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

[NYcarbineer]

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.

 

[kiwiman127]

If taxing the rich more and massive government spending created a jobs and a strong economy the Greek economy would be booming wouldn't it ?

And so would the economies in Spain, Portugal, Iceland, France, England, and other countries in the European Union.

Actually, some of the countries you mentioned, cut taxes for the wealthy and cut spending. After that their economies slowed and they are now in another recession. One of them is the UK and things are even getting worse.

 

[Erand7899]

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?

You have to be able to understand cause and effect, even when you are dealing with your bad facts. Clinton took office in a growing economy, that was being fueled by both the Dot.com boom and the housing boom. Clinton's tax increases did not cause either boom, since they already existed. There has never been a time in history, where tax increases helped any economy. Taking more money out of any economy is a drag on that economy, and although it may survive the tax hikes, the drag is still there. That is common sense.

The Dot.com boom busted at about the same time that Clinton left office, and the economy went into recession in March of 2001, three months after Bush took office. The Bush tax cuts ended that recession rapidly, and the economy was growing at a respectable rate when the housing bust started to hit us. The economy went back into recession in 2003, and more tax cuts ended that recession. The economy was growing again, and unemployment was down in the 4-5% range when the housing boom finally crashed in mid 2007.

The housing bust was a severe shock to our economy in many ways. The rapid drop in housing prices put millions of Americans in financial crisis. Many had been living off of the growing equities in their homes, and had refinanced them two or three times, as they spent the money on high living. Many others had maxed out their credit cards, expecting to pay them off by refinancing their homes. Others had speculated in housing, and got caught in the falling prices. All of these people were in distress, and had to rein in their spending. Consumption went down fast, and took the economy with it.

As we were dealing with the downward spirial of our economy, the financial crisis hit, brought on by the housing bust and the greed of many in the financial markets who had been getting rich off of all the new mortgages.

Bush dealt with the financial crisis with the $700 billion bailout bill. (Almost all of which has been paid back to the government, with interest, and spent by the Obama administration.)

The recession bottomed out in June of 2009, and if Obama had just left the damn thing alone, we would have had a healthy, growing economy by now, and most of the unemployed would have been back at work, and paying taxes.

 

[Qantrill]

I've enjoyed the Bush tax cuts, but it sure as hell hasn't transferred any "wealth" to my bank account. It increased my IRS refund by about 3% which amounted to maybe $200. If you call that "wealth", then you're somewhat retarded.

But I'll tell you what pisses me off...that transfer of "wealth" via an "earned income tax credit" for welfare leeches that "earn no income" TO TAX. Yet they live off all us taxpayers for their housing, their food, their medical benefits etc. and they STILL file an income tax return, and depending on the number of illegitimate kids they have, they get a big GD refund totalling thousands of dollars paid for by us morons who are retired or stupid enough to still be working for OUR VERY EXISTENCE.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Government spending only needs to be paid for if you prove government spending is better than government not spending

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If taxing the rich more and massive government spending created a jobs and a strong economy the Greek economy would be booming wouldn't it ?

And so would the economies in Spain, Portugal, Iceland, France, England, and other countries in the European Union.

Actually, some of the countries you mentioned, cut taxes for the wealthy and cut spending. After that their economies slowed and they are now in another recession. One of them is the UK and things are even getting worse.

Actually, what they did was raise taxes and "cut" spending. Come to think of it, isn't that what Obama wants to do?

 

[kiwiman127]

And so would the economies in Spain, Portugal, Iceland, France, England, and other countries in the European Union.

Actually, some of the countries you mentioned, cut taxes for the wealthy and cut spending. After that their economies slowed and they are now in another recession. One of them is the UK and things are even getting worse.

Actually, what they did was raise taxes and "cut" spending. Come to think of it, isn't that what Obama wants to do?

No, the wealthy got tax cuts. The UK's model is somewhat like what the right wants to institute in the US.
===================================
""The government is making life desperately hard for millions of people because of pay cuts for workers, while the rich are given tax cuts," he said.

Britain borrowed STG13 billion ($A20.25 billion) in September alone, and with other European countries - including next door neighbour Ireland - struggling to make good on their debt, and there is a general consensus that the UK budget needs to be rebalanced.

But the coalition government did little to endear itself with ordinary Britons when it reduced income taxes for the country's wealthiest citizens earlier this year.

And its leadership has struggled to fight perceptions of elitism which rankle many in this class-conscious country."
UK protesters decry austerity drive - Yahoo! Finance New Zealand
======================================

 

[flacaltenn]

From the OP.........

