Does offering tax cuts to the rich create jobs?

[Braggi]

The Republican Job Killing Machine is in full swing.

The debt ceiling "deal" could cost 1.8 million US jobs. Nice.

The Republicans, and especially the "Tea Party" faction, are doing everything they can to torpedo the economy and the American worker in an effort to make Obama look bad.

I predict they will fail badly and Obama will win reelection in a near landslide no matter what the unemployment rate is. It's the Republicans creating the job losses and that can be easily shown.

And who will they run against him? Seven Dwarves?

-Jeff

[fafner]

The Republican Job Killing Machine is in full swing.

The debt ceiling "deal" could cost 1.8 million US jobs. Nice.

The Republicans, and especially the "Tea Party" faction, are doing everything they can to torpedo the economy and the American worker in an effort to make Obama look bad.

I predict they will fail badly and Obama will win reelection in a near landslide no matter what the unemployment rate is. It's the Republicans creating the job losses and that can be easily shown.

And who will they run against him? Seven Dwarves?

-Jeff

We hear over and over that we cannot tax the wealthy because they are the job creators. Where can one find the number of jobs they created since the Budget was passed in December?

[Braggi]

We hear over and over that we cannot tax the wealthy because they are the job creators. Where can one find the number of jobs they created since the Budget was passed in December?

How about we go back to the W. Bush tax cuts and figure out how much each job has cost the US taxpayer?

Of course, layoffs and firings due to plant closings and outsourcing should be subtracted from the total number of jobs.

I think We the People deserve an accounting! Lets audit the Bush tax cuts to see how effective they've been. If they're not cost effective, let's dump them.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

How about we go back to the W. Bush tax cuts and figure out how much each job has cost the US taxpayer?

Of course, layoffs and firings due to plant closings and outsourcing should be subtracted from the total number of jobs.

I think We the People deserve an accounting! Lets audit the Bush tax cuts to see how effective they've been. If they're not cost effective, let's dump them.

-Jeff

Here I go, quoting myself; but really, it's a good idea. We should separate any jobs "created" by the "stimulus" spending as well.

So people, how about we create a meme? Let's audit the Bush tax cuts and find out how much each job is costing us. I'll bet it's in the millions of dollars a year, maybe more. In fact, my thinking is that the Bush tax cuts actually cost us jobs as well as money. If that's the case, perhaps we need to increase taxes over the Clinton levels to bring the jobs back home.

Let's get on this. Everybody please put it on your facebook page, tweet your friends, contact anyone working for the Democratic party and anyone working for government that you know.

We demand a bottom line! How much is each job created by the Bush tax cuts costing us?

-Jeff

[Speak2Truth]

We hear over and over that we cannot tax the wealthy because they are the job creators. Where can one find the number of jobs they created since the Budget was passed in December?

GW Bush took office and inherited the dot-com bubble collapse and frantic cries about a new "recession". When he proposed tax relief for job creators, he was attacked by the Democrats who insisted that would push the nation right down into a new Great Depression.

By 2006, the last year Republicans controlled Congress and the national purse strings, unemployment was at 4.6%. Letting job creators use their money to create jobs worked. Even the 9/11 economic crash could not stop the success of that plan.

Democrats got control of Congress in the 2006 elections and triggered their housing market crash (that they vociferously defended in Congress against Republicans who were trying to stop it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs ). Obama took the opposite approach with the recession he inherited - with opposite results.

Remember when Obama said if he didn't fix the economy his Presidency would be a one-term proposition?

https://www.ihatethemedia.com/obama-...conomy-fire-me

(2009)
“I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year form now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

All righty then - let's elect someone who actually HAS some business management experience! That would be a welcome CHANGE.

[Braggi]

GW Bush took office and inherited the dot-com bubble collapse and frantic cries about a new "recession". When he proposed tax relief for job creators, he was attacked by the Democrats who insisted that would push the nation right down into a new Great Depression. ...

You have a laughable grasp of history.

Please do the math for us and determine how much each job the "job creators" are charging We the People to create. "We'd" like to know.

-Jeff

[Barry]

GW Bush took office and inherited the dot-com bubble collapse and frantic cries about a new "recession". When he proposed tax relief for job creators, he was attacked by the Democrats who insisted that would push the nation right down into a new Great Depression. ...

And that's exactly what he did: created the Great Recession. It even started on his watch, and is directly related to his/Republican policy of de-regulation (which brought on the financial crisis), 2 wars that didn't need to happen, unfunded drug benefit written by the drug companies, and a tax-cut (90% of the benefit going to the rich). He did wonders for the debt situation too.

The Republican tag the Democrats as "tax and spend". Don't know why the Democrats have never returned the favor to call the republicans "borrow and spend".

And how many new job did the Bush tax cut create???

It's article of faith by the right the tax that cuts create jobs, but there's no data for it and it doesn't even make sense. If a company hires more workers then their costs go up and the taxes go down. By having a higher marginal tax rate, it makes the after-tax cost of hiring a new worker less (they can write them off!).

