I don't get it

[MaggieMae]

Republicans seem to have had a memory lapse that the Bush tax cuts, which cost $1.35 trillion were set to expire to comply with Congressional rules, triggered by their own use of reconciliation, which required they either expire within 10 years or not increase the deficit.

 

[asterism]

Baloney. Compare a higher tax rate of 39.6 (I think) during the Clinton Administration and the economy was booming. The tax cuts of 2001-2003 were intended to keep the economy booming. So why did it begin to falter in 2007?

A natural downturn in the business cycle kicked it off and that was exacerbated by the financial situation not being addressed. Impending tax increases and other government actions expected to raise the costs of doing business had an effect also.

Revenue will start flowing back into the economy when people have JOBS, provided by the businesses run by the wealthy, and they can start spending again.

How does a tax increase help there?

Stop referring to this as a "tax increase," because it is NOT. If the percentage was going to be raised above 39%, that would be a tax increase. As it stands, the percentage will be dropped to where it was in the 90's when those same businesses were flourishing. They don't need the tax cuts to be extended.

One cannot "drop" the top marginal rate from the present rate to 39%. One can only increase the present rate to get it there. It's a tax increase because the tax rate is in fact increasing.

It seems you can't answer the question of how a tax increase is going to create jobs in the private sector. Don't fret it, nobody else can either.

 

[asterism]

Republicans seem to have had a memory lapse that the Bush tax cuts, which cost $1.35 trillion were set to expire to comply with Congressional rules, triggered by their own use of reconciliation, which required they either expire within 10 years or not increase the deficit.

The $1.35 Trillion "cost" of the tax cuts is an inaccurate number based on a static economic view. The previous GOP Congress does deserve the blame for their political bullshit, true.

 

[manu1959]

What's wrong with this picture?

America's millionaires rebound in 2009 - Mar. 9, 2010

U.S. households worth $1 million or more grew to 7.8 million in 2009, up 16%
from 2008, according to a survey from Spectrem Group, a Chicago-based market
research and consulting firm.

And

More Layoffs, Bigger Payoffs: CEOs Who Cut More Jobs Got Paid 42% More Money in 2009 - DailyFinance

But

Census Bureau Report: 1 in 7 in U.S. living in poverty | News-Leader.com | Springfield News-Leader

The overall poverty rate climbed to 14.3 percent, or 43.6 million people, the
Census Bureau said Thursday in its annual report on the economic well-being of
U.S. households. The report covers 2009, President Barack Obama's first year in
office.

If (according to low-taxes-for-wealthy proponents), tax relief is needed because they are the 'real' job creators, after 8 years of already enjoying tax cuts, where are the jobs, if that's what they do so well?

the best time to make money is at the bottom of a market......buy low sell high...rich people can buy stock at the bottom of the market because they have extra cash....

please tell me why the government should take more of their money simply because they are good at making it....

that is like saying well smart people get too good of grades so lets knock them all down to a B and give the D studennts a C....

 

[Wry Catcher]

Perhaps a better question is : since we have been stimulating the economy since 2001 why has the economy collapsed?

Deficit spending is stimulus.

Ooohh, ouch. Tell that to the Tea Party! Although Cheney once declared that deficits are good.

You need to read the entire article I linked. It explains why tax cuts did nothing to "stimulate" the economy. Frankly, I don't really 'blame" George Bush because I think his approach was to use the standard philosophical standards that have worked in the past. Nope, I blame greed on the part of already wealthy individuals who thought because of Bush's majority, that gave them carte blanche to do anything they wanted. And they invested overseas, slashed employee benefits, and kept incomes of their American employees low. In other words, the tax-cut-trickle-down theory backfired.

Tell it to the Tea Party?

Why? Do you even have the slightest inkling as to what you're talking about?

BTW: When will BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooOOOOOSHHHH references ever get stale enough for you to begin trying to defend you're own absurd notions?

At one time I believed your glib comments were a simple way for you to get attention; I'm now convinced you're incapable of critical thought and nothing more than a parrot of unproven and likely unprovable platitudes.
But, thanks for sharing.

 

[MaggieMae]

A natural downturn in the business cycle kicked it off and that was exacerbated by the financial situation not being addressed. Impending tax increases and other government actions expected to raise the costs of doing business had an effect also.