When Mitt Romney asserted in a recent interview that his tax rate was fair and that it was necessary for job creation,

Do you understand the diff between a NECESSARY condition and a SUFFICIENT condition? Obviously you have trouble with tax cuts being a "wealth transfer".. So maybe you don't get the fine points of what creates jobs..

Obama and the Leftist Revolution could cut taxes to zero tomorrow for EVERYONE and the economy would not budge. Not until they stop holding Energy policy, Immigration policy, Health policy, Tax/Spending policy, Regulatory policy --- holding them ALL HOSTAGE to uncertainty and inaction...

 

[flacaltenn]

President Obama's job creation record exceeds either term of 'W's, and also that of his father.

Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WTF??? Can't you read graphs and handle simple numbers??? No wonder you have such a hard time with the Global Warming debate....


From your link ---

The items to the right of the dotted line represent selected periods helpful to understanding the jobs debate.

From January 1, 2000 to January 1, 2008 (the pre-recession peak employment), about 7.5 million net new jobs were created, rather anemic by historical standards.
From the pre-recession peak (January 1, 2008) to the post-recession trough or low point (February 1, 2010), employment was reduced by 8.7 million jobs, about 6.4% of the labor force.
From February 1, 2009 (President Obama's inauguration was mid-month January) to September 2012, U.S. employment declined by 61,000.
From February 1, 2010 (the post-recession trough or employment low-point) to June 2012, U.S. employment increased by 4.2 million. Excluding approximately 500,000 government job losses during this period, the private sector job increase was 4.7 million.[3]

Where do you get the TOTALS for either BUSH versus OBAMA from those random periods and factoids????

You COULD BE right (naww -- i doubt it).. But the numbers given in that link have NO BEARING on admin totals because of the time periods chosen..

 

[bripat9643]

President Obama's job creation record exceeds either term of 'W's, and also that of his father.

Jobs created during U.S. presidential terms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Obama hasn't created a single job.

 

[The Irish Ram]

If taxing the rich more and massive government spending created a jobs and a strong economy the Greek economy would be booming wouldn't it ?

And so would the economies in Spain, Portugal, Iceland, France, England, and other countries in the European Union.

Actually, some of the countries you mentioned, cut taxes for the wealthy and cut spending. After that their economies slowed and they are now in another recession. One of them is the UK and things are even getting worse.

Wasn't it France that just announced that they were going to pull an Obama on their companies and 'tax the rich' at a rate of 75%? How many companies opted for a less greedy environment?
If you make it appealing to come to America, companies will come. And hire people.

The 1% aren't the wealthiest in this country. America is the 1% to Obama. Relieving us of it is a dream from his father.

 

[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.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, some of the countries you mentioned, cut taxes for the wealthy and cut spending. After that their economies slowed and they are now in another recession. One of them is the UK and things are even getting worse.

Actually, what they did was raise taxes and "cut" spending. Come to think of it, isn't that what Obama wants to do?

No, the wealthy got tax cuts. The UK's model is somewhat like what the right wants to institute in the US.
===================================
""The government is making life desperately hard for millions of people because of pay cuts for workers, while the rich are given tax cuts," he said.

Britain borrowed STG13 billion ($A20.25 billion) in September alone, and with other European countries - including next door neighbour Ireland - struggling to make good on their debt, and there is a general consensus that the UK budget needs to be rebalanced.

But the coalition government did little to endear itself with ordinary Britons when it reduced income taxes for the country's wealthiest citizens earlier this year.

And its leadership has struggled to fight perceptions of elitism which rankle many in this class-conscious country."
UK protesters decry austerity drive - Yahoo! Finance New Zealand
======================================

Believe it or not, austerity, by definition, means that you cut social service spending, which explains why all the poor people who rely on the government dole turn out in force. It is occasionally accompanied by tax increases. The UK did not cut taxes on anyone when they implanted their austerity program, they have cuts planned for early next year.

 

[rdean]

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.

 

[rdean]

Actually, what they did was raise taxes and "cut" spending. Come to think of it, isn't that what Obama wants to do?

No, the wealthy got tax cuts. The UK's model is somewhat like what the right wants to institute in the US.
===================================
""The government is making life desperately hard for millions of people because of pay cuts for workers, while the rich are given tax cuts," he said.

Britain borrowed STG13 billion ($A20.25 billion) in September alone, and with other European countries - including next door neighbour Ireland - struggling to make good on their debt, and there is a general consensus that the UK budget needs to be rebalanced.

But the coalition government did little to endear itself with ordinary Britons when it reduced income taxes for the country's wealthiest citizens earlier this year.

