Tax Cuts for the Rich Do not Create Jobs, You Right Wing Idiot Corporate Ass Kissers!

[McCamy Taylor]

Merde! Pardon my French, but I am hopping mad! If you want to know why, take a look at this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20010506-503544.html

The nation’s Chamber of Commerce are trying to blame Obama for the high unemployment rate. They claim that if the federal government would only hand out more welfare for the nation’s uber rich, the uber rich would turn around and create more jobs.

Bullshit.

I have already written about the relative economic impact of various forms of federal government economic stimulus spending here:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/440

Briefly, education spending is the best way to jump start an economy. Tax cuts for the wealthy is the very worst, below even military spending in its economic impact. Why? Because the rich already spend as much as they want to spend. Any extra money they receive goes into the bank or is used to snatch up bargain rate investments---like the property of the middle class unemployed.

Bush’s tax cuts for the rich added to the nation’s deficit. It gave banksters more money to invest in betting that our mortgages would fail. It gave them an incentive to drive us out of our homes. It widened the gap between the rich and the rest of us, diminishing the political clout of the middle class, so that we are now that much closer to being a permanent corporate fascist state.

If tax cuts for the rich created jobs at home, why did so many companies fire American workers and outsource jobs to places like India under Bush? Federal spending that encourages job creation at home encourages job creation at home. Write the rich a blank check, and they will run their companies in a way that maximizes their short term profits.

Most galling of all are the Republicans who want to cut programs like “Head Start” in order to erase the deficit which they created through their war spending, tax cuts for the rich, oil giveaways and other forms of corporate welfare. “But we can not stop giving tax cuts to the rich,” they whine collectively. “Taxes are bad!” Idiot politicians on the right who claim that tax cuts are not a form of federal spending have their heads up Big Business’s ass.



P.S. Doesn't it just burn you up! The only time high unemployment and jobs creation becomes a priority for the corporate media is when they can use it to demand more tax cuts for their corporate masters. "Oh, the poor unemployed! We feel their suffering. Quick, give us some more money to ease our pain."

[Lifelong Protester]

1. We all know that Republicans are using this downturn

to push their repeal of ALL programs that help people, from those of the New Deal to the Great Society.
Talk about playing on people's fears. Where were all these deficit hawks when two useless wars were ramping up?

[bjobotts]

41. The Bush tax cuts were the single largest contributor to the deficit and no jobs were created

[bjobotts]

42. Extending unemploment benefits adds $30 billion to deficit; Bush tax cuts adds $678 billion

[bjobotts]

43. Republican deficit reduction is complete hypocrisy. They only care about the wealthy not deficit

[bjobotts]

45. At the 2009 level the estate tax only affects 0.02% of the population but adds billions to deficit

[bjobotts]

48. If people feel the dems may disappoint, remember the alternative is 100Xs worse

It will only take one more session of republican control to finish destroying our democracy. Yes, I get mad at democratic inertia also but what other choice is there. The republican tea party is insane and filled with hatred and violence. They really believe if the majority wins and wants to take the country in another direction then the minority must destroy the government because only "their" way is the right way. They only believe in democracy when they are in power and all the 'people' agree with them. We must get fired up to prevent another republican disaster. These idiots want to return to the Bush economic plan which created no jobs and virtually destroyed the nation and its economy.

A government take over of health care...hell, we should be so lucky. Nationalization of the oil industry...hell yes. Tear up our trade agreements...you betcha. Dems brought us the ONLY policies that made this country great and strengthened the commons and the republicans want to repeal and destroy them all. Bush tax cuts, and the estate tax will bring only more poverty and lead to a plutocracy.

$30 billion to help the needy unemployed...repubs say NO we can't add to the deficit.

$678 billion in tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires added to the deficit...repubs say deficits don't matter.
These republicans must be stopped now to save our nation. Get fired up and tell people because the MSM isn't going to.

[unpossibles]

68. agree a million times

I'd like to think we all learned just how awful the "worse of two evils" can be during the Bush misadminstration, but apparently we did not.

[backtomn]

77. I'm sorry....but, that is crap.....

God help you if your family owned a farm. Thanks for attacking the family farm owner. Geez.

[newspeak]

82. I've heard that shite before

most farms today are corporate, not family. So, how about they exempt up to certain dollar amount for family farms? Of course, the repugs, when asked about the tax, would they vote for the bill if they exempted up to five million, repugs said no, ten million, repugs said no. They aren't worried about the damn family farm. But, they sure pull some people's heart strings--they're more worried about their greedy friends having to pay anything. And, another thing, I didn't earn what my relatives have, they earned it--yet, I'm supposed to feel entitled to get all of it--that which I never even earned.

[Sherman A1]

63. Agreed & Well Said

:thumbsup:

[DailyGrind51]

80. They invested their tax cuts in mortgage backed securites and derivatives resulting in the big bust!

[jmowreader]

85. You know exactly where they were when those wars were ramping up

They were going on Billo, Hannity, and all the other RW Talking Head shows calling liberals disloyal, traitors, murderers, babykillers and worse for not supporting Shrub's Wars.

[Toucano]

2. If only I could recommend a thread more than once. n/t

[oberst steiner]

91. use my thread

i'm not sure that you can recommend only 1 thread, but i'll let you use mine if you'd like.

[aquart]

3. Nonsense. It's an Ass Kisser Full Employment program.

[EstimatedProphet]

4. Demand creates jobs. Period.

That's the only thing that creates jobs. Demand. Anyone who believes that a tax cut will create jobs is free to take their tax cut and begin a company that makes bubonic plague pasta, and see how long they stay in business. And nothing creates more demand than available money in the hands of people. So cutting taxes for the rich, at the expense of the far larger group of people in the poor and middle-classes, makes jobs go away.

