Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It proves that it has been turned into a political issue, by making it a part of the 2012 elections. It is just one more can 0bama has kicked down the street for someone else to take care of.
Why couldn't they have made the tax rates permanent, and let the future congress decide if it wants to raise taxes some day in the future? Instead, they turn it into a political game of hot potato.
The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) gave states greater flexibility to formulate and implement initiatives to reduce welfare dependency and encourage employment for members of low-income families with children. For the nation, in 2006, 10 years after passage of the Act, the birth rate for women 15 to 50 years old receiving public assistance income in the last 12 months was 155 births per 1,000 women, about three times the rate for women not receiving public assistance (53 births per 1,000 women).
Women on welfare are having children at a rate of 3 times that of women who do not receive public assistance. How can the poverty rate not climb under those conditions?
Still waiting for you to provide a link to verify this.
I did, see #54, but if you dont like that link, FIND YOUR OWN.. Anyone who has listened to the discussion, both sides of it, and not only left wing liberal sources, can tell you this is a fact.
During the last bail out period, I had Republicans agreeing with me.
"No, we shouldn't be going further into debt during an economic crisis".
"You're right, this spending isn't going to create jobs"
Now that they have some power, its all about "well we need to stimulate the economy". I'm all for tax cuts, but I want them paid for, not to increase the debt.
The mental capacity for long term memory in the Republican party must be statistically low.
I did, see #54, but if you dont like that link, FIND YOUR OWN.. Anyone who has listened to the discussion, both sides of it, and not only left wing liberal sources, can tell you this is a fact.
Where will the unemployment money come out of, the stimulus? Did the republicans hold on to their principles about borrowing to extend unemployment benefits? Or did they decide borrowing is okay as long as they could help out the wealthy Americans?
They did.. how many months in a row did the economy prosper? We had unemployment below 5%, which is considered full employment, we had deficits of $150B, we had 10,200,000 new jobs created, we had gdp growth
Seriously, were you asleep for all of these years?
Seriously, was there any net benefit? Were they good jobs or service sector minimum wage jobs? Did average wages increase? Did anyone other than that top 1% see major gains?
As for those 10 million+ jobs:
"The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush's tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago. "
And the GDP?
"Even excluding the 2008 recession, however, Bush presided over a weak period for the U.S. economy. For example, for the first seven years of the Bush administration, gross domestic product grew at a paltry 2.1 percent annual rate."
So the top two percent get to keep their tax cuts during a time of historic deficit and unemployment levels. What does this say?
1. The Republicans were successful in holding 98% of the American public and unemployed workers hostage for their sake of their rich benefactors.
2. Since it has been documented to death that only a few percent of small business owners who tax their income through personal taxes as business income overlap with the top two percent, this will do virtually nothing for small business and employment growth.
3. Since most of the top wealthy folks in this country are not going to spend that incremental piece of cash they get, the impact on the economy is going to be nothing to write about.
4. For this minimal gain, we just added another $700B to the deficit, which is nearing the magnitude of Obama's old stimulus plan.
5. Since both Republicans and Democrats have helped Big Business for years to outsource millions of well-paying jobs overseas, and since there are now simply not enough jobs for those previously employed Americans to earn a living, we are basically just continuing to concentrate wealth in the hands of the very top few wealthy hands while we build a massive underclass of impoverished people - and then blame them for "being lazy".
I say all of this as a person in one of those top two percent of households, which I frankly can't even believe that I am. I have no problem with rich people, and I think they deserve to keep being rich...but this used to be a nation that also provided some opportunity for middle and lower class people, too. That's no longer the case; we've become an oligarchy.
Yup. It means the 'Fiscally conservative" GOP have already been responsible for adding BILLIONS more to the deficit, just as they had during the Bush years.
During the last bail out period, I had Republicans agreeing with me.
"No, we shouldn't be going further into debt during an economic crisis".
"You're right, this spending isn't going to create jobs"
Now that they have some power, its all about "well we need to stimulate the economy". I'm all for tax cuts, but I want them paid for, not to increase the debt.
The mental capacity for long term memory in the Republican party must be statistically low.
The way to "pay for" tax cuts is to cut spending.
The odd logic of liberals is that they consider that one must somehow "pay for" revenue.
Any buisness first evaluates revenue, then determines expenses based on that revenue. By liberal logic, one should first spend with reckless abandon and then evaluate revenue later.
I must ask again-
WHEN, IN THE LAST 50 YEARS, HAVE THE FEDS EVER USED ANY REVENUE INCREASE TO REDUCE THE DEBT? Never. Why feed the pig when they are just going to blow it anyway on more and more federal programs.
Want to cut spending? Starve the pig and reduce federal access to capital. To raise taxes simply encourages more and more reckless spending, which we can ill afford.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