[fafner]

GW Bush took office and inherited the dot-com bubble collapse and frantic cries about a new "recession". When he proposed tax relief for job creators, he was attacked by the Democrats who insisted that would push the nation right down into a new Great Depression.

By 2006, the last year Republicans controlled Congress and the national purse strings, unemployment was at 4.6%. Letting job creators use their money to create jobs worked. Even the 9/11 economic crash could not stop the success of that plan.

Democrats got control of Congress in the 2006 elections and triggered their housing market crash (that they vociferously defended in Congress against Republicans who were trying to stop it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs ). Obama took the opposite approach with the recession he inherited - with opposite results.

Remember when Obama said if he didn't fix the economy his Presidency would be a one-term proposition?

https://www.ihatethemedia.com/obama-...conomy-fire-me

(2009)
“I will be held accountable,” Obama said. “I’ve got four years and … A year form now, I think people are going to see that we’re starting to make some progress, but there’s still going to be some pain out there … If I don’t have this done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition.”

All righty then - let's elect someone who actually HAS some business management experience! That would be a welcome CHANGE.

\

have read and understand what you are saying, but the question was 'Where can one find the number of jobs they created since the Budget was passed in December?' I am looking for an answer to this question. How can that be a more simple question?

["Mad" Miles]

...It even started on his watch, and is directly related to his/Republican policy of de-regulation (which brought on the financial crisis)...

Barry,

I find the rest of your reply to S2T cogent, but the part I quoted above is demonstrably false. Deregulation started under Reagan, then Bush I, but took great strides forward under Clinton. In fact, the elimination of the restrictions separating banks from financial brokerage houses, was pushed forward and passed by the Clinton administration.

Many of the regulations that might have prevented the collapse in mortgage finance markets, by limiting credit default swaps bundling and the derivatives shenanigans were removed under Clinton.

Both dominant parties are deeply in bed with finance capital interests. As recent events have clearly shown once again.

Just look at who funded McCain vs. Obama's '08 campaigns. Finance capital, based on Wall Street and other global markets, along with the money markets, backed Obama over McCain. Oil money, what remains of U.S. heavy manufacturing, goods and services moguls like the Koch Bros. backed the Republican.

But financiers based in intangibles (money markets, brokerages, etc.) were big supporters of The Obaminator. Just look at his appointments, Bernanke and Geithner, who did they work for before they started working for President Obama, i.e. "us"? The Fed. Now, I don't share the view from the fringes that the FED is the source of all financial problems, but you don't get to run the Fed without being on the good side of financial capital.

Yes, Bush II's unfunded wars and Medicaid prescription plan, along with major tax cuts for the wealthy, play a central role in the current financial problems of this country and the world. But you can't put the blame for market deregulation solely on the Republicans. Democrats are deeply into it as well.

In fact, the problem is Corporate Neo-Liberalism. The whole Conservative vs. Liberal trope is a distraction. A very effective one because so many people still buy it.

[Speak2Truth]

TIME FOR A REMINDER OF HISTORY

It even started on his watch, and is directly related to his/Republican policy of de-regulation (which brought on the financial crisis)

There are two major flaws with this assertion:

1) "on his watch" means the Democrat-controlled Congress did it during the last two years of Bush's Presidency. If you understand how our system of government works, you'll realize the President's policies only get enacted if Congress wishes to - they're the ones who actually control the nation's budget and presumably act as representatives of The People - so the President is always very, very hesitant to override the Representatives on anything. Please don't say "on his watch" - it is a disingenuous phrase meant to distract from WHO did WHAT.

2) It was clearly Regulation and meddling that manufactured the crash in 2008-2009. Here's a little more of a history lesson...


THE BUILDUP PHASE

"Affirmative Action" forced on the home lenders by Clinton Administration, leading to eventual disaster
Video of Clinton's HUD Secretary boasting of victory in forcing lenders to comply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64

New York Times: Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
Under pressure from Clinton Administration
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/b...=&pagewanted=1

Obama, working with ACORN, Sued Citibank Under CRA to Force it to Make Bad Loans – UPDATED
https://iusbvision.wordpress.com/200...ake-bad-loans/

How banks were bullied into making bad loans
'Community activists' used pressure tactics to secure high-risk mortgages
https://www.worldnetdaily.com/index....w&pageId=94031

THE FIGHT TO STOP IT

Shocking Video Unearthed: Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Snopes: New York Times reported in 1999 that Fannie Mae was 'broken' and would lead to disaster in economic downturn
Bush tried to fix it with oversight committee, Democrats thwarted effort
https://www.snopes.com/politics/busi...asescredit.asp

Snopes: Bush Admin tried to rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congressional Democrats, with Barney Frank as spokesman, thwarted the effort.
https://www.snopes.com/politics/busi...asescredit.asp

Time to Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Conservative Republicans proposed Congress phase out Federal support for risky lenders in 2005
https://www.heritage.org/Research/Go...orm/bg1861.cfm


FOLLOW THE NETWORKS

Update: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Invest in Lawmakers
Barak Obama and John Kerry are number two and three
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/200...d-freddie.html

Rahm Emanuel on Board of Freddie Mac
Misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002
https://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blo...others-on.html