[The_Commonist]

11. Mmmm... Bubonic plague pasta!

The "Trickle-Down Theory" is really an Orwellian misnomer for what I call the "Tony Soprano Mob Rule" - Shit Flows Downhill and Money Flows Uphill.

The really smart rich people who decided they wanted more of the pie convinced the really dumb not-rich people that money would trickle down to them if they just stopped taxing the rich. What ended up happening is that now Shit Gushes Downhill and Money Gushes Uphill.

Supply-side is bullshit.
Demand-side is the only thing works in the long run...

[JHB]

65. I like to say there actually is a real "trickle down economics", but it's not the Reaganite crap...

...it's what we had before then, when high marginal taxes imposed a "top line" for the well-heeled to factor into their financial decisions, not just the bottom line. They had to make real investments, not siphon off huge amounts of cash all at once, to keep large chunks of it from going to Uncle Sam.

The current system encourages liquidation and speculation, not real investment.


If you want to buld an incubator, you usually need to put a top on it. It's not very efficient if it lets all the heat out.

[Hannah Bell]

12. demand doesn't create jobs either. there a millions of people who want food, cars,

piped water, whatever.

they don't have money.

so no jobs are created to serve their demand.

the "demand" has to offer potential profit before jobs are created.

[EstimatedProphet]

15. Economically, want and demand aren't the same thing

Demand is want with ability to buy.

[Hannah Bell]

17. in the common tongue, that distinction is murky, & this is a general forum, not a special economists

forum.

so making it explicit. demand per se generates nothing. & even economic "demand" generates nothing if the demand is insufficient to generate the desired profit margin.

[EstimatedProphet]

18. In economic terms, the distinction is not murky at all

And those are the terms that matter to this discussion. "Demand" is not the same as "want", any more than a scientific "theory" is the same thing as "theory" as it is used by the man in the street. This is far from being a "special economist's" term. You are using the word wrong. "Demand" refers to the demand-side of the supply-demand curve, and by definition implies consumption of a provided good or service. It therefore includes the ability to pay, which is what enables the exchange to take place on the demand side.

[Hannah Bell]

25. i understand the common use of the english language fine, thanks. & i understand

the economic meaning of demand as well, despite your continued flogging of the same dead horse.

[EstimatedProphet]

28. It's germaine to the discussion

Maybe I can't help but resent the fact that you decided to un-correct me originally, by in effect stating "I don't like the word you are using because I don't get it, so I say it's wrong." In any case, I'm done with this. As I am with you.

[Hannah Bell]

39. i got it fine. it has an ambiguous meaning. my intention was not to "correct" you as though you

were a schoolboy who'd mispelled something, but to make explicit the constituents of demand. it's unfortunate that you took it personally. this is a discussion forum.

[sendero]

46. Everybody understands what the term "demand"..

... means in the context of economics. Except, apparently, you.

[Hannah Bell]

49. if you say so.

[backtomn]

78. I appreciate your effort.....but,

I am not sure that people enough people here care. We need to do more do help people to afford things than to push companies to make them cheaper and make no profit. Whether you like it or not, profit drives this system. If you don't like it....move and find another system.

[EstimatedProphet]

100. Certainly profit drives the system, as the reward for supplying a demand

The point I am making really isn't subtle though, and certainly not meaningless. For years now we've been sold a bill of goods by the right; namely, "Business creates jobs." No it doesn't, and it is important to understand that it doesn't. When we think that business creates jobs, we cannot help but fall into a mindset of obligation towards business. We see this played out now when people talk about having to bail out businesses that fail or perform badly, or act unethically. Since everyone knows "Business creates jobs", now we have to rescue them when they fuck everything up, or else they won't provide any more jobs for us. We end up in an appeasement mentality, and we have to break out of that mentality if we are ever going to actually fix the system. If people did understand the way things work in economics, then they wouldn't fall into the appeasement mentality. How many times have we heard "BP provides jobs for the gulf coast" this summer, especially in the context of griping about the $20 billion payout? BP doesn't provide one single job - demand for oil provides all of them, and BP puts their logo on it and makes $4 billion in clear profit every 3 months. If the demand for oil went away, BP wouldn't have a single employee, regardless of all the equipment and oil leases they have. And it really does count for this discussion. If we buy into the "Business creates jobs" mindset, then we have to accept the argument that things which business wants will help it create jobs - such as tax cuts. But if we understand that demand creates jobs, then the idea that tax cuts for business will create jobs no longer makes sense, and can't be pulled over on the public anymore.

[backtomn]

79. Your issue appears to be "Profit Margin"

Although I don't know why?? Something is worth what it is worth. People always have the right to NOT pay for it. That is what controls price. I am not sure if you were criticizing Profit Margin or if you just don't understand. Should things cost less?? Maybe so....but if people were only willing to pay less, it would happen.

[Hannah Bell]

89. you missed the point. your comments have nothing to do with anything i said.

totally, completely beside the point.

[OJones]

93. Good point, HB.

Thanks for posting.

[Dulcinea]

5. What do they care?

The uber-rich have what they want, and screw everyone else.

We threw money at the banks, who were supposed to use TARP money to create jobs. What happened? They're sitting on that money, hoping to ride out this recession at the taxpayers' expense! They won't do anything that doesn't guarantee a huge quarterly return. So, We The People get nothing.