And its leadership has struggled to fight perceptions of elitism which rankle many in this class-conscious country."
UK protesters decry austerity drive - Yahoo! Finance New Zealand
======================================

Believe it or not, austerity, by definition, means that you cut social service spending, which explains why all the poor people who rely on the government dole turn out in force. It is occasionally accompanied by tax increases. The UK did not cut taxes on anyone when they implanted their austerity program, they have cuts planned for early next year.

There are very few people who just "get money" from the government for no reason other than they are blind or have no arms or legs or they are severely retarded.

When Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan lied about the "work requirement", they were talking about "welfare". If those people didn't work, then there wouldn't be any "work requirement" to talk about. Explaining the simplest things is so exhausting.

For a family of four, with both parents working for minimum wage, they rely on food stamps and day care. They are making minimum wage. Republicans want to end minimum wage and punish them for being poor. Republicans are fuckers. They hate too many other Americans. Republicans are feared around the world for their ignorance and violent tendencies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, the wealthy got tax cuts. The UK's model is somewhat like what the right wants to institute in the US.
===================================
""The government is making life desperately hard for millions of people because of pay cuts for workers, while the rich are given tax cuts," he said.

Britain borrowed STG13 billion ($A20.25 billion) in September alone, and with other European countries - including next door neighbour Ireland - struggling to make good on their debt, and there is a general consensus that the UK budget needs to be rebalanced.

But the coalition government did little to endear itself with ordinary Britons when it reduced income taxes for the country's wealthiest citizens earlier this year.

And its leadership has struggled to fight perceptions of elitism which rankle many in this class-conscious country."
UK protesters decry austerity drive - Yahoo! Finance New Zealand
======================================

Believe it or not, austerity, by definition, means that you cut social service spending, which explains why all the poor people who rely on the government dole turn out in force. It is occasionally accompanied by tax increases. The UK did not cut taxes on anyone when they implanted their austerity program, they have cuts planned for early next year.

There are very few people who just "get money" from the government for no reason other than they are blind or have no arms or legs or they are severely retarded.

When Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan lied about the "work requirement", they were talking about "welfare". If those people didn't work, then there wouldn't be any "work requirement" to talk about. Explaining the simplest things is so exhausting.

For a family of four, with both parents working for minimum wage, they rely on food stamps and day care. They are making minimum wage. Republicans want to end minimum wage and punish them for being poor. Republicans are fuckers. They hate too many other Americans. Republicans are feared around the world for their ignorance and violent tendencies.

Hey, genius, we are talking about the IK, where everyone who doesn't work gets a Job Seekers Allowance, colloquially called the Dole, not benefits in the US.

 

[auditor0007]

If taxing the rich more and massive government spending created a jobs and a strong economy the Greek economy would be booming wouldn't it ?

If cutting taxes was the answer, we would now be swimming in jobs and incomes would be rising. The problem we keep running into is that we are stuck with too many people who put ideology before reason. Tax rates are at their lowest levels in over 60 years, and this coincides with us having the lowest tax revenues in over 60 years as a percentage of GDP. Now that doesn't mean that we aren't also spending too much, but it really kills the argument that the answer to increase revenues is to cut taxes further.

This idea that rich people only invest money if they get huge tax cuts is crazy. So is the idea that if we raise taxes any, then the wealthy will quit trying to make more money because they don't want the government getting their money.

 

[Shelzin]

If taxing the rich more and massive government spending created a jobs and a strong economy the Greek economy would be booming wouldn't it ?

If cutting taxes was the answer, we would now be swimming in jobs and incomes would be rising. The problem we keep running into is that we are stuck with too many people who put ideology before reason. Tax rates are at their lowest levels in over 60 years, and this coincides with us having the lowest tax revenues in over 60 years as a percentage of GDP. Now that doesn't mean that we aren't also spending too much, but it really kills the argument that the answer to increase revenues is to cut taxes further.

This idea that rich people only invest money if they get huge tax cuts is crazy. So is the idea that if we raise taxes any, then the wealthy will quit trying to make more money because they don't want the government getting their money.

They'll try to invest it in some way... Interesting stance.

 

[idb]

If taxing the rich more and massive government spending created a jobs and a strong economy the Greek economy would be booming wouldn't it ?

And so would the economies in Spain, Portugal, Iceland, France, England, and other countries in the European Union.

Actually, some of the countries you mentioned, cut taxes for the wealthy and cut spending. After that their economies slowed and they are now in another recession. One of them is the UK and things are even getting worse.

And Iceland is doing pretty well by using limited the austerity measures while preserving the social safety net and working on closing the gap between rich and poor.

 

[Oldstyle]

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.