Barack Obama Taps Former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson to Help Choose Running Mate
https://www.associatedcontent.com/ar...annie_mae.html

HERE COMES THE NEXT BIG SCAM

Disgraced Fannie Mae deep in carbon scheme
Mortgage giant set to collect millions marketing homeowners' energy savings
https://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAG...&pageId=171457

Chicago bank has questionable ties to Obama administration
Shore Bank set up to launder "carbon" money expected to be very profitable for closely tied backers
https://www.examiner.com/x-15898-Cincinnati-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m5d21-Obama-ties-to-shore-bank-worth-examining

Obama Years Ago Helped Fund Carbon Scheme He Is Now Pushing Through Congress
On Board of Joyce Foundation, Obama helped build Chicago Climate Exchange
Paula DiPerna, President of CCX International, was President of Joyce Foundation at the time
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2214213/posts

Obama’s involvement in Chicago Climate Exchange—the rest of the story
https://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629

YOU ARE FOREWARNED AGAIN

Remember, we were forewarned that forcing lenders to give bad loans would crash the housing market. The huge fight in Congress was an eye-opener to us all. You DO remember that, right? I ask because the news people seem to have amnesia.

So, we now have forewarning as to the next big ripoff scheme. We know who the players are. We can see that they've been working for years to set it up. This time, try to remember, because for sure they'll pretend innocence again and the news media will happily help them point the finger of blame at someone else - just like that cartoon Barry posted with the jackass, the elephant and the vase.

If a company hires more workers then their costs go up and the taxes go down. By having a higher marginal tax rate, it makes the after-tax cost of hiring a new worker less (they can write them off!).

So, you're saying that the more employment increases, the less taxes government collects? Is that why our Federal tax revenues went from zero to negative as more and more businesses have been built?

In reality, Barry, a business hires people, pays them, they pay income taxes (more tax revenue), the company produces things other people buy (sales and other taxes), things that may get shipped (fuel taxes, transport taxes)... and so on. So, no, your claim that hiring people reduces tax revenues is illogical - otherwise there would be no revenues from private employment.

[Speak2Truth]

have read and understand what you are saying, but the question was 'Where can one find the number of jobs they created since the Budget was passed in December?' I am looking for an answer to this question. How can that be a more simple question?

Merely passing a budget is not going to fix the mess. Un-fundamentally transforming our nation is going to take some major work to undo the damage that has been done.

When some progress is made to undo the government meddling and layers upon layers of taxation that are systematically breaking down the American free-market system, then we can see restoration of honest private-sector employment.

Don't even look at the "jobs created" - that's a false measuring stick. If Government borrows printed paper from the Fed and indentures today's children to toil the rest of their lives to pay it back with interest, in order to "create" some busy-work jobs out of thin air or subsidize some favored Green corporations or something - that is NOT, repeat NOT an increase in prosperity or private sector employment. It in fact creates MORE of a drain because MORE must be paid back, in interest, than was ever printed on paper.

It's a horrible scheme.

Step 1: Restore lawful control of US currency to the US Congress.
Step 2: Eliminate the National Debt (which is a constant drain on our economy due to interest payments)
Step 3: Allow the Federal Government to ONLY spend as much as it takes in each year except in the case of a military emergency.
Step 4: Eliminate all unconstitutional handouts (seizure and redistribution of wealth) by Government.
Step 5: KICK THIS GUY IN THE ASS

Judge Judy - Here's Who You Support With Taxes
https://revolutionarypolitics.tv/vid...video_id=15915

Then we can talk about "jobs created" with happy smiles.

We are currently going in the wrong direction.

[Hotspring 44]

...Step 1: Restore lawful control of US currency to the US Congress.
Step 2: Eliminate the National Debt (which is a constant drain on our economy due to interest payments)
Step 3: Allow the Federal Government to ONLY spend as much as it takes in each year except in the case of a military emergency.
Step 4: Eliminate all unconstitutional handouts (seizure and redistribution of wealth) by Government.
Step 5: KICK THIS GUY IN THE ASS.

RE: "Step 2": We can pay the interest at first but there needs to be MORE not less actual wealth "stimulus" in monies into the actual economy (NOT like some crooked banking scams we have witnessed lately) somewhat like FDR did to forestall the "depression" in the 1930's. Also REGULATE correctly, the banking and loaning in a modernized way that is either equivalent or greater than the Glass–Steagall Act was in it's time.

RE: "Step 3": That would most likely require raisisng taxes on the most wealthy and reintroduce some kind of progressive profit tax on corporations and interest income on at least the top 10 to 15% to be successful (note: step 2").:onethindime:

If there were a choice between people (US Citizens) literally starving and dieing of exposure (due to austerity) or raising taxes on the most wealthy, what would you ask of your representatives to choose to do when it becomes apparent that there is only a choice between only those 2 ways of repairing the monetary system?

...We are currently going in the wrong direction.

I think most of us here agree with that statement in general terms but, which direction the correct way is to go in is another plethora of apposing directions.

[fafner]

Merely passing a budget is not going to fix the mess. .....
.

So we cannot talk about 'jobs created' with happy smiles. The answer must then be much less than touted.