How does a tax increase help there?

Stop referring to this as a "tax increase," because it is NOT. If the percentage was going to be raised above 39%, that would be a tax increase. As it stands, the percentage will be dropped to where it was in the 90's when those same businesses were flourishing. They don't need the tax cuts to be extended.

One cannot "drop" the top marginal rate from the present rate to 39%. One can only increase the present rate to get it there. It's a tax increase because the tax rate is in fact increasing.

It seems you can't answer the question of how a tax increase is going to create jobs in the private sector. Don't fret it, nobody else can either.

I would answer your last question by asking another one, which is the crux of the entire thread: If those tax cuts were to be so beneficial to job creation, then why weren't there jobs created (or at least maintained) in the first place? I never claimed that a tax "increase" (if you must) would create jobs, just that the tax "cuts" haven't done squat anyway. So why not get that $1.35 trillion back into the treasury? After all, if Republicans gain control of the House, they will have the authority to spend it any way they want.

 

[william the wie]

These are simply absurd rationalizations even though many of them are demonstrably true.

The continuation of the Empire after the end of the European empires in about 1968 was and is an unnecessary massive drain on the economy. Money spent outside the US reduces the money spent and therefore the jobs created here in the US. Even in Japan which does spend big bucks to subsidize US troops stationed there, even those garrisons are probably a drain on the domestic US economy. Want the economy to turn around, phase out the imperial outposts to what is needed for intelligence gathering.

Second the drive to increase financial leverage while attacking savings with the tax code and inflation has reduced real investment. That has been continuous since the last deflationary year of 1958. What creates jobs is real aftertax savings invested in real capital equipment that provides goods and services at ever lower prices.

Third policies that ignore population will cause trouble. The huge jump in "Furlough babies" in 1943 has been a known depressant of economic activity in 2010 and years following since guess what, 1943. Early retirement into social security was known to be a problem for 2005 and years following for just as long yet Greenspan tried and succeeded to keep the housing bubble going as the leading edge of the baby boom was trading down.

Now do you get it?

 

[asterism]

Stop referring to this as a "tax increase," because it is NOT. If the percentage was going to be raised above 39%, that would be a tax increase. As it stands, the percentage will be dropped to where it was in the 90's when those same businesses were flourishing. They don't need the tax cuts to be extended.

One cannot "drop" the top marginal rate from the present rate to 39%. One can only increase the present rate to get it there. It's a tax increase because the tax rate is in fact increasing.

It seems you can't answer the question of how a tax increase is going to create jobs in the private sector. Don't fret it, nobody else can either.

I would answer your last question by asking another one, which is the crux of the entire thread: If those tax cuts were to be so beneficial to job creation, then why weren't there jobs created (or at least maintained) in the first place?

They were created and then the business cycle experienced a downturn. That downturn has been exacerbated by many other factors.

I never claimed that a tax "increase" (if you must) would create jobs, just that the tax "cuts" haven't done squat anyway.

I disagree and the impending tax increases are one factor in businesses not hiring right now.

So why not get that $1.35 trillion back into the treasury?

The economy is not static. The only way to get an extra $1.35 Trillion into the treasury is to remove it from the private sector.

After all, if Republicans gain control of the House, they will have the authority to spend it any way they want.

Which won't help either.

 

[Samson]

Ooohh, ouch. Tell that to the Tea Party! Although Cheney once declared that deficits are good.

You need to read the entire article I linked. It explains why tax cuts did nothing to "stimulate" the economy. Frankly, I don't really 'blame" George Bush because I think his approach was to use the standard philosophical standards that have worked in the past. Nope, I blame greed on the part of already wealthy individuals who thought because of Bush's majority, that gave them carte blanche to do anything they wanted. And they invested overseas, slashed employee benefits, and kept incomes of their American employees low. In other words, the tax-cut-trickle-down theory backfired.

Tell it to the Tea Party?

Why? Do you even have the slightest inkling as to what you're talking about?
Tell the Tea Party "deficits are good." READ. If you don't, you won't get what's said.

BTW: When will BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooOOOOOSHHHH references ever get stale enough for you to begin trying to defend you're own absurd notions?

Because an entire global economy doesn't crash in less than 2 years, genius.