[peace frog]

66. Indeed

They have no incentive whatsoever to give one rat's ass about any of us little people, so why should they?

[mrcheerful]

6. Didn't the nit wits try this for 8 yeaars and ended up loosing more jobs then they ever created?

Or are we supposed to forget those 8 years as something other then tax give a ways to the rich and pretend they never happened? I forgot what I'm supposed to forget.

edited for forgetting instead of forgotting.

[deaniac21]

21. Yeah, they were really lose with their money.

[Sebastian Doyle]

7. If tax cuts for the rich created jobs

Then there should have been millions of jobs created under the Chimpministration. And more under the Obama administration, since he hasn't ended them.

Clearly that's not the case. The "trickle down" economics theory is flawed from the beginning. The idea being "if the rich have more money, they will spend and/or invest more money". But it doesn't work that way. Because the rich, by definition of BEING rich, always have money to spend and/or invest anyway. Giving them more money is not an incentive.

And giving tax "cuts" to those who really don't pay taxes in the first place (due to using every loophole their lawyers and accountants can find) is especially a dumb idea, because it shifts the tax burden to those who do have to actually work for a living. Which happens to be an ever decreasing number, thanks to "piss on you and tell you it's raining" eCONomics.

[Frisbee]

8. Actually, they probably do...

You know, the illegal aliens the very wealthy hire to maintain the lawns at their new second (or third or fourth) homes. But that's probably about it.

[Rex]

9. And what do the unemployed have to look forward to?

NOT help from their govt...at least not Congress or I would bet the SCOTUS. I expect Obama to do something drastic here, like create jobs FDR style. What's that? A SECOND social security program? Yeah, the working poor would get behind TWO retirement checks...lest we forget social security is a RETIREMENT program for future generations of YOUNG PEOPLE and elderly people that worked all their LIVES, does that mean so little in America? YOU WORK YOUR ONE FUCKING SHOT AT EXISTENCE for someone...not enough? Need more? Blood, piss, a pound of flesh? Young people won't put up with this SHIT, it is a generational thing...just watch.

[JDPriestly]

53. FDR raised the tax rate on marginal income of $100,000 or more

to something like 83%. During the roaring 20s, the marginal tax rate on $100,000 on more was quite low. Of course, the same thing happened when the tax rate on top brackets was reduced as happened when the tax rate was reduced on those in the top brackets -- investors were flush with money and nowhere useful to put it. Of course -- they gambled with it. And we got Bernie Madoff, the Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, AIG, BofA, Citibank, etc. blow-out.

It isn't just a matter of bad character in the upper echelons of the tax brackets. It is also a matter of too much money in too few hands and, As McCamy said, the resulting reduction in demand, jobs, everything.

We need to increase taxes for the rich. I know it hurts. I know it doesn't seem "fair," but in the end it isn't just best for the poor, it is also best for the rich.

And we need to become as independent of foreign oil as we possibly can. We also need to end trade agreements that prevent us from subsidizing domestic manufacturing and other production and the hiring of Americans to do provide services to Americans. I don't want computer advice from someone in India or the Philippines.

[NYMdaveNYI]

72. absolutely

I concur.


The freepers call it SOCIALISM, I see why, it’s what you get from 30 years of Reaganomics... they forget what this country stands for, equality. It’s not FAIR having the richest of the rich get tax BREAKS while the poor get screwed over.

I don’t see how the rich can be so “hurt” by it... “oh no I cant buy that new yacht for my new summer house in Cabo!”. They dont have to deal with poverty and debt.

I think we need to transition to electric/solar/ethanol/hybrid cars in the coming years too. I hope Obama carries out his Energy Ref. promise, because FinReg is passing today so I guess its that or immigration next.

and yes, NAFTA is a failure and it has destroyed our manufacturing industry. Thanks for that, Papa Bush!

[DailyGrind51]

10. They create jobs alright, in Asia!

[DonCoquixote]

13. Best Quote

"If tax cuts for the rich created jobs at home, why did so many companies fire American workers and outsource jobs to places like India under Bush? Federal spending that encourages job creation at home encourages job creation at home. Write the rich a blank check, and they will run their companies in a way that maximizes their short term profits."

If they had a DU quote hall of fame, this would be worthy of it!

[Octafish]

14. Meanwhile, the greedy CofC turds sit atop a $10 Trillion-plus mountain of cash.

They are lower than whale dung, that lot.

World’s Rich Are Hording $10 Trillion in Cash

Thank you for another oustanding post and thread, McCamy Taylor. You make DUers smarter. More people should read your stuff, especially the Democratic leadership.

[unblock]

50. they are not "hoarding" that cash. that article complains they aren't letting banks "manage" it

and thereby extract a fee.

all it means is that that $10 trillion is being managed privately rather than by some bank's high-net-worth department.

[howmad1]

55. But, but, but: If I vote republican, I can be rich to.

Yea, lets give those tax cuts to the rich so I can get a piece of that action. Geeez, most Murkins who vote rethuglican are dumber than dirt.

[Enthusiast]

59. Dumber than dirt.

Fuckin' stupid Murkins.

[blueworld]

16. Great points

I've been wondering for some time why the GOPigs keep insisting that tax cuts for the rich create jobs.

They also say that small business is one of the biggest job creators. I've never known any rich people to start small businesses. I've only known intelligent, hard-working creative not-rich people to start small businesses with individual investors or with bank loans (good luck with that these days). Small business tax cuts would therefore be logical, I think.