[Speak2Truth]

Fafner - yes, your summary is correct. "Jobs created" is a trick. The real question is whether the government is spending less than is coming in and can therefore reduce the debt. We must look at how current policies will change things in the long run. We should also ask, "Are our representatives obeying the Constitution like they swore an oath to do when taking office?"

That's a serious question. If they are not bound by that contract between us and them, we are in serious trouble.

If there were a choice between people (US Citizens) literally starving and dieing of exposure (due to austerity) or raising taxes on the most wealthy, what would you ask of your representatives to choose to do when it becomes apparent that there is only a choice between only those 2 ways of repairing the monetary system?

But that's not the choice.

That assertion is based on the notion that us Citizens cannot feed themselves or live in a home. That is true of a lot of them now BECAUSE their employers were taxed out of business in this country...

Workers sorry Vise Grip plant moving to China
Pliers are iconic in Nebraska; 300 workers to watch their jobs go overseas
https://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26531610/

And the more employers are taxed out of business, the more people become dependent on tax dollars, so the more taxes must be raised, so the more employers are taxed out of business, putting more people on the dole, requiring raising even more taxes...

It's a choice between tax-and-destroy or leave-us-the-hell-alone-to-prosper. Leftists understand this clearly.

"The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation." – Vladimir Lenin

"There is only one way to kill capitalism—by taxes, taxes, and more taxes." - Karl Marx

Every society has people who really are not capable of caring for themselves. There are plenty of ways to help them out without dragging us down the path of creating an ever growing body of people dependent upon resources forcefully seized from others. Unfortunately, the goal of the Left really is to crash and burn the American System so they can fundamentally transform it. They have ways of achieving that.

American Thinker: Barack Obama and the Strategy of Manufactured Crisis
Cloward-Piven Strategy
https://www.americanthinker.com/2008..._strategy.html

The Cloward-Piven Strategy and Barack Obama
https://apathetic-usa.com/


I believe our real choice is whether to allow Americans to prosper or to continue imposing the planned destruction of the US by putting more and more people on the rolls of tax-dollar dependency.

There was a time, not too long ago, when a working-class man could support his whole family with his 8 to 5 job, living in a decent home with a car, TV and all the amenities. That dream has been stolen away by endless layers of taxation, much of which is being set out of this nation to pay a debt incurred by irresponsible politicians whose acts would land them in prison if they did not have government immunity.

I agree with this guy...

Felonious Munk Presents: Stop It B! OBAMA PAY YOUR &*%$#% BILLS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRmZ9zH-mYM

[jbox]

Barry,

I find the rest of your reply to S2T cogent, but the part I quoted above is demonstrably false. Deregulation started under Reagan, then Bush I, but took great strides forward under Clinton. In fact, the elimination of the restrictions separating banks from financial brokerage houses, was pushed forward and passed by the Clinton administration.

Many of the regulations that might have prevented the collapse in mortgage finance markets, by limiting credit default swaps bundling and the derivatives shenanigans were removed under Clinton.

Both dominant parties are deeply in bed with finance capital interests. As recent events have clearly shown once again.

Just look at who funded McCain vs. Obama's '08 campaigns. Finance capital, based on Wall Street and other global markets, along with the money markets, backed Obama over McCain. Oil money, what remains of U.S. heavy manufacturing, goods and services moguls like the Koch Bros. backed the Republican.

But financiers based in intangibles (money markets, brokerages, etc.) were big supporters of The Obaminator. Just look at his appointments, Bernanke and Geithner, who did they work for before they started working for President Obama, i.e. "us"? The Fed. Now, I don't share the view from the fringes that the FED is the source of all financial problems, but you don't get to run the Fed without being on the good side of financial capital.

Yes, Bush II's unfunded wars and Medicaid prescription plan, along with major tax cuts for the wealthy, play a central role in the current financial problems of this country and the world. But you can't put the blame for market deregulation solely on the Republicans. Democrats are deeply into it as well.

In fact, the problem is Corporate Neo-Liberalism. The whole Conservative vs. Liberal trope is a distraction. A very effective one because so many people still buy it.

I recall that under Clinton's watch there was an unprecedented wave of corporate mergers, as if smaller (but still global) companies couldn't cut it any more. So now we have Exxon/Mobil and Chevron/Texaco and BP/Arco and so on. Banks and insurance companies did the same thing. So now Exxon's profits alone can fund Social Security. The natural competitive environment essential for the proper functioning of the capitalist economic model has been watered down and corrupted by the political parties and the Democrats are no better than the Republicans here. To hell with BOTH parties. As George Wallace said in '68 - There's not a dime's worth of difference between the two of them. As far as I can tell they're just two sides of the same coin, minted not by the people but by Wall St.

[someguy]

Would someone care to explain how taxing the rich would create jobs?

[Hotspring 44]

Would someone care to explain how taxing the rich would create jobs?

Who said that taxing the rich by itself would create jobs?
Obviously taxing the rich only would not solve in any significant way the negative economic situation we are in now.