My my my, you just hate anyone denigrating YOUR president, eh? Well now you know how I feel about you and your ilk constantly denigrating mine. Yours is 99% to blame for this economic mess; mine 1%. And I'll point that out every ******* chance I get. Deal with it.

You're Babbling.

Melt Down, Isle 3!!!!

 

[MaggieMae]

These are simply absurd rationalizations even though many of them are demonstrably true.

The continuation of the Empire after the end of the European empires in about 1968 was and is an unnecessary massive drain on the economy. Money spent outside the US reduces the money spent and therefore the jobs created here in the US. Even in Japan which does spend big bucks to subsidize US troops stationed there, even those garrisons are probably a drain on the domestic US economy. Want the economy to turn around, phase out the imperial outposts to what is needed for intelligence gathering.

Second the drive to increase financial leverage while attacking savings with the tax code and inflation has reduced real investment. That has been continuous since the last deflationary year of 1958. What creates jobs is real aftertax savings invested in real capital equipment that provides goods and services at ever lower prices.

Third policies that ignore population will cause trouble. The huge jump in "Furlough babies" in 1943 has been a known depressant of economic activity in 2010 and years following since guess what, 1943. Early retirement into social security was known to be a problem for 2005 and years following for just as long yet Greenspan tried and succeeded to keep the housing bubble going as the leading edge of the baby boom was trading down.

Now do you get it?

I get THAT, but now answer why, in spite of all the history elaborated above, the economy soared in the 90's with a higher tax rate and it's now in the tank with a lower tax rate, and none of the variables were significantly different.

 

[MaggieMae]

Tell it to the Tea Party?

Why? Do you even have the slightest inkling as to what you're talking about?
Tell the Tea Party "deficits are good." READ. If you don't, you won't get what's said.

BTW: When will BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooOOOOOSHHHH references ever get stale enough for you to begin trying to defend you're own absurd notions?

Because an entire global economy doesn't crash in less than 2 years, genius.

My my my, you just hate anyone denigrating YOUR president, eh? Well now you know how I feel about you and your ilk constantly denigrating mine. Yours is 99% to blame for this economic mess; mine 1%. And I'll point that out every ******* chance I get. Deal with it.

You're Babbling.

Melt Down, Isle 3!!!!

In case you still fail to notice, when one babbles to me, I expect the only thing he'll understand is a response in babble. Grow up, say something smart instead of smartASS, and you'll have my respect (as you know).

 

[asterism]

These are simply absurd rationalizations even though many of them are demonstrably true.

The continuation of the Empire after the end of the European empires in about 1968 was and is an unnecessary massive drain on the economy. Money spent outside the US reduces the money spent and therefore the jobs created here in the US. Even in Japan which does spend big bucks to subsidize US troops stationed there, even those garrisons are probably a drain on the domestic US economy. Want the economy to turn around, phase out the imperial outposts to what is needed for intelligence gathering.

Second the drive to increase financial leverage while attacking savings with the tax code and inflation has reduced real investment. That has been continuous since the last deflationary year of 1958. What creates jobs is real aftertax savings invested in real capital equipment that provides goods and services at ever lower prices.

Third policies that ignore population will cause trouble. The huge jump in "Furlough babies" in 1943 has been a known depressant of economic activity in 2010 and years following since guess what, 1943. Early retirement into social security was known to be a problem for 2005 and years following for just as long yet Greenspan tried and succeeded to keep the housing bubble going as the leading edge of the baby boom was trading down.

Now do you get it?

I get THAT, but now answer why, in spite of all the history elaborated above, the economy soared in the 90's with a higher tax rate and it's now in the tank with a lower tax rate, and none of the variables were significantly different.

PLENTY variables were widely different, starting with access to capital and a watershed moment of technology development.

 

[Samson]

Because an entire global economy doesn't crash in less than 2 years, genius.

My my my, you just hate anyone denigrating YOUR president, eh? Well now you know how I feel about you and your ilk constantly denigrating mine. Yours is 99% to blame for this economic mess; mine 1%. And I'll point that out every ******* chance I get. Deal with it.

You're Babbling.

Melt Down, Isle 3!!!!