I've assumed that I must be missing something important, because I've never heard any pundit or journalist challenge that "tax cuts for the" assumption. At least I would love to see some concrete evidence that illustrates their point, if it has any validity at all. Never see that either.

[arbusto_baboso]

19. Actually, they DO create jobs. In China and India. Not here.

That was the part the rethug corporatists "forgot" to spceify.

[Deep13]

20. Massive public spending creates jobs...

...especially if financed by tax increases on the parasitic, upper class.

[OnlinePoker]

22. Serious question.

How is giving tax payer money as grants to companies to create jobs (as was done in the stimulus program) any different than giving tax cuts to companies (as was also done to a lesser extent in the stimulus program)? If the tax cuts are targeted specifically based on jobs created, is this not a good thing?

[me b zola]

23. K&R

[TheKentuckian]

24. #1 reason it is clear we have significant internal issues that are serious roadblocks to any succes

beyond any opposition. Perhaps nothing this side of believing the world of flat is more repudiated by reality than Republican economic ideology.

This isn't the first time the wheels have come off this jalopy. Everyone over the last hundred and fifty years this philosophy has been even halfway attempted the results have been between awful and disastrous or worse.

Yet, somehow not only do our politicians fail to prosecute and indict daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly this rather disturbingly obvious fact but then attempt to increasingly adopt the same bogus ideas themselves and actively sell and execute the same nonsensical policies.

There is little wisdom to be found in perpetuating a lie, especially one of this staggering reach and scope.
The so called common wisdom is a demonstrated and proven lie and assimilating such lies says a lot of ominous things.

We cannot build and work from and on top of a false premise.

[Toucano]

26. Kick n/t

[on point]

27. Tax cuts for Wealthy (= supply side economics) is utter intellectual garbage

The logical arguments never made sense and the empirical evidence is in - This is utter garbage and does not work

Consider a few things:

* We have a deficit of demand (there is not enough demand for goods and services) because most people do not have the money to meet their needs
* There will be no spending on additional capacity while there is surplus capacity going unused (DUH!!)
* Corporations and the wealthy are flush with cash, sitting on it and not spending it. Giving them more just leads to asset price and stock price inflation (see the Bush economic mess)
* Unless they want their money to disappear while it sits under their mattress, they must invest it, they need no incentives to do so. In fact the capital gains (after correcting for inflation) and dividend tax rate should be made equivalent to the income tax rate so that investments are made for valid economic reasons and not to game the system
* Increase the tax rate for the wealthy back up to a healthy 45% or so to pay down the debt and remove the excess cash from the uber rich.

[Enthusiast]

60. Good suggestion. nt

[inna]

29. Greedy, evil, LYING monsters. Why are they even ALLOWED to get away with this crap?

"Economy sucks because our taxes are too high. We are the wealth creators and we need more wealth so we can create jobs."


The reality is that...


They are SWIMMING in liquidity right now. They made RECORD profits last year and now are *HOARDING* TWO TRILLION dollars! They're just sitting on a giant pile of cash and refusing to invest it in real economy (i.e., create jobs).







Corporations got richer and richer thanks to all sorts of corporate welfare. Last year they made RECORD-breaking profits and now they are SWIMMING in cash and hoarding $TWO Trillion - instead of investing it in real economy and creating jobs.


Absolute majority of all growth in the last 30 years (since Reagan started this trickle-down bullshit) went to the very rich, at the expense of the workers.


Income and wealth kept being "redistributed" upward, and now inequality has reached the all-time high level. American worker took all the losses and now is in worst shape since the Great Depression, while the rich have never had it better. Neoliberal policies and all that "trickle-down" crap caused nothing but grief and suffering and benefited only those at top. It didn't create jobs, it killed them.




And what? Now they are coming for EVEN more?? :wtf: They've already stolen all the people's money, there is hardly anything left.

Who the f*ck ARE these people?? Are they even human?


:nuke:



It's never been clearer to me that this system is absolutely anti-human and unsustainable. There has to be another way.

:nuke:

[Jakes Progress]

30. Tax cuts for the rich creates jobs for Congressmen.

[JDPriestly]

54. They don't create Congressmen, they create slush funds for the Congressmen's campaigns.

[Jakes Progress]

70. Picking nits

doesn't add to the conversation. Saying the same thing a different way doesn't add to the conversation.

Why?

[JDPriestly]

87. Would you prefer just conversing with yourself?

If so, why not just start a private blog? As long as you are on DU, you will probably have to put up with a few nits being picked along the way. Cleans things up you know.

[Jakes Progress]

90. Ah. Another pointless observation

that has nothing to do with the conversation. We differ on the definition of conversation. Yours seems to run more the the Monty Python department of arguments. "Yes you did" "No I didn't" "Yes you did" "No I didn't" "Yes you did" "No I didn't" "Yes you did" "No I didn't" "Yes you did" "No I didn't" "Yes you did" "No I didn't" "Yes you did" "No I didn't" "Yes you did" "No I didn't" "Yes you did" "No I didn't"

I'm glad I could provide some human contact for you if only for this brief encounter.

[JDPriestly]

92. Are you male? Women like to give each other feedback.

It probably has to do with our biological or cultural role in passing on language to children.

I belong to a group in which for some things women work together as a group and men work together as a group.

We women take several times as long as the men to discuss something, to solve problems, to work on ideas. But in the end, we are more on the same page and work together more harmoniously. We work a lot at sorting out who is on the team, why people agree or disagree, the precise wording for things.

