To start with bushes tax cuts created 7 million jobs in 5 years, in addition

[JRK]

2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

lets see how tax cuts from the 80s in addition with this has done

1980...... 90,528 74,154 24,263 1,077 4,454 18,733
1981...... 91,289 75,109 24,118 1,180 4,304 18,634
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695
1991...... 108,375 89,829 22,588 739 4,780 17,068
1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

Ok let us see what those tax cuts had to do with the housing bubble bursting?
any-one know?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Obama's tax cuts wil create jobs as well.
But the left will never admit it.

 

[Old Rocks]

The jobs created under Bush never even kept up with the young people gradauting from high school and college. And Clinton instituted tax increases, yet we had the greatest economic expansion in this nation from 1993 to 2001.

Essentially, you fellows are full of shit. The tax cuts benefited nobody but the very wealthy. The rest of us have seen our equity in both our homes and in the investments we made decrease dramatically under Bush. And they will even decrease further if the right wingnuts currently in control of Congress get their way.

If we wish to get the deficit reduced, we have to go back to the tax structure under Clinton, cut the loopholes from our present tax code, and institute a higher rate for those making more than 1 million a year. And tax capital gains and divedends the same as normal income.

The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; created the Direct Student Loan Program; created the first nine Empowerment Zones and first 95 Enterprise Communities; and passed tax cuts for small businesses and research and development.

 

[Wiseacre]

Maybe you should put some column headers in there so we'll know what we're looking at.


Not sure you can absolutely say that those tax increases were soley responsible for the additional jobs. Certainly didn't hurt, we needed the stimulus.

 

[Old Rocks]

These are the real numbers concerning job growth under Bush, according to the Wall Street Journal. About 1/2 of the claimed 7 million.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ

By WSJ Staff
President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton‘s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

Here’s a look at job creation under each president since the Labor Department started keeping payroll records in 1939. The counts are based on total payrolls between the start of the month the president took office (using the final payroll count for the end of the prior December) and his final December in office.

Because the size of the economy and labor force varies, we also calculate in percentage terms how much the total payroll count expanded under each president. The current President Bush, once taking account how long he’s been in office, shows the worst track record for job creation since the government began keeping records. –Sudeep Reddy

 

[M14 Shooter]

And Clinton instituted tax increases, yet we had the greatest economic expansion in this nation from 1993 to 2001.

Show causation.

Essentially, you fellows are full of shit. The tax cuts benefited nobody but the very wealthy.

Why then did The Obama continue them?

The rest of us have seen our equity in both our homes and in the investments we made decrease dramatically under Bush

How have they done under The Obama?

If we wish to get the deficit reduced, we have to go back to the tax structure under Clinton, cut the loopholes from our present tax code, and institute a higher rate for those making more than 1 million a year. And tax capital gains and divedends the same as normal income.

It is impossible to meaningfully reduce the deficit by raising taxes.

 

[auditor0007]

The jobs created under Bush never even kept up with the young people gradauting from high school and college. And Clinton instituted tax increases, yet we had the greatest economic expansion in this nation from 1993 to 2001.

Essentially, you fellows are full of shit. The tax cuts benefited nobody but the very wealthy. The rest of us have seen our equity in both our homes and in the investments we made decrease dramatically under Bush. And they will even decrease further if the right wingnuts currently in control of Congress get their way.

If we wish to get the deficit reduced, we have to go back to the tax structure under Clinton, cut the loopholes from our present tax code, and institute a higher rate for those making more than 1 million a year. And tax capital gains and divedends the same as normal income.

The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; created the Direct Student Loan Program; created the first nine Empowerment Zones and first 95 Enterprise Communities; and passed tax cuts for small businesses and research and development.

While I agree that capital gains should be taxed at a higher rate, we have to be careful with this because many capital gains are long term gains and a good percentage of the gains are actually only inflationary gains rather than real gains. It would be great if we could have two rates, a higher rate for short term gains, and a much lower rate for long term gains. I bet accountants would be drooling over that one.

 

[8537]

The largest tax hike since WW2 (TEFRA) led to the Reagan era creating millions of jobs!

The 1993 Clinton Tax Hike led to the greatest jobs expansion in US history, creating nearly 22M jobs in seven years!

<<See how easy that is?>>

 

[rdean]

No tax cuts for wealthy people ever created a single job.

Republicans don't even know the most basic of economics. Jobs are only created through "supply and demand". Without demand, there is no supply, hence, no jobs. PERIOD!

Moving the wealth of the nation to the top 1% ensures there will be no demand. Because no one has any money to spend. Yes Virginia, it's just that "simple".

The 50's was considered the "Golden Age" of the American Economy. The budget was balanced under the last Republican President to balance the budget. His name was Dwight Eisenhower. Too bad we don't go back to those rates. No one can possibly accuse President Eisenhower of being a "socialist" or a "communist". What would he think of today's rabid white wing? One wonders.

 

[Wiseacre]

The jobs created under Bush never even kept up with the young people gradauting from high school and college. And Clinton instituted tax increases, yet we had the greatest economic expansion in this nation from 1993 to 2001.


So I guess the tax CUTS that the GOP Congress passed had nothign to do with it, huh?


Essentially, you fellows are full of shit. The tax cuts benefited nobody but the very wealthy. The rest of us have seen our equity in both our homes and in the investments we made decrease dramatically under Bush. And they will even decrease further if the right wingnuts currently in control of Congress get their way.


Those tax cuts ceretainly did benefit everybody, what nonsense to say otherwise. The part of the tax cuts for the wealthy is dwarfed by the cuts to everybody, and your equity and investments did quite well from 2003 - 2007 when the recession hit. Which BTW had nothing to do with the tax cuts, and it is you sir who is full of shit.