In case you still fail to notice, when one babbles to me, I expect the only thing he'll understand is a response in babble. Grow up, say something smart instead of smartASS, and you'll have my respect (as you know).

Hey, I told you a while back what the name of the game was: Distract Americans with Soak The Rich Taxes, so voters won't notice the Insane Level Government Spending.

Pretty simple.

For some reason, this makes your head spin around uttering some nonsense about BUSHCHENEYHALLIBURTONIRAQ before you begin to levitate over the Tea Party.

Perhaps we can exorcise your demons.....

 

[william the wie]

These are simply absurd rationalizations even though many of them are demonstrably true.

The continuation of the Empire after the end of the European empires in about 1968 was and is an unnecessary massive drain on the economy. Money spent outside the US reduces the money spent and therefore the jobs created here in the US. Even in Japan which does spend big bucks to subsidize US troops stationed there, even those garrisons are probably a drain on the domestic US economy. Want the economy to turn around, phase out the imperial outposts to what is needed for intelligence gathering.

Second the drive to increase financial leverage while attacking savings with the tax code and inflation has reduced real investment. That has been continuous since the last deflationary year of 1958. What creates jobs is real aftertax savings invested in real capital equipment that provides goods and services at ever lower prices.

Third policies that ignore population will cause trouble. The huge jump in "Furlough babies" in 1943 has been a known depressant of economic activity in 2010 and years following since guess what, 1943. Early retirement into social security was known to be a problem for 2005 and years following for just as long yet Greenspan tried and succeeded to keep the housing bubble going as the leading edge of the baby boom was trading down.

Now do you get it?

I get THAT, but now answer why, in spite of all the history elaborated above, the economy soared in the 90's with a higher tax rate and it's now in the tank with a lower tax rate, and none of the variables were significantly different.

Age adjusted spending changed. The peak consumption happens at age 43, peak birth year was 1957 so peak consumption was in 2000. This was after consumption rising each year after the 1943 babies hit 43 in 86. Under those circumstances almost any tax policy works. 2001-7 saw some moderate but steadily declining consumption. 1965 the beginning of the 1965-81 birth dearth was the birth year of those who turned 43 in 2008 and even though it wasn't really that big a drop off in percentage terms (6.63% less total births in 1965 vs. 1964) with the amount of debt service and leverage in the economy the effects were amplified. No tax policy works well with a declining consumer population but the tax cuts were probably the least stupid way to go.

In sum the Fed governors paid no attention to the demographic econometric models popularized by Strauss & Howe as early as 1991 or even the more inflammatory Dent prediction of a housing bust in 2006 (made in 2004) but a lot of investors did and played the housing market quite well. Also contrary to the usual results of both the census and presidential cycles 2011 has been called as a nightmare year economically since 1991 because 1968 was the low water mark for total births in the 60s. That means the GOP has pretty much of a one way bet in claiming that the partial or total expiration of the tax cuts will tank the economy. Even if miracle of miracles they manage to pull off an extension of the tax cuts the economy will still most likely tank but the GOP leaders will claim with a straight face that they ameliorated the disaster of the Obama administration.

This is sort of like watching a UFC championship prior to the weight class divisions rule with Obama as the 98 lb. weakling going up against Godzilla no matter what he is going to lose because no one can win against these odds. By the way I think McCain deliberately sabotaged his own campaign in 08 to set this up. There are no old, bold pilots and he is a very old pilot.

 

[asterism]

These are simply absurd rationalizations even though many of them are demonstrably true.

The continuation of the Empire after the end of the European empires in about 1968 was and is an unnecessary massive drain on the economy. Money spent outside the US reduces the money spent and therefore the jobs created here in the US. Even in Japan which does spend big bucks to subsidize US troops stationed there, even those garrisons are probably a drain on the domestic US economy. Want the economy to turn around, phase out the imperial outposts to what is needed for intelligence gathering.

Second the drive to increase financial leverage while attacking savings with the tax code and inflation has reduced real investment. That has been continuous since the last deflationary year of 1958. What creates jobs is real aftertax savings invested in real capital equipment that provides goods and services at ever lower prices.

Third policies that ignore population will cause trouble. The huge jump in "Furlough babies" in 1943 has been a known depressant of economic activity in 2010 and years following since guess what, 1943. Early retirement into social security was known to be a problem for 2005 and years following for just as long yet Greenspan tried and succeeded to keep the housing bubble going as the leading edge of the baby boom was trading down.