So, I'm wondering if you are male. That may explain why we have different ways of conversing. If you are a man, listen to a group of women talking. Don't say anything. Just listen. There is a lot of what appears to a man to be empty talk -- subject changing -- irrelevant discussion. Other women know exactly what is going on. Maybe we just look at discussion more holistically.

Women have been shown to multi-task (in general and as a rule. there are exceptions of course) better than men. Our conversation style probably reflects our tendency to multi-task -- to survey lots of ideas and bring them in to a conversation to which they may not seem related.

If you look at indigenous people, women are often sitting in groups as they work. We like to give support to each other. That is why I as a woman will repeat what another person is saying in my own language. It is intended to show my support. It is not intended to annoy the other person but to encourage them.

Be a little more tolerant. This is a blog, not a lecture hall.

[Jakes Progress]

95. Are you a sexist?

You spend seven paragraphs lecturing (with little real knowledge of the subject) on female behaviors and how they are all the same. Then end with saying this isn't a lecture hall.

You do not respond like any of the women I converse with. Are you a male?

Now. Go back to the original post of mine that you snarked on. Now read it carefully. Then read your snark. Can you really find any possible way that your irrelevant post was working to "solve problems" or "work on ideas".

Then you go on to praise your multi-tasking (whatever the hell that has to do with the thread) and in a blatantly sexist fashion say that women are better at it than men. A silly thing to say since current research shows that any task done while multi-tasking is inferior to that task done with singular attention. Perhaps attention is the problem. Is it that you want it or can't focus it. The whole point of the post was to juxtapose the phraseology of the OP with the concept of creating jobs. Your inane explanation of my post assumes that most on the board are too dumb to get the connection. Support is shown by agreeing with a post or adding to it. Your contribution as your wrote it disagreed with mine and then promptly stated exactly what I had said.

Perhaps you should be a little more tolerant of being called out for a silly post.

[JDPriestly]

96. My post may have been superfluous but I can't understand why I offended you so.

And if you were offended by something so petty, why are you reacting so much.

Are you just a person who has to get in the last word, the last put-down no matter what?

Why are you wasting so much time on this?

Why am I? Because I am astounded at the extent of your reaction to a comment from me that is similar to many, many of the comments on DU.

If you can't stand repetitive or what you call "snarky" posts, how in the world do you abide DU at all? Most of us the posts on DU are very short, repeat what has already been said in slightly different language and don't really add much to the discussion. It is a forum. We aren't writing seminar papers. We don't normally grade each other.

Cool out. It's hot. It's summer. Everybody's irritable. But there is no reason to be get so easily offended from one of the least important events in your life.

[Jakes Progress]

97. You screwed up.

Then tried to tell me it was my fault. You didn't rephrase my post. You said it was wrong, then you said the same thing. Then you didn't mind trying to blame your silliness on the historical behavior of "indigenous" women.

You screwed up and said I was wrong, then spent multiple strained paragraphs in an attempt to say you hadn't just written a silly post. Now you want to claim that I aim the touchy one because I spent too much time on it.

Are you just a person who has to get in the last word, the last bit of defense of an error. Admitting the error and an apology would be better.

How condescending to call me wrong and then tell me to cool out. I have read and supported your posts in the past, but your refusal to admit error, willingness to use women's behavior as a justification, and continued faux concern are irritating. You say there is no reason for me to be offended, then why are you so astounded about being called out on you pointless and witless post? No. It is not similar to many comments on DU. If you were to say that george bush was an ass, and I replied with "No he isn't an ass. He is a stubborn fool who does bad things to the nation and refuses to change", That would be like your post. Please read your post again. See if it makes any sense. See if you are not saying something is wrong and then saying it is right. You need to face it. You screwed up. The number of words you have spent trying to justify the silly thing is what is astounding. Can you not admit error? Do you have a problem with a simple. "Whoops. My bad"? What is it that make you so worried about making a simple mistake? Please don't tell me it is because your are a female.

[JDPriestly]

99. To be very honest, I do not understand what you meant by your original

post if my post didn't agree with it.

Tax cuts for the rich creates jobs for Congressmen.

I was agreeing with you and taking it one step further.

But maybe I didn't understand what you meant.

What I meant was that tax cuts for the rich mean that the rich can give campaign donations for the campaign slush funds of the congressmen.

I added that comment because I did not think your comment was clear, but I thought maybe you meant the tax cuts for the rich meant slush funds for congressmen. Your original statement is really not clear. I still don't understand quite what you meant. Clarification forwards understanding, agreement (in some cases, disagreement in others) and a meaningful conversation. Leaving a vague, unclear but intriguing comment unanswered just ends things. Maybe you are more comfortable with just throwing things out there whether people understand them or not?

[Jakes Progress]

101. Please read at least the title of the OP.

Please note that most people understand a play on words. If you had simply said you do not understand, that would have been fine. You did not clarify my statement. I'm sorry but everyone here is smart enough to know that the money from tax cuts don't magically create congressmen out of the ether. No one here thinks that congressmen are created out of money. Everyone on DU understands how the money of politics works. I've read your other posts and I don't really think you are that dense. The best I can do is imagine that you thought other people needed it spelled out for them, that they were too dumb to get understand the relationship between congress critters creating tax cuts in return for campaign funds. First you didn't say you agreed with me. I said tax cuts create jobs for congressmen and you said tax cuts don't create jobs for congressmen. Then you said that tax cuts create money that is used to get congressmen elected. Now how is that clearer than mine. You contradict yourself in your own post and then complain that I am unclear. I think it more likely that you were just condescending toward the members of DU if you think they didn't "get" what I said. Your reply post was just insulting (you said I was wrong) and confusing as it then seemed to agree with what I had just said. I did understand what you said. You were trying to say the same thing I did only more inarticulately and redundantly. Then you began questioning my motives and talking about the great cooperativeness of women and how a mere male must just be too touchy.