If we wish to get the deficit reduced, we have to go back to the tax structure under Clinton, cut the loopholes from our present tax code, and institute a higher rate for those making more than 1 million a year. And tax capital gains and divedends the same as normal income.


Taxing capital gains and dividends as normal income is really stupid, talk about an economy killer that would do it. If you want the deficit reduced you're going to have to spend a lot less money and reduce the size of gov't. Hell, you idiot, raising taxes on the rich only gets you about $700 billion over 10 years, where are you going to get the other 9 trillion in deficits that Obama's budget will result in.


The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth

Enacted the 1993 Deficit Reduction Plan without a Single Republican Vote. Prior to 1993, the debate over fiscal policy often revolved around a false choice between public investment and deficit reduction. The 1993 deficit reduction plan showed that deficit and debt reductions could be accomplished in a progressive way by slashing the deficit in half and making important investments in our future, including education, health care, and science and technology research. The plan included more than $500 billion in deficit reduction. It also cut taxes for 15 million of the hardest-pressed Americans by expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit; created the Direct Student Loan Program; created the first nine Empowerment Zones and first 95 Enterprise Communities; and passed tax cuts for small businesses and research and development.

You wanna be adult about it, I'm good with that. You wanna get nasty or insulting, I can play that game too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No tax cuts for wealthy people ever created a single job.

That's a HUGE statement. Prove it.

 

[asterism]

The Obama's tax cuts wil create jobs as well.
But the left will never admit it.

What tax cuts?

 

[asterism]

No tax cuts for wealthy people ever created a single job.

Republicans don't even know the most basic of economics. Jobs are only created through "supply and demand". Without demand, there is no supply, hence, no jobs. PERIOD!

Moving the wealth of the nation to the top 1% ensures there will be no demand. Because no one has any money to spend. Yes Virginia, it's just that "simple".

The 50's was considered the "Golden Age" of the American Economy. The budget was balanced under the last Republican President to balance the budget. His name was Dwight Eisenhower. Too bad we don't go back to those rates. No one can possibly accuse President Eisenhower of being a "socialist" or a "communist". What would he think of today's rabid white wing? One wonders.

The 50s were a golden age? My parents and grandparents disagreed. How were the 50s better than even now?

 

[8537]

The Obama's tax cuts wil create jobs as well.
But the left will never admit it.

What tax cuts?

The stimulus bill included 300+B in tax cuts, including a reduction in the payroll tax.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Obama's tax cuts wil create jobs as well.
But the left will never admit it.

What tax cuts?

His renewal of the 2001/2003 tax cuts.
His reduction of the FICA tax.

 

[NYcarbineer]

2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

lets see how tax cuts from the 80s in addition with this has done

1980...... 90,528 74,154 24,263 1,077 4,454 18,733
1981...... 91,289 75,109 24,118 1,180 4,304 18,634
1982...... 89,677 73,695 22,550 1,163 4,024 17,363
1983...... 90,280 74,269 22,110 997 4,065 17,048
1984...... 94,530 78,371 23,435 1,014 4,501 17,920
1985...... 97,511 80,978 23,585 974 4,793 17,819
1986...... 99,474 82,636 23,318 829 4,937 17,552
1987...... 102,088 84,932 23,470 771 5,090 17,609
1988...... 105,345 87,806 23,909 770 5,233 17,906
1989...... 108,014 90,087 24,045 750 5,309 17,985

1990...... 109,487 91,072 23,723 765 5,263 17,695
1991...... 108,375 89,829 22,588 739 4,780 17,068
1992...... 108,726 89,940 22,095 689 4,608 16,799
1993...... 110,844 91,855 22,219 666 4,779 16,774
1994...... 114,291 95,016 22,774 659 5,095 17,020
1995...... 117,298 97,865 23,156 641 5,274 17,241
1996...... 119,708 100,169 23,409 637 5,536 17,237
1997...... 122,776 103,113 23,886 654 5,813 17,419
1998...... 125,930 106,021 24,354 645 6,149 17,560
1999...... 128,993 108,686 24,465 598 6,545 17,322

2000...... 131,785 110,995 24,649 599 6,787 17,263
2001...... 131,826 110,708 23,873 606 6,826 16,441
2002...... 130,341 108,828 22,557 583 6,716 15,259
2003...... 129,999 108,416 21,816 572 6,735 14,510
2004...... 131,435 109,814 21,882 591 6,976 14,315
2005...... 133,703 111,899 22,190 628 7,336 14,226
2006...... 136,086 114,113 22,531 684 7,691 14,155
2007...... 137,598 115,380 22,233 724 7,630 13,879
2008...... 136,790 114,281 21,334 767 7,162 13,406

Ok let us see what those tax cuts had to do with the housing bubble bursting?
any-one know?

Prove that the tax cuts created the jobs.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What created the 23 million jobs in the Clinton presidency?

 

[asterism]

The Obama's tax cuts wil create jobs as well.
But the left will never admit it.

What tax cuts?

The stimulus bill included 300+B in tax cuts, including a reduction in the payroll tax.

The stimulus tax cuts have not materialized. Just like most of the other programs, the devil is in the details. How much money has actually been saved by businesses? There is no IRS data on this and one reason as stated by an IRS employee I asked was "there was a very low participation level."

The reduction in the employee side of the payroll tax isn't going to have much of an effect on employment at all. It's about $120 Billion not taken out of the economy - less than one percent, does nothing to lower the costs to hire an employer and does nothing to reduce government intrusion into the marketplace. It will show how expensive and ineffective demand side economic intervention is though.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What created the 23 million jobs in the Clinton presidency?

Tell us.

 

[BlindBoo]

Most of the current deficit is a combination of the Bush era tax cuts and the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.