When I mentioned taxing the rich ("raising taxes on the most wealthy and reintroduce some kind of progressive profit tax on corporations and interest income on at least the top 10 to 15% to be successful"), I was not in any saying that that only "taxing the rich" as you put it, would create jobs.

My question here is: In history, can anyone show how lowering taxes to the most wealthy has created any well paying jobs or more meaningful careers?... ...When?... ...Where?... ...how did that work then?...
...and, are we in a similar enough situation now that would suggest that tax cuts to the rich would in any significant way create enough jobs to be positive proof that the "tax cuts" to the rich were (would be) solely the reason for those jobs and not other trends?

[Braggi]

Would someone care to explain how taxing the rich would create jobs?

Jobs are created by money moving through the economy. When corporations and the extremely wealthy hoard their money, as they have over the last 10 years, there are job losses, as we have seen. I'm simplifying, of course, but the trend is clear. When governments are starved for income, as ours is now, basic services are reduced, which means direct job losses. Think of parks for instance. When a new park is opened, rangers, grounds keepers, maintenance crews are all hired. Those are obvious "government" jobs. But that park also uses goods and services from the community. Those benches come from somewhere as do the roads and buildings. Then all the people that use the park use goods and services related to their outings. More jobs are created.

One thing for certain, when we close a park, or shut down any government service, the whole community loses, and privatizing is no answer to anything.

-Jeff

[Hotspring 44]

But that's not the choice....

It is the only "choice" the politicians (mostly because of the stalwarts of the Tea Party in the Republican House majority) seem to be forcing onto us.
The rest of the possibilities (compromises or other combinations of taxation adjustments, budget cuts, and regulation "reforms") are completely cut-out of the conversation in congress because of the Tea Party Republicans in the House.

...That assertion is based on the notion that us Citizens cannot feed themselves or live in a home. That is true of a lot of them now BECAUSE their employers were taxed out of business in this country...

I think that many but not all the "business" you are referring to have been exploitative, unpatriotic, unimaginative, and greedy... ...Business as usual.
They have in many cases, in doing so have exploited poorer people in other nations for their "cheap" labor, nonexistent labor safety, human rights, and environmental standards which has ended up supporting in some cases groups like the Taliban and the diamond barons and slavery in the Sudan and other areas in Africa... ...Then directly contributing to the national debt by outsourcing high tech labor to India, and Malaysia and manufacturing to Mexico and China which has directly affected the US so-called "job crisis".

What about careers?... ...I hear all this talk about "JOBS!, JOBS!, JOBS!", but no mention of reasonable paying careers; WHY?... ...One reason is that robber barons hate trade unions!... ...and they are pulling on the political purse strings!... ...The Citizens United decision made by the Supreme Court has more to do with the slow but sure direction of reenacting slavery by way of debt to a prearranged indentured servitude status by way of mounting interest on the national debt whereas the largest corporate entities will attain the wealth while all others would be beholding the monetary debt perpetually by way of a systematic interest scheme in proportions that will never end and would only increase.

...It's a choice between tax-and-destroy or leave-us-the-hell-alone-to-prosper. Leftists understand this clearly.

I totally disagree with your "Leftists" categorization into the actual existing situation. It seems to me that maybe you and I have a different definition of "Leftist".
There are radicals on both the left and right that do monkey-wrench the political process; you seem to mostly blame the "Left Wing" for the recent decline in the economy but the trend in the economic sense on the political spectrum in Washington has been steadily going to the right, therefore I am not convinced that the Left Wing is as responsible as you say.
In fact I believe that the Right Wingers have purposefully monkey-wrenched Washington economic politics just to get rid of the "black" man in the White House"; plain and simple, the Culture War has only deepened, it's not over, whoever thinks it is over or that it does not have a direct effect on the economic decisions in the country is not paying attention to the real bigoted realities that are so deeply rooted in America; (not only racial bigots but other pet peeves that are rooted in bigotry and prejudice; mostly coming from the Right Wing side of the isle in Congress; I might add.).

Every society has people who really are not capable of caring for themselves. There are plenty of ways to help them out without dragging us down the path of creating an ever growing body of people dependent upon resources forcefully seized from others. Unfortunately, the goal of the Left really is to crash and burn the American System so they can fundamentally transform it. They have ways of achieving that.

That is simply an assumptive and wholly inaccurate and prejudicial sound-bite of a statement if I ever herd one!... ...Or maybe you meant to say "Neo-Liberal"?... ...That would be more accurate. Both Pres. George Bush's fall into that ("Neo-Liberal") category; as well as Bill Clinton, and Barrack Obama... ...the list goes on.... ...Not to mention the conquest of attaining all wealth as they can by a few aristocracy at the expense of the weaker for the benefit of the, shall I say, the robber barons of the top 1 or 2% of income bracket.

I believe our real choice is whether to allow Americans to prosper or to continue imposing the planned destruction of the US by putting more and more people on the rolls of tax-dollar dependency.

I would rephrase that as the following:
I believe our real choice is whether to allow Americans to prosper or to continue imposing the planned destruction of the US by putting more and more banks, multinational and large corporations on the rolls of tax-dollar, land and resource grant and "cheap" foreign labor market and exploitation dependency... ...while at the same time giving tax exemptions to the same ones that the tax dollars go to, to benefit their sometimes completely untaxed profits.