(I ran a little test. I showed my post to half dozen people in the office. Everyone chuckled. I showed your reply. The general comment was "What's he talking about?" (Despite your treatise on "indigenous females", none of these women thought you were a woman.) In this very post you contradict yourself again. In your first line you say that you agreed with my post. Then a few rambling sentences later your say "I still don't understand quite what you meant".

What you should have said is "Oops. My bad". Your "clarification" was awkward and self-contradictory and was far from adding understanding. Maybe you are more comfortable just throwing things out there without thinking about them and then trying to talk your way into some kind of meaning.

[JDPriestly]

103. I thought I understood what you meant until you said I was disagreeing with you.

What did you mean?

Other than by providing more money to rich people with which the rich can buy politicians, how do tax cuts employ congressmen?

[Jakes Progress]

104. Good golly.

I said: Tax Cuts for the rich creates jobs for congressmen.

You said: Tax cuts don't create congressmen.

How is that not disagreeing?

I can see from all of this that it is very, very important to you to have the last post in a sub-thread, that you get in one last pretense at not understanding for some reason.

So here you go. Post back again saying the same thing over again, pretending to not know what you said or did. You can pump your fist and say you won. I'm just so tired of your silliness.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GETPLANING]

32. Tax Rates vs Unemployment, by the numbers.

TAX CUTS DO NOT CREATE JOBS

When will the Supply Siders get this simple and obvious fact through their heads?

Better question, when will the rest of us smack down this Reagan Era Myth once and for all?

A simple correlation between federal tax rates on the top 1% and unemployment proves that between 1976 and 2006 the correlation is -0.48. That's right. Higher federal taxes on the top 1% has historically corresponded with LOWER rates of unemployment.

From 1979-1983 taxes on the top tier were steadily decreased from 37% to 28% while UNEMPLOYMENT INCREASED from 5.9% to 9.6%.

From 1992-1996 taxes on the top tier increased from 31% to 36% while UNEMPLOYMENT DECREASED from 7.5% to 5.4%.

TAX CUTS DO NOT CREATE JOBS.

DEMAND (for goods and services) is what creates jobs.

[INTMANOMYST]

33. I wonder what you think

of small business taxes, though. I'm not challenging you, rather asking a sincere question.
It seems the article proceeds from the assumption that we're talking about the various taxes of the VERY well-to-do. But what about the taxes of a guy who runs a family business and makes, say on avg.... between 60-150k a year. He wants to not cut back on his employees, and would like to expand, but overhead is high, say the location he's in, the taxes are high, etc.
Does he not have the right to ask for lower taxes? Would the gov be wrong in giving him a break? How do we make sure we reach HIM and not the guy you describe?

[haele]

83. Small business revenue is different than profit - you can have revenue

and not pay taxes on it because you pump it back into the business. You get tax breaks for most business-based costs on your revenue.
The more customers you have, the more revenue you make and the greater cushion you have so it's easier to pay taxes or hire more people as you need to.
If you look on your business as an ATM and consider your revenue as profit, than you, as the person decreasing your cushion by taking most extraneous revenue as profit, pay income or capital gains taxes on it.

Business taxes are not the same as income or capital gains taxes on the well-to-do, so you're bringing an apple into an orange juice convention. You need revenue that is high enough to pay for your local infrastructure, and the problem comes in especially hard if big box stores get breaks and the wealthy aren't paying their share in taxes because of sweetheart deals made to the greedy on local chamber of commerce and government. They're going to tax the person that doesn't have the political backing that a larger pot of money gives big businesses and the wealthy.
The fact is that, in the old days of up to 80% or more income tax on gains over $500K or so, the well-to-do would spend the extra profit off their principle or revenue if they had a business to avoid paying taxes when those investments were cashed in. They wouldn't keep rolling over all the money they didn't need spend to pull more money out of the system and park it in their personal bank accounts. If they did spend extra money on businesses by expanding, investing in innovation, or employing more people or engaging in venture capital, that money did not get taxed; in fact, they'd usually end up paying less in taxes than they would if they just had the extra money sitting in a bank.

Again, when you look at history, a high tax rate on the income of the few wealthy encourages them to spend money, which puts it into circulation and increases demand - and helps small businesses to grow to a point that the basic taxes they pay do not put a pinch on their revenue and their owners can live comfortably in the upper middle class - or expand into a big business, if that's what they want to do.

A smaller tax rate on the few wealthy allows them to park money, which cuts back on spending and puts a burden on small businesses and local economies.

And a higher tax rate doesn't mean as much to the few very wealthy people as it would to anyone else. It basically means they might have to cut their two months wintering in Jamaica down by a day or two.
A %5 increase in taxes means far less to a person who has $1,000,000 a year in "mad money"(spending money after just the basic bill-paying money - housing, utilities, 1 vehicle's worth of basic transportation, basic food, basic medical)to spend than it does to someone who has just about $10,000 a year in spending money that is not dedicated to paying the basic bills - which is your basic 60% of the employed workforce in the USA.

Haele

[INTMANOMYST]

86. Thanks!

I put a portion of that article up on facebook and got this big thread on my wall- I actually quoted you!

[bluerum]

34. It is simply a veiled threat. Tax breaks or we cut you off. No jobs. No investment.

We sit on our immense and obscene wealth and starve you until you give us what we want - more of your money.

