finance it all with a credit card they are transferring their wealth, both current and future to the wealthy. It seems people think they are entitled to all the latest toys and no one should get rich off of it. The owners of these companies put up their own money on the chance they may make a profit on their investment and the American people seem to think making a profit is somehow unAmerican. The government doesn't transfer wealth. If you want to blame someone for the transfer of wealth in this country, blame yourself.

 

[PredFan]

The latest Romney position is that the Rich don't need any more tax cuts.

Is that correct? Has trickle-down been maxed out, or is Romney rejecting the theory itself?

(or is Romney simply lying to get elected?)

Now you're just being dishonest. You know as well as I do that you cannot tax yourself into prosperity nor can you eliminate all taxes and balance a budget.

Romney realizes that there is a balance. That's because he has business and economic experience that obama and the left sorely lack.

 

[PredFan]

If you give more money to the government, they will simply spend more. It's time to force them to live within their means.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Unsensible One, they can block the GOP from agreeing to any compromise, unless . . . the sensible party cons and mods thrown them overboard, which they have not been ready to do yet.

Whether Obama wins or not, the Senate is going to say Dem, which means the GOP will seek a lame duck agreement to an extension for ALL of the tax cuts.

In order to get it, the GOP cons and mods are going to abandon all of the far right cultural and social and religious TP positions. Watch!

We are going into another recession because the Tea Party will not agree to tax cuts period.

The Tea Party doesn't have a say in it nit wit.

 

[healthmyths]

COME ON all you obviously history illiterates who seem to have forgotten:

1) $5 trillion loss dot.com bust 300,000 jobs..
2) 9/11 attack that cost $2 trillion .. 145,000 jobs in NYC alone.. 3 days airlines didn't fly lost revenue
Approximately 18,000 small businesses were destroyed or displaced after the attacks. The Small Business Administration provided loans as assistance, while Community Development Block Grants and Economic Injury Disaster Loans were other also used by the Federal Government to provide assistance to small business affected by the 9/11 attacks. Revenues of U.S. airlines was just under $129 billion X 4 quarters = $520 billion or $5.2 billion oost in those 3 days!

3) Worst HURRICANE SEASONS PLURAL!!! cost $1 trillion and 400,000 jobs!!

4) Anthrax attacks.. cost POST office billions!
Postmaster general: Anthrax attacks costly - CNN


So again where is the retort??? Where are the refuting FACTS??? DID THESE EVENTS happen or not?
If they did, was there NO FINANCIAL consequences??

 

[PredFan]

Unsensible One, they can block the GOP from agreeing to any compromise, unless . . . the sensible party cons and mods thrown them overboard, which they have not been ready to do yet.

Whether Obama wins or not, the Senate is going to say Dem, which means the GOP will seek a lame duck agreement to an extension for ALL of the tax cuts.

In order to get it, the GOP cons and mods are going to abandon all of the far right cultural and social and religious TP positions. Watch!

We are going into another recession because the Tea Party will not agree to tax cuts period.

The Tea Party doesn't have a say in it nit wit.

Your rage against the Tea Party has caused you to become unhinged. Stop drinking the left wing Kool Aid and use your brain for once.

 

[zeke]

If you give more money to the government, they will simply spend more. It's time to force them to live within their means.

You are not real smart about basic economics are you Pred?

The "spending" that you and others like you hate so much, well the vast bulk of that spending is on obligations that have already been made.

Can you fuking possible grasp what that means?

It means the interest on the debt is being paid for money we already spent.

It means Medicare and Medicaid payments are going out to medical providers for services already made.

It means the military is untouchable to rethugs and that spending is both on past obligations and wars and then Mitt wants two trillion of future spending and rethugs won't do anything reducing that debt.

You want to pick in SSI? Sure you do, but SSI is self funding, except for the games Congress played with it.


All this debt and obligations was taken on in behalf of some American(s). They are our debts as a nation. Our responsibility.

Why you such a moocher you don't want to pay our bills.

You know how you rethugs like that game of "if you collected all the income above 250k blah blah blah........

Same thing with those programs that are on going for future spending. Yea, you could cut every single fuking dollare out of PPH, PBS, EPA, CFC, ABC, DEF, every alphabet soup of programs you could imagine, and you know what?

WE WOULD STILL NEED MORE TAX DOLLARS TO PAY OUR FUKING BILLS.

You and those like you are mooches.

And how is it that people like you think that the rich, who if you bothered to check, have done EXTREMELY WELL over the past few years, why shouldn't they be paying higher taxes. They are the ones got most of the benefits from bank bailouts, the stock market run up, etc ect.

Most of the actions of Bush and Obama during the credit crisis was done to protect the ultra wealthy. And protected they were. They didn't lose much and whatever loss they had, they have more than made up for it.

Really, why in the hell do you care if they pay 4% more income tax? What possible difference could it make in your life or theirs?