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.
Between May 1999 and May 2009, employment in the private sector sector only rose by 1.1%, by far the lowest 10-year increase in the post-depression period. It’s impossible to overstate how bad this is. Basically speaking, the private sector job machine has almost completely stalled over the past ten years.
But, but tax cuts for the rich means jobs for the poor...
Hey - Somebody has to count all that money and pack it for the rich folks to ship overseas...
The double standard here is: Someone making $250K shouldn't have to pay taxes because it's wrong to make them pay. But someone making $10 an hour should have to pay because they currently don't?
That's pretty hypocritical to say I shouldn't pay, but someone else should.
The double standard here is: Someone making $250K shouldn't have to pay taxes because it's wrong to make them pay. But someone making $10 an hour should have to pay because they currently don't?
That's pretty hypocritical to say I shouldn't pay, but someone else should.
You obviously missed the boat on the discussion because no one is saying those who earn $250K shouldnt have to pay taxes..
Their ignorance and illiteracy in recognizing the indisputable relationship between tax rates (individual and corporate) and how federal tax revenues either rise or fall when tax rates are adjusted up or down brings an entire new meaning to the phrase 'stubborn as a mule'.
Cutting tax rates has repeatedly led to an avalanche of new revenue from both individuals and corporations, as three different Presidents (JFK/RR/GWB) have proven over the course of the past 45+ years.
The Democrats just don't get it, and never will acknowledge that their 'soak the rich' policies never work; look no farther than the balance sheets of CA, Il, NY, NJ, MI & MA, and other woebegone states currently drowning in debt.
'
You can add most of Europe to those sad sack states as well, and they'll discover the hard way when the euro eventually collapses, already a foregone conclusion.
Oh please. Don't sound all populist with your title. The GOP wants tax cuts for the rich, and if they could get away with it, only for the rich.
The middle class can go to hell as far as the GOP is concerned.
Exactly right. Look, the Bush tax cuts were classic trickle down economics, but it did not work. the Bush tax cuts were hailed as job creators, but in the end while he was President, jobs were increased in total only 2.3% or only 375,000 jobs a year. The average for Clinton was 2,900,000 per year. It has left us with massive debts and nothing to show for it.
Anyone find it ironic that the very same individuals who supported the Obama tax cuts, are the same ones now arguing that Bush tax cuts are an expense to the government...
And you guys want to return back to the Clinton years, where they rich pay less?
As matter of fact yes I want to go back to the Clinton years
Clinton 1993 – 2000
Average Annual Increase in Real Private Fixed Investment – 8.775%
Bush 2001 – 2008
Average Annual Increase in Real Private Fixed Investment – 0.624%
IN the Clinton years there was actually investment in the economy. In the Bush years not so much.
Average quarterly GDP change year over year
Clinton - 3.869%
Bush - 2.1%
The payoff in investment is usually better economic growth. GDP growth was definitely better in the Clinton years.
The payoff in economic growth is that federal tax revenue increases at much higher rates without cutting taxes
Historical Tax Revenue
George W. Bush Jr.
All figures are trillions of dollars
2001 - $1.9911
2008 - $2.5240
Increase from beginning to end of term: 26.56%
Highest Marginal Tax Rate 2003 -39.6%
Lowest Marginal Tax Rate 2004 -35%
Bill Clinton
1993 - $1.1543 trillion
2000 - $2.0252 trillion
Increase - 75.43%
Highest Marginal Tax Rate - 39.6%
The rate of federal tax revenue increases was THREE TIME HIGHER DURING THE CLINTION ADMINSTRATION. These increases in tax revenue lead to lower deficits. From 1998 to 2000 the Clinton Administration took in more tax revenue than the government spent. WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT THAT?
All this economic growth under the Clinton Administration led to job creation. More jobs were created under the Clinton Administration than any two term presidential administration post World War II. There were fewer jobs created under the Bush 43 Administration than any other post World War II presidential administration.
The economic growth and job creation during the Clinton Administration reduced the number of Americans living below the poverty level. The number of Americans living below the poverty level increased during the Bush 43 Administration.
Bush 43
Americans Below The Poverty Level
2001 - 32.907 million 2008 - 39.829 million - increase 21.04%
Overall Population Growth
2001 - 281.475 million 2008 - 301.041 million - increase 6.95%
During the Bush 43 Administration poverty INCREASED three times faster than rate of population growth.
Clinton
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1993 - 39.265 million 2000 - 31.581 million - decrease 19.57%
The number of Americans living below the poverty level DECREASED by 19.57% under the Clinton Administration. The number of Americans living below the poverty level INCREASED by 21.04% under the Bush Administration.
In terms of
Average Annual Increase in Real Private Fixed Investment
Overall Percentage Increase of Federal Tax Revenue
Average Quarterly GDP Growth Year Over Year
Job Creation
Percentage Increase of Americans Living Below the Poverty Level
The Clinton Administartion outperformed the Bush 43 Administation.
Not only that IN ALL THESE AREAS THE RECORD OF THE BUSH 43 ADMINISTRATION WAS THE WORST POST WORLD WAR II PRESIDENTIAL ADMINISTRATON.
Exactly right. Look, the Bush tax cuts were classic trickle down economics, but it did not work. the Bush tax cuts were hailed as job creators, but in the end while he was President, jobs were increased in total only 2.3% or only 375,000 jobs a year. The average for Clinton was 2,900,000 per year. It has left us with massive debts and nothing to show for it.
Flat out wrong.. The Bush tax cuts were responsible for 10,200,000 new jobs over a 4 year period.. If you disagree with the figures, argue with the BLS which is where the total comes from..
Anyone find it ironic that the very same individuals who supported the Obama tax cuts, are the same ones now arguing that Bush tax cuts are an expense to the government...
Or how about the fact that the "middle class" tax cut costs a whopping $3.1 trillion and the so called wealthy tax cut cost $700 billon. We are told it is outrageous the wealthy tax cut isn't paid for yet they are strangely silent about paying for the middle class tax cut or the cost of extending unemployment benefts.
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.