[Canuckistanian]

35. I'd like someone to explain how rich people "make jobs" when they get richer

Rich people don't hire because they have more money in their pocket. They hire because their businesses are doing well.

These RWers make it sound as if rich people are paying us all out of their pockets. And if the rich don't get their tax breaks, they won't feel so generous any more.

Besides the rich don't start businesses with their OWN money, they BORROW it - from banks. And right now the banks ain't lending, DESPITE the bailouts.

If the RWers are SO concerned about jobs, then they should be demanding that the banks start lending again. But they won't.

[Dr Morbius]

36. The underlying fiction is that the rich "create" wealth.

And so putting more money in the hands of the rich will generate more wealth for the nation.

It's pure fiction, of course; productivity creates wealth, and the exploitation of resources creates wealth. And this underlying fiction is used to generate a second fiction, that the rich create jobs.

Call 'em on their lies.

[Overseas]

37. K&R. I agree. Merde is the only thing that's trickled down. //nt

[patrice]

40. My dyed-in-the-wool Libertarian, mega-corporate attorney, spouse, a few months before he passed on,

last year, was watching the "news" one evening, listening to all of the economic stuff going on, and he said to me, "The problem is that the rich have too much money."

You have no idea how unusual it was for my man, a seriously brilliant mind, to admit he had been wrong or to change his mind about anything, but he looked at the economic facts one day and he changed his mind.

[donheld]

44. k & R

[johnaries]

47. "Why not give more money to those who create jobs?"

well, because if there is no demand for jobs, they'll just KEEP it! Duh!

It's so simple, and it actually helps the "wealthy" in the long run.

Funnel more money to the "consumers". Help the people below the poverty line to move up so that they can consume more. You automatically increase your target market. This automatically increases demand. Which means manufacturers sell more. Which means that not only do the "lower classes" increase, but the "upper classes" increase as well.

But that takes time. Corporations only look at the next quarter or the next year.

If they would look beyond that budget, they would see that making an investment in the "poor" would increase their own profits in the long run. If they would only look......

[unblock]

51. in order for jobs to be created, supply AND demand need to be in balance with adequate capital

right now we're suffering from dearth of demand because people are so in debt and out of work.

increasing supply and/or capital will not solve this problem, unless the capital increase is given to those in debt and out of work. that means serious jobs programs, unemployment benefits, mortgage restructuring/forgiveness programs, and so on.

there ARE times when tax cuts for the rich can give the economy a boost, but that's only when taxes are absurdly high by today's standards and the demand and capital is otherwise there. quibling about 33% vs 35% vs 39% is ridiculous. cutting the top rate from 90% to 60%, then you have a case.

right now we need demand-stimulus, so doing ANYTHING to prop up supply and capital is a waste.

[livingonearth]

52. If the Bush tax cuts had actually worked to create jobs we would have tons of jobs right now.

The fact we don't have tons of jobs should be proof enough such cuts don't work at all.

[guitar man]

56. 30 years

You'd think after 30 years of this nonsense it would have gone away, been laughed off the stage of public discourse. But somehow it hangs on, smelly as it is and they can always count on a percentage of dolts to buy into that garbage every time it comes around. These are the people that think Lucy is going to let Charlie Brown kick the football. It's disheartening to watch over and over. Will we ever grow up as a nation?

[NYMdaveNYI]

71. simply put,

Republican Logic:
Spending $200B on revitalizing the economy = EVIL SOCIALISM!

Spending $200B on giving tax cuts to the rich (thereby slashing revenue and digging a deeper hole) = MILK AND COOKIES!

And by trying to permanently re-instate these Bush tax cuts, I think we all know where the repugs stand; They’re CORPORATE WHORES.

SURE i’m stating the obvious, but this is something the DCCC desperately NEEDS to convey to Independent and middle class voters this year, before it’s too late. Because according to most polls, people have more trust in the Republicans with the economy right now than with Democrats.

[hfojvt]

57. thanks for linking to that

[Enthusiast]

58. K&R

Allow the Bush tax cuts to expire!

[Bryn]

61. Jefferson's "thing of wax" nightmare had come to pass.

Jefferson Was Right
by Mike Byron

Most Americans don't know it but Thomas Jefferson, along with James Madison
worked assiduously to have an 11th Amendment included into our nation's
original Bill of Rights. This proposed Amendment would have prohibited
"monopolies in commerce." The amendment would have made it illegal for
corporations to own other corporations, or to give money to politicians, or
to otherwise try to influence elections. Corporations would be chartered by
the states for the primary purpose of "serving the public good."

Corporations would possess the legal status not of natural persons but
rather of "artificial persons." This means that they would have only those
legal attributes which the state saw fit to grant to them. They would NOT;
and indeed could NOT possess the same bundle of rights which actual flesh
and blood persons enjoy. Under this proposed amendment neither the 14th
Amendment of the US Constitution, nor any provision of that document would
protect the artificial entities known of as corporations.

<snip>

Jefferson worried about the growing influence of corporate power until his
dying day in 1826. Even the more conservative founder John Adams came to
harbor deep misgivings about unchecked corporate power.

<big snip>

Jefferson's "thing of wax" nightmare had come to pass.

http://homepage.mac.com/kaaawa/iblog/C2128262602/E20051025182106/index.html

Too bad it wasn't successfully adopted.

[OJones]

94. Wow!

I never knew about this.

In some parallel universe, there is a much more equal US.

