Rubio: Jobless Benefits Must Be Paid For But Tax Cuts Are Free!

[Joanne98]

Run time: 02:39 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v3zvxUXjP4   Posted on YouTube: July 19, 2010 By YouTube Member: ThinkProgress2 Views on YouTube: 162   Posted on DU: July 19, 2010 By DU Member: Joanne98 Views on DU: 731

 

[JDPriestly]

1. Rubio is saying that businesses have money with which to invest

and hire, but they are not investing and hiring because they don't like the fact that Democrats are in power.

Sounds like the Republican businessmen are sabotaging our economy. Isn't that the equivalent of a boycott of some sort?

Is Rubio wrong. Is his statement that businesses have the money but are refusing to spend it as a sort of sabotage, a punishment for policies they don't support simply false?

Or is this something that needs to be explored further and talked about.

If Rubio is lying, he should be outed in the press for this malicious lie that could so easily hurt the whole nation -- both in terms of the political process and the economy.

If he is telling the truth, sounds like voters should be told how they are being threatened by those with money.

What's the real deal here? Is Rubio talking through his hat? Or do we have a rebellion under another name here?

When very wealthy people sit on their money and refuse to invest and contribute to the economic progress of our country, it is way past time to increase their taxes.

In very early America, when Europeans were just immigrating here, before slavery had really taken root, before we really understood the culture of the indigenous American Indians as we do today, land was cheap. It was available to anyone willing to work hard to use it for relatively little money and a few years of work. That is the America we love -- the land of equal opportunity. Wealthy Americans have a decision to make -- America, love it or leave it.

[txlibdem]

6. We bailed them out and now they're refusing to part with any money

Big business and big banking take our bailout money then Obama gives them a $130 Billion tax break as part of the stimulus package. Now they're holding onto all "their" money and strangling the economy.

Does anyone need to spell it out? Trickle down... DOESN'T.

What if Obama had used the entire $700 Billion stimulus to create a WPA jobs program that would employ the millions who are now out of work. They put all or most of their wages back into the economy and we pull ourselves out of the mess that the Rebudlickans put us in.

WPA worked in the 1930s and it would have worked again. I've written to the President to suggest this a number of times but he doesn't like any ideas that come from Democrats it seems.

[dencol]

2. I'm surprised the reporter caught it.

The republicans are claiming that the tax breaks are paid for by economic expansion, when in fact, unemployment benefits are actually a much better form of stimulus and would actually be "paid for" much better than any tax reductions.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

7. Just what I was thinking

Unemployment benefits are put almost immediately back into the economy. Groceries, bills, rent, etc. Take away unemployment and suddenly small business is taking in less money.

Meanwhile, giving rich people more money just means they put more away. Their bills are paid, and how much food can rich people eat?

I also think it's funny to hear this clown talk about "entitlements" and in the next breath say rich people need more tax breaks. Talk about your sense of entitlment...

[smuglysmiling]

3. Would someone point out

FUTA taxes are paid specifically to cover unemployment benefits...they are paid for already.

[OnlinePoker]

8. FUTA taxes were calculated on a specific expected unemployment period (26 weeks)

I expect these taxes will go up as a result of the extensions on benefits. To say they were paid for already is only partly accurate. They were paid for only up to 26 weeks of benefits and any extension will end up being funded by the working taxpayer. In Canada, the Chretien government robbed the EI fund to pay down the national debt (lowering the EI tax at the same time), but as soon as the unemployment rate went up and there wasn't enough money in the kitty to pay all the claims, the Harper government raised the tax back up again to cover the deficit. The biblical allusion of saving up during seven good years for the seven bad years to follow is lost on politicians who seem to think only as far as the next election and what their tax cuts or increased spending can do to get them re-elected. Just once I'd like to see these clowns think about 10 to 20 years down the road instead of 2 to 4 as is common now.

[smuglysmiling]

9. it is currently...

8% of the first $7,000.00. Seems like plenty should have been collected to cover the benefits. The way the government keeps it's accounts might be the problem...an accountant's nightmare for sure.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

4. Rubio is in denial of the facts.........

This chart shows what a $1 investment in each of these programs will get you. I don't know how Rubio can keep a straight face when he says that tax cuts for the rich are stimulative.

[AlbertCat]

5. But the tax cuts for rich folks DON'T excite people about growth

They just make it so the rich can buy another yacht.... in France.

How about pointing that out.

Think of all the jobs created if the Government spent to revamp infrastructure and retool to clean energy. Talk about potential for the future!

Point that out too.