There was a time, not too long ago, when a working-class man could support his whole family with his 8 to 5 job, living in a decent home with a car, TV and all the amenities. That dream has been stolen away by endless layers of taxation, much of which is being set out of this nation to pay a debt incurred by irresponsible politicians whose acts would land them in prison if they did not have government immunity.

I agree with this guy...

I don't agree with that statement in regards to the taxation aspect of it.
Trade unions were stronger then they are now and taxation was more congruent to the financial obligations then they are today.

Granting tax shelters in foreign territories like the Bahamas for the financially privileged (large corporations and super rich individuals) is one nonexclusive example, (that) have to some extent chipped away at the ability to pay interest on debt to the Federal Reserve banking system (which is another example of what happens when privatization of government obligations has to offer, but that is another category to get into on a different thread) contributed to the burden on the rest of us beyond the ability to keep up with the obligations like the interest on the debt, infrastructure and safety-net social programs that we common folk have invested heavily into and have a major interest in.

Felonious Munk Presents: Stop It B! OBAMA PAY YOUR &*%$#% BILLS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRmZ9zH-mYM[/QUOTE]
I saw that.
: The (hypothetical) response from B!: https://pl.st/s/364900625:snorkel:

[someguy]

My question here is: In history, can anyone show how lowering taxes to the most wealthy has created any well paying jobs or more meaningful careers?... ...When?... ...Where?... ...how did that work then?...
...and, are we in a similar enough situation now that would suggest that tax cuts to the rich would in any significant way create enough jobs to be positive proof that the "tax cuts" to the rich were (would be) solely the reason for those jobs and not other trends?

Check out what Australia did in the 80's... You'll find your answer there.

[Hotspring 44]

Check out what Australia did in the 80's... You'll find your answer there.

Australia?
American economic history is enough of a brain drain as it is.
Interjecting Australia's 1980's economy without some specific input in your own words is like a cop-out; so it seems to me at this point.
Can/will you be more specific of exactly what you are talking about?... ...in your own words without an overload of data filled links would be preferred.
What about here in USA?... ...where is the "proof" here?... ...that is what I was actually asking; because historically (giving tax cuts to the "rich") has had the opposite effect on (so-called) "jobs" (I am really talking about actual national prosperity and careers, not just mostly shit work with lower than bare-bone minimum so-called "living wage"[at best] "jobs" for the masses) ...

...To be more specific, government funded or at least start-up (stimulus) has been what has historically, had an over all effect of "prosperity" after a bust economy to a higher percentage of Americans than tax breaks for the wealthiest have.

In fact taxing the rich and what would be described today as "stimulus" (correctly targeted of course) has helped the economy to revive it from the great depression and the 2nd world war.
BTW, there is nothing that says a future stimulus would not have tax incentives that would have the effect of creating more "jobs"... ...The more wealth (prosperity) the "rich" "share" the more of it they can retain by way of tax relief (and yes profits too!) for doing so.

Below is an interesting concept that should be considered with the return of a 90% tax on the wealthiest highest income.

I think (at least the first 3 ways as guide as a "moral" premise anyway) is worth considering.... ...(The R/W preaches "morality"; so here is an economic "morality" to seriously contemplate that should please a real true moralist; not just the R/W talking head mouth pieces for the Rupert Rupert Murdoch s' Coch Brothers and other aristocracies and profiteers):

14 Ways a 90 Percent Top Tax Rate Fixes Our Economy and Our Country By Dave Johnson April 26, 2010 - 12:05am ET A return to Eisenhower-era 90% top tax rates helps fix our economy in several ways: 1) It makes it take longer to end up with a fortune. In fact it makes people build and earn a fortune, instead of shooting for quick windfalls. This forces long-term thinking and planning instead of short-term scheming and scamming. If grabbing everything in sight and running doesn’t pay off anymore, you have to change your strategy.

2) It gets rid of the quick-buck-scheme business model. Making people take a longer-term approach to building rather than grabbing a fortune will help reattach businesses to communities by reinforcing interdependence between businesses and their surrounding communities.

3) It will lower the executive crime rate. Today it is possible to run scams that let you pocket huge sums in a single year, and leave behind the mess you make for others to fix....

The rest of the article can be found @:
https://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry...-fixes-economy

[Barry]

Would someone care to explain how taxing the rich would create jobs?

Jobs aside, it would sure help with the deficit!

[someguy]

Australia?
American economic history is enough of a brain drain as it is.
Interjecting Australia's 1980's economy without some specific input in your own words is like a cop-out; so it seems to me at this point.
Can/will you be more specific of exactly what you are talking about?... ...in your own words without an overload of data filled links would be preferred.

Dude, its super simple... Didn't think you needed me to spell it out for you. But here goes. In the 80;s Australia was facing massive debt, unemployment and an economic crisis of sorts. They lowered taxes, decreased regulations to invite new investors, and now they are probably one of the only thriving economies in the world despite this global recession. In fact, this allowed them to implement a universal health care system for all.