Now do you get it?

I get THAT, but now answer why, in spite of all the history elaborated above, the economy soared in the 90's with a higher tax rate and it's now in the tank with a lower tax rate, and none of the variables were significantly different.

Age adjusted spending changed. The peak consumption happens at age 43, peak birth year was 1957 so peak consumption was in 2000. This was after consumption rising each year after the 1943 babies hit 43 in 86. Under those circumstances almost any tax policy works. 2001-7 saw some moderate but steadily declining consumption. 1965 the beginning of the 1965-81 birth dearth was the birth year of those who turned 43 in 2008 and even though it wasn't really that big a drop off in percentage terms (6.63% less total births in 1965 vs. 1964) with the amount of debt service and leverage in the economy the effects were amplified. No tax policy works well with a declining consumer population but the tax cuts were probably the least stupid way to go.

In sum the Fed governors paid no attention to the demographic econometric models popularized by Strauss & Howe as early as 1991 or even the more inflammatory Dent prediction of a housing bust in 2006 (made in 2004) but a lot of investors did and played the housing market quite well. Also contrary to the usual results of both the census and presidential cycles 2011 has been called as a nightmare year economically since 1991 because 1968 was the low water mark for total births in the 60s. That means the GOP has pretty much of a one way bet in claiming that the partial or total expiration of the tax cuts will tank the economy. Even if miracle of miracles they manage to pull off an extension of the tax cuts the economy will still most likely tank but the GOP leaders will claim with a straight face that they ameliorat"ed the disaster of the Obama administration.

This is sort of like watching a UFC championship prior to the weight class divisions rule with Obama as the 98 lb. weakling going up against Godzilla no matter what he is going to lose because no one can win against these odds. By the way I think McCain deliberately sabotaged his own campaign in 08 to set this up. There are no old, bold pilots and he is a very old pilot.

You make some very valid points. In the case of possibly ameliorating disaster, wouldn't that be the better action than to purposely contribute to it? Right now there seems to be a major disconnect with stated opinions on Economics. Keynesisans produce analyses that assume the GDP is static and tax rates have no effect on it, which is where the $1.3 Trillion (or 2.3 Trillion, $3 Trillion, etc.) "cost" of the 2001-2003 tax cuts comes as well as the "$700 Billion handout to the rich." But then when details of plans are viewed, concepts such as multipliers are included which to me means that even they believe in the notion that GDP is dynamic and is affected by tax rates.

So what's the argument in favor of higher taxation? So far all we hear is that the government needs it due to the massive debt. Does the government really go into debt because there isn't enough additional revenue? I think it's because there is too much additional spending.

Given your summary of the demographics, do you agree that we just have too much government and not enough governing?

 

[william the wie]

I agree very much with that last thought. Continuous tinkering at the margin such as the SEC in 2004 coming up with the Bear Stearns rule is a GOP example of bored bureaucrats urinating in the soup. The rule permitted investment banks to go from 12 to 1 leverage to 30 to 1 leverage. Call me a silly fool but increasing throughput capacity by roughly 2.5 times by dropping margin requirements from 7.69% to 3.23% as fool hardy in the best of times but during a mortgage securitization boom? Increasing demand for toxic assets by 138+% is not good. I mean sure liar loans were common in the 1830s, 1850s, 1870s, 1920s and 1980s too but at least no one knowingly asked for them just to keep the money rolling in. The Democrats may be worse in this respect but only as a matter of degree.

There are all sorts of tools available to better grade tax increases and decreases. One discussed on this board recently is PVIH (Present Value Infinite Horizon) instead of the Laffer Curve it is some sort of other curve and it should be on the last 4-5 pages of the economics archives. But yeah economic statics should never be considered as useless as teats on a boar, those teats simplify the pig genome whereas static analysis does nothing useful.

If you are a politician and want more tax money set up a lottery for non-Americans. Have lottery offices at all international ports of entry and allow all non-US IPs access to entry over the internet, accept text messages from non US cell phone locations then punitively tax any American who wins. That comes from the "don't tax me, don't tax thee, Let's tax the guy behind the tree" school of reelected politicians. People who can't vote in US elections are the guy behind the tree. Find ways to tax them to your heart's desire. That will not harm US economic growth.