[SemperEadem]

62. it 's a false notion that tax cuts for the weathy results in job creation

if that were true, there would be a gazillion good paying jobs right now created within the last 10 years and the economy would not be in the shitter like it is; credit would be easier to obtain.


"Rich up the rich, dumb down the poor
Can't take it no more...."

Heart: "Oldest Story in the World"
Jupiter's Darling

[quaker bill]

64. Actual data

indicates that they have sufficient money to create many jobs, they just aren't doing so. Corporate profits are up and the wealthy few now own a nearly unprecedented share of the collected wealth of this nation. Jobs are not being produced from it. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. Now, more that even in the recent past, the evidence is clear that expanding the profits of corporations and the wealth of the entitled few will do little or nothing to expand the economy and provide jobs.

This experiment has actually been run, the results are in. If this notion actually worked there would be plenty of new jobs already.

[dem mba]

81. the problem is excess capacity

a demand-side issue. this is why Krugman is right and the GOP is clueless, yet again.

[530jonathan]

67. tax cuts

tax cuts for the rich dont create jobs, however many people dont understand the extent of the bush tax cuts. The current six rate brackets of 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33% and 35% will be replaced by five new brackets with the higher rates of 15%, 28%, 31%, 36% and 39.6%. This affects everyone paying taxes, not just the rich. I for one am in favor of not having my taxes go up!!

[newspeak]

74. before Reagan, I believe the tax rate for the wealthy was about 66%

Reagan dropped it to 28%. An unprecedented drop-from FDR's 94% and Eisenhauer's 87% (estimates). Now this drop was enacted in 1981-following his gift to the wealthy, this country wound up in a recession for approximately fourteen months. I am with you, that I don't think they should raise taxes on the lower-middle income-we've taken enough of a hit economically. However, I don't think 39.6% is a high enough increase, when it once was at 66%, before Reagan's drop. The government can give tax incentives for hiring at home and creating businesses at home, instead of giving corporations tax windfalls for moving businesses and jobs out of the country.

We know tax cuts to the wealthy do not, I repeat, do not create jobs. If it did, Little Boots, would be enjoying such popularity for the biggest jobs creations numbers in history. I remember when his labor department was counting hamburger flippers as manufacturing jobs, just to fudge the number. Little Boots has one of the worst jobs creation records, and like Reagan, drastically increased the deficit (of course his bogus war didn't help).

Now, what really makes me laugh is the repugs so concerned about the deficit. Like hell, these hypocrites are only concerned about their wealthy donors and themselves. And, what's really sad, is that some people will fall for their shite every time. When people are at their lowest, really hurting, some will allow these cretins to screw them some more-further cut their social safety net (when they need it the most) and privatize the shite out of everything, so their greed buds can make a further killing off of a dumbed down population, while cutting taxes even more for those who have enough.

Furthermore, responding to a thread up above--I believe small businesses should get some form of tax incentive. I remember a few years back, there was a study about small businesses and how many small businesses treated their employees better, than some behemoth corporations. I believe there are many "mom and pop" operations that care more about their communities, and donate more in their communities. It would be nice if there was a "small business" initiative. And, since our economy has really taken a hit--maybe it would be more advantageous to support small businesses, instead of some global "too big to fail" corporations.

[lonestarnot]

69. K & R X 10

[LatteLibertine]

73. I don't mind taxes returning to their former state

Yes, that means I don't mind mine going up to old rates. If that is even going to occur. Often it seems some don't mind as long as it impacts the other guy. Well I am fine with contributing in both deed and wealth. No I am not rich. I'm just another middle class fellow.

As others have said the most wealthy have plenty of cash to do with whatever they please. Getting them back to gambling on Wall Street does nothing to create jobs.

[EstimatedProphet]

75. What tax cuts for the rich result in is more money for the rich, and less for the poor

That's all they result in. That's why the rich fight so hard for them. Not only to get more money, but to keep everyone else from getting it. Money equals power. The rich want all the power, plus they want to make the lot of the poor worse if possible, as a demonstration of their power.

After a time, the rush of making money wears off. When you're the Walton family, and you make 800 million in profits every year, what does another million matter? The only way to keep the rush of being that separated from the average person going (if that's what you really want to do), is by making things worse for other people to increase the distance between yourself and the average person. Wages drop, unemployment is abolished, the social safety net disintegrates. The rich are doing this to make money, sure, but never doubt they don't get a thrill up their leg when they think about how handily they are screwing everyone else.

[KansDem]

76. If anything, the last 30 years have taught us that Reaganomics was a failure

"Trickle Down" was a joke.

Whatever made us think that powerful CEOs working in secret for the benefit of investors would have the best interests of the nation at heart?

We were all chumps! :banghead:

[LatteLibertine]

84. Honestly

some of the very wealthy are like petulant children who won't surrender their old toys they ignore to the Salvation Army.

[old mark]

88. GOPers have NO INTENTION of increasing employment, nor do the big corporations.

They want to maintain at least 10% unemployment till after the 2012 election to make voters hate the Democrats and vote in the republicans...then, hiring will return, but not people who were laid off all the years in between - Companies will hire young, new workers who will have no pension or benefits, leaving older former workers in unpaid forced early retirement.

The republican party and big business does not give a fuck about the American workers and never has-they are interested in teh American people only as potential voters and a source for a little extra cash over and above what they make in bribes from business.

mark

[Urban Prairie]

98. +1

Exactly, make those suffering the most believe that it is the current administration, and not the global corporate capitalists, and their lackey Republicans in Congress, the latter who incredulously also get recognition and awards based the amount of outsourcing that they do.

[Jakes Progress]

102. Kick for importance.