Economy Adds 180,000 Jobs, Unemployment Dips

[red states rule]

I'm just guessing here. If taxes are the government's main source of income then doesn't it follow that if those taxes are cut then the income drops?

Wrong

When you cut taxes that leaves more money in peoples pocket

They will spend, and/or invest that money

It causing economic growth. More people are hired, thus more people are paying taxes

With more economic growth more taxes are collected from capital gaines and corporate taxes (even though the customers of the companies pay the taxes)

Tax cuts have INCREASED revenues for JFK, Ronald Reagan, and Pres Bush

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm just guessing here. If taxes are the government's main source of income then doesn't it follow that if those taxes are cut then the income drops?

NO. That is a common mistake and fallacy. Even the MSM pushes that idea. Its like this, the govt DOESNT grow the economy. They basically provide services, but PRODUCE nothing. Production is the key to the economy. Even offices where no manufacturing is occuring, are producing something down the line, but govt produces NOTHING.
Now, when the private sector has more of its money, that makes more money to invest (thats why they call it capatilism) they generate more profits, and 25% of 100 is less than 22% of 150.
This thing about the rich getting richer, and I disagree with gunny about the corporate greed and CEO's making too much money, when the rich get richer, they dont go out and buy a bigger house, boat or car. You think Bill Gates would buy a bigger house if he got a massive tax cut? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO way. He re invests it. ANd also he provides a LOT of charity. Charities are much more efficient at doing things for the general public than the govt is. If charities are ripping people off, we can do something about it. If the govt rips us off, especially if its the republilcans, what do we do? WE ******* MAKE THE GOVT BIGGER BY CREATING MORE OVERSIGHT COMMITEES. Its ******* insane.

 

[Rosotar]

I dont understand why you think corporate greed is so bad for the economy.

Well, when your daughter grows up and a modest house in the suburbs costs her three and a half million dollars she'll understand.

Of course she probably won't live that long thanks to you mom.

She'll probably be drafted at eighteen, shortly after graduaduation and she will be sent off to a foreign battlefield to fight the future generation of "terrorists" that your president has created with the policies that you support.

She may "survive" but probably not. Chances are she will die a miserable lonely death in a muddy street with parts of her intenstines wrapped around her legs and ankles just like the soldiers who died today in Iraq in this "war" that you cheer for.

Hey mom... if it's good enough for them it's good enough for your little bumble of joy too, right?

Don't act shocked or outraged.

It's a little late for that wouldn't you say?

 

[red states rule]

Well, when your daughter grows up and a modest house in the suburbs costs her three and a half million dollars she'll understand.

Of course she probably won't live that long thanks to you mom.

She'll probably be drafted at eighteen, shortly after graduaduation and she will be sent off to a foreign battlefield to fight the future generation of "terrorists" that your president has created with the policies that you support.

She may "survive" but probably not. Chances are she will die a miserable lonely death in a muddy street with parts of her intenstines wrapped around her legs and ankles just like the soldiers who died today in Iraq in this "war" that you cheer for.

Hey mom... if it's good enough for them it's good enough for your little bumble of joy too, right?

Don't act shocked or outraged.

It's a little late for that wouldn't you say?

Libs are still upset when they see tax cuts are good for the economy

The current economic numbers are equal to or better then Clinton's - and the Bush haters walk around in disbelief

 

[red states rule]

Safely assuming that the actual MTS report coming out Thursday has only tiny changes to the above, here's a quick analysis:

Spending -- Up 3.4% for the year. The spending increase for the month of April looks bad, but it was expected to go up a lot. That's because April 2006's spending was lower than most months before or after it in fiscal 2006. The 3.4% increase in spending for the fiscal year thus far is still below the 5%-plus level I used when I predicted that this year's deficit will be $177 billion. It would be nice to think that the rate of increase won't be higher by the end of the year, but it's probably more realistic to expect it to come in a 4.0% - 4.5%.
Collections -- Up 11.3% for the year. Taylor failed to note the number ($385 billion) and the status (all-time record) of April's collections. Thanks to those record collections, receipts in this fiscal year thus far are up by a lot more than the 9% I was using. It would be nice to think that the 11%-plus increase will hold for the rest of the year, but even 10% would be impressive.
The Deficit -- Down 55% compared to this time last year. The numbers through seven months would seem to point to a full-year deficit that will probably be lower than even the CBO's revised number of $150 billion. Replicating last year's $64 billion deficit during the final five months of last year would lead to a full-year deficit of $147 billion, and the trends heading into this year's final five months appear to be much more favorable.
http://newsbusters.org/node/12557

 

[sealybobo]

Even IF that were true, so what? Trying to distract attention away for the sucess of the economy and the greatest story never told.

Your point is like someone pointing out that Lou Gehrig had a great year in 1927 hitting 49 home runs, then someone saying, that might be good for him, but Ruth hit 60 that year. SO WHAT? ITS ALL GOOD. (even though, as some have pointed out, Clintons sucess was largely on a bogus bubble that Bush had to make up for.)

Libs cannot stand good economic news

The liberal media will find a way to try and turn good news into bad news

'Today' Pushes Class Warfare After Dow Breaks 13,000
Posted by Mark Finkelstein on April 26, 2007 - 10:27.
Producer of an MSM morning news show? Got a few minutes to fill at the end of your first half-hour? Why not resort to a tried-and-true winner: a bit of good old class warfare?

That was the "Today" formula this morning. Matt Lauer introduced the segment, enviously entitled "Share the Wealth?: The Rich Get Richer," fanning the flames of envy and resentment with this opener:

TODAY CO-HOST MATT LAUER: Do you feel like you're working harder and harder nowadays just to stay financially afloat while fat cats get richer and richer? It's not just a feeling, and you're not alone. The story now from from CNBC's Scott Cohn.

View video here.

"Fat cats," Matt? Like morning-show hosts pulling in $13 million a year?

Cut to Cohn, with footage of Richard David Story, editor of the magazine for American Express's "most elite cardmembers," holders of the black Centurion card. Amidst shots of mounds of jewelry and rich people being pampered, Cohn explained that Story "is on a constant quest for the glitziest, the most glamorous, for an audience that just keeps wanting more."
150 Years of Global Warming and Cooling at the New York Times

See what happens when you speak out?