 

[asterism]

I agree very much with that last thought. Continuous tinkering at the margin such as the SEC in 2004 coming up with the Bear Stearns rule is a GOP example of bored bureaucrats urinating in the soup. The rule permitted investment banks to go from 12 to 1 leverage to 30 to 1 leverage. Call me a silly fool but increasing throughput capacity by roughly 2.5 times by dropping margin requirements from 7.69% to 3.23% as fool hardy in the best of times but during a mortgage securitization boom? Increasing demand for toxic assets by 138+% is not good. I mean sure liar loans were common in the 1830s, 1850s, 1870s, 1920s and 1980s too but at least no one knowingly asked for them just to keep the money rolling in. The Democrats may be worse in this respect but only as a matter of degree.

There are all sorts of tools available to better grade tax increases and decreases. One discussed on this board recently is PVIH (Present Value Infinite Horizon) instead of the Laffer Curve it is some sort of other curve and it should be on the last 4-5 pages of the economics archives. But yeah economic statics should never be considered as useless as teats on a boar, those teats simplify the pig genome whereas static analysis does nothing useful.

If you are a politician and want more tax money set up a lottery for non-Americans. Have lottery offices at all international ports of entry and allow all non-US IPs access to entry over the internet, accept text messages from non US cell phone locations then punitively tax any American who wins. That comes from the "don't tax me, don't tax thee, Let's tax the guy behind the tree" school of reelected politicians. People who can't vote in US elections are the guy behind the tree. Find ways to tax them to your heart's desire. That will not harm US economic growth.

While I understand the folly in these misguided policies, the entire structure of manipulation by the government of the economy is the core problem as is the participation by the government in the economy.

It just doesn't work.

Your example assumes an efficient government bureaucracy to operate said lottery. That doesn't exist either.

 

[Flopper]

The one thing that we can say for sure about higher taxes is debt has increased as taxes have fallen. It's interesting that during the Eisenhower administration tax rates topped out at 90% and guess what. The rich got richer and middle class America's personal income rose 45%.

14 Ways a 90 Percent Top Tax Rate Fixes Our Economy and Our Country | OurFuture.org
American President: Dwight David Eisenhower: Domestic Affairs

 

[The Rabbi]

January 11, 2004


Two of President Bush's top advisers said Sunday they remain confident the administration's tax cuts will spur job creation soon despite a disappointing hiring report last week.


"The tax relief the president has given to this economy is working," Commerce Secretary Don Evans told CNN's "Late Edition." "On three separate occasions over the last three years, he's provided additional tax relief for American workers, American families, businesses across America, and guess what? It's working. The results are showing that it's working."


Bush economic advisers: Tax cuts will create jobs - CNN

You didnt cite the part where unemployment was 5.7%. Any reason?

 

[The Rabbi]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]November 18, 2005 [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]NEW YORK - Despite considerable opposition from lawmakers, including some within his Republican party, President George W. Bush seems determined to push ahead with plans to introduce further cuts in taxes for the rich, continuing to assert that it would create more jobs for the poor. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But the findings of a new study suggest that Bush's claim on job creation is based more on political rhetoric than actual facts related to the nation's economic realities.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It's a great sound bite that unfortunately does not hold true in the real world economy," say authors of the report, entitled, "Nothing to Be Thankful For: Tax Cuts and the Deteriorating U.S. Job Market."[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Changes in tax policy suggest no evidence of their impact on job creation or destruction, according to the 22-page study released Tuesday by United for a Fair Economy (UFE), an independent group that tracks the growing economic divide between the nation's haves and have-nots.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Since 1950, significant tax increases and decreases have both been followed by job losses and job gains, say the researchers. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Based on statistical analysis of changes in tax polices and rates of job growth in the past 60 years, the report points out that tax reduction does, however, disproportionately lead to economic disparity between the rich and poor.[/FONT]


Research Dispels Bush Claims That Tax Cuts Create Jobs

US unemployment 2005:5.1%
US unemployment 2006:4.6%
US unemployment 2007: 4.6%

Looks like your sources are all wrong and Bush was right.