[someguy]

Jobs aside, it would sure help with the deficit!

Yes it would. But is it right? No. Especially when that money goes to fight massively expensive wars!!! Why don't have a war on war, instead of a war on the rich? To set the record straight, I'm not just saying lower rich people's taxes, but everyone's taxes. Thats a real stimulus if you ask me.

["Mad" Miles]

Someguy,

What you left out of your summary is that Australia is a Social Democracy with strong unions, a viable and powerful Labor Party, and a very deep and wide set of Social Services (expensive ones by the way). Plus they were well situated geographically, with substantial natural resources and a well educated (and socially supported) populace, at a time of economic expansion in the global market.

Everything is connected, and the tendency I see coming from the Free Market Libertarian Right is a tendency to reduce complex phenomenon, to a few reductive and totalizing, "cherry picked", partial truths.

[Hotspring 44]

Dude, its super simple... Didn't think you needed me to spell it out for you. But here goes. In the 80;s Australia was facing massive debt, unemployment and an economic crisis of sorts. They lowered taxes, decreased regulations to invite new investors, and now they are probably one of the only thriving economies in the world despite this global recession. In fact, this allowed them to implement a universal health care system for all.

But now it has higher taxation rates on the “rich” than the USA.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_AustraliaSome text: "As with many other countries, income tax is withheld from wages and salaries in Australia, often resulting in refunds payable to taxpayers. A nine-digit Tax File Number (TFN) must be quoted to employers for employees to have withholdings calculated using the various tax brackets. While it is not an offence to fail to provide a bank or financial institution with a TFN, in the absence of this number, employers are required to withhold tax at the rate of 46.5% (the highest marginal rate plus Medicare levy) from the first dollar. Likewise, banks must also withhold the highest marginal rate of income tax on interest earned on bank accounts if the individual does not provide their TFN to the bank. In the same way, corporate and business taxpayers are required to provide their TFN or Australian Business Number (ABN) to the bank, otherwise the bank will be required to withhold income tax at the highest rate of tax. [edit] Individual income tax rates (residents) Financial years 2010-11, 2011-12[2] Taxable income Tax on this income Effective tax rate 0 – $6,000 Nil 0% $6,001 – $37,000 15c for each $1 over $6,000 0 – 12.6% $37,001 – $80,000 $4,650 plus 30c for each $1 over $37,000 12.6 – 21.9% $80,001 – $180,000 $17,550 plus 37c for each $1 over $80,000 21.9 – 30.3% $180,001 and over $54,550 plus 45c for each $1 over $180,000 30.3 – 45%"

Official 2011 US Income Tax Brackets (IRS Tax Rates) Head of Household These tax tables are for those considered Heads of Household: Taxable Income Tax $0 – $12,150 10% of taxable income $12,150 – $46,250 $1,215 plus 15% of excess over $12,150 $46,250 – $119,400 $6,330 plus 25% of excess over $46,250 $119,400 – $193,350 $24,617.50 plus 28% of excess over $119,400 $193,350 – $379,150 $45,323.50 plus 33% of excess over $193,350 $379,150+ $106,637.50 plus 35% of excess over $379,150 Source: https://www.bargaineering.com/articl...-brackets.html

Also Australia has many taxes:

• 1 Personal income taxes
• 2 Capital gains tax
• 3 Corporate taxes
• 4 Goods and Services taxes
• 5 Property taxes
• 6 Excise taxes
  
  • 6.1 Fuel taxes in Australia
  • 6.2 Luxury Car Tax
• 7 Customs duties
• 8 Payroll taxes
  
  • 8.1 New South Wales
  • 8.2 Queensland
  • 8.3 South Australia
  • 8.4 Western Australia
• 9 Fringe Benefits Tax
• 10 Inheritance tax
• 11 Superannuation taxes

Australia also has a higher minimum wage pay standard than here in the US:

• From 1 October 2007, the Australia standard Federal Minimum Wage is $13.74 per hour or $522.12 per week.^[10]
• From 1 October 2008, the Australia standard Federal Minimum Wage is $14.31 per hour or $543.78 per week.^[11]
• In 2009, the Federal Minimum Wage was not changed.^[12]
• In 2010, the Federal Minimum Wage was raised to $15 per hour or $569.90 per week^[13]
• As of July 1, 2011, The Federal minimum wage is $15.51 per hour or $589.30 per week^[14]

And still I hear so much () BS about how the minimum wage "regulations" here in US is "killing businesses".
If Australia is used as an example then where is the clamoring for raising the minimum wage here in the US?

[Hotspring 44]

Someguy,

What you left out of your summary is that Australia is a Social Democracy with strong unions, a viable and powerful Labor Party, and a very deep and wide set of Social Services (expensive ones by the way). Plus they were well situated geographically, with substantial natural resources and a well educated (and socially supported) populace, at a time of economic expansion in the global market.

Everything is connected, and the tendency I see coming from the Free Market Libertarian Right is a tendency to reduce complex phenomenon, to a few reductive and totalizing, "cherry picked", partial truths.

There are also Immigration issues here that are less controllable then in Australia. Also, Australia still has Immigration issues; The Continental difference gives Australia a comparative advantage to the US on the immigration issues, but they are still making tentative plans to use immigration as a economic backstop for the lowering birth to aging ratio.... ...https://www.globalmovements.monash.e...sionReport.pdf

BTW not meaning to argue with you "Mad" Miles, just adding to the mix of info.

[someguy]

But now it has higher taxation rates on the “rich” than the USA.

The key word is 'now'. The example I gave was not about current day Australia, but of the reform policies that they enacted to pull themselves out of their dire economical situation in the 1980's. What you are saying has no relevance and is a sideshow of sorts. They could (for all we know) be screwing up their future economy... We just don't know. Or maybe we do.Why are you against cutting people's taxes and giving everyone more money to spend? Why do you need to government to decide how to spend our hard earned money? Why would you want them to have more of our money since they are so obviously irresponsible with how they use it?

[beshiva]

Would someone care to explain how taxing the rich would create jobs?

if taxing the rich would create jobs.....it would have happened during the whole time Georgie Bush was in office, he actually gave those cuts on the backs of the middle class, now we all realize THAT, because he never had a way of paying for them before now....they didn't create jobs, they LOST jobs....the plain fact is....rich people get richer, and they Hoard their wealth, OR....they send it all over the freakin' world to make themselves more money....so to answer yur question once again....NO, the rich DO NOT, Nor do they WANT TO, create jobs.....unless your willing to work for about $2.00hr.......

[Hotspring 44]

The key word is 'now'. The example I gave was not about current day Australia, but of the reform policies that they enacted to pull themselves out of their dire economical situation in the 1980's.... ...

I think it is up to you to be more specific on how that worked in the 1980's as you claim it did.
Just proclaiming that lowering "taxes" in Australia in the 1980's was the only thing that supposedly saved Australia's economy is too much of a generalization for any reasonable person that does not know most of the specifics on that topic, as I suspect you don't ether; because you have used such a vast generalization... ...(I could be mistaken about your knowledge of that but if I am, it is you that would need to prove it).

As far as I can tell just from what I read today, Australia did not recover until the 1990's; the same time we here in the US had the IT technology bubble for much of the same reasons as we did have a "bubble" so did they.

Also, Australia has had many of those taxes I mentioned in one of my previous postings throughout that same time line.

What you are saying has no relevance and is a sideshow of sorts. They could (for all we know) be screwing up their future economy...

LOL!!! You just admitted you (we) don't know one way or the other!... ...So I'm conjecturing that you don't really know how factual your statements actually are.

...We just don't know. Or maybe we do.

WE?... ...I don't, do you?... ...Does anyone?... ...if so, who?

Why are you against cutting people's taxes and giving everyone more money to spend?

You don't seem get it. Are you really standing up for the ultra-rich so they won't have to pay their fair share?
Don't you know that in human nature there are hoarders and that some of those few hoarders are hording wealth (money) at the detriment of the many?

1- Corporations aren't "people"!

2- We are (or at least I am) talking about the highest income bracket. (which BTW I think the amount of top income tax should be raised from the $379,150+ bracket to (start at) at least $500,000. to reach the plus 35% of excess over; (but I also think that the 35% should go up progressively at some rate so for some that would lower the income tax.

3- corporate loopholes and outsourcing should be taxed IE Import Duty or at least the tax shelters in having places like the Bahamas so as to specifically avoid paying their fair share must be dealt with somehow; some sort of taxation or fines, fees on the corporate entities transactions that practice that is one way to get the ultra-rich to pay at least some of their fair share or at least some corporate fair practice regulations regarding labor as far as outsourcing is concerned; (in other words no slavery for our benefit in other country's that compete with our labor force).
4- After all we do use the military and/or subsidize other military's to "protect" the interests of those corporations in other country's and also the shipping lanes around the world.

5- I also gave a basic explanation of the "moral" issue of the large scale fast buck scammers and bank loan sharks and gave an example of one way those practices can be controlled by taxation enough to not have another financial institution meltdown and/or another "too big to fail" Government Bailout situation to crash the economy all over again...

...3) "It will lower the executive crime rate:Today it is possible to run scams that let you pocket huge sums in a single year, and leave behind the mess you make for others to fix."

Why do you need to government to decide how to spend our hard earned money? Why would you want them to have more of our money since they are so obviously irresponsible with how they use it?

E Gads!... ...You don't seem to have much of a concept of what is going on with the whole infrastructure which our livelihood depends so much on and how the robber barons (as I am calling them) are using their monetary control of the mass media infrastructure to trick people into believing that it is the poor,elderly, disabled and disadvantaged people whom have needs that are the ones that are going make the country go broke... ...Actually, I think that it's the aristocracies that have infiltrated our democratic republic governance since before it's creation; note: the thread and postings by lolchan in the thread, "Columbus, Slavery, & Class War" :

O.K. , kids, School is In Session;
Columbus, Slavery, & Class War

"THE HISTORY OF MONEY IN AMERICA FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION"

CHAPTER II. THE CONQUEST

I could probably say more but for now I am getting tired and a bit burned-out on this thread for tonight so that's all for now.