PDA

View Full Version : the job providers



Qtec
11-15-2010, 06:09 AM
link (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/demint-willing-compromise-extending-all-bush) <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Tea party favorite Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has said that he is willing to work with President Barack Obama to pass an extension for the Bush-era tax cuts.

DeMint suggested that he would only be winning to accept a deal where richest Americans are included.

"I hope we can get a permanent extension, but if the president wants to compromise on two or three-year extension, what is important here, Chris, is that businesses know what their tax rates are going to be the next few years so they can plan growth and plan to add people," DeMint told Fox News' Chris Wallace Sunday.

"But two or three-year extension of all the tax cuts, you'd be on board for it?" asked Wallace.

"Well, if that's all we could get out of the president and he is the president, so we'll work with him on that," DeMint replied.

"I hope he doesn't come back with the idea that <span style='font-size: 20pt'>'oh, we're going to raise taxes on 750,000 small businesses'</span> as he's been talking about," he said.

"I think if he can work on our side of the ledger, I think we might can work together," DeMint added.</div></div>






<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ah yes, the almighty extension of the Bush tax cut for the very wealthiest Americans. We hear non-stop how ridiculous, how critical, how essential it is to <u>not "raise taxes" (by allowing the tax cut to expire, as scheduled) on the job providers is.</u>

The G.O.P.’s arguments for extending the Bush tax cuts to this crowd, usually wrapped in laughably hypocritical whining about “class warfare,” are easily batted down. The most constant refrain is that small-business owners who file in this bracket would be hit so hard they could no longer hire new employees. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>But the Tax Policy Center found in 2008, when checking out similar campaign claims by “Joe the Plumber,” that only 2 percent of all Americans reporting small-business income, regardless of tax bracket, would see tax increases if Obama fulfilled his pledge to let the Bush tax cuts lapse for the top earners. The economist Dean Baker calculated that the yearly tax increase at the lower end of that bracket, for those with earnings between $200,000 and $500,000, <u>would amount to $700 — which “isn’t enough to hire anyone.”

That's it--$700! And for that, it's worth sandbagging the country and adding billions to the deficit.</u></span>

But will a single Democratic politician put it in such stark terms? Of course not. </div></div>

eg8r
11-15-2010, 08:33 AM
It is so awful to be fair to all Americans. Especially the ones that actually drive this economy through job creation and finances.

eg8r

LWW
11-15-2010, 11:55 AM
First ... it's unfair.

Second ... the numbers simply don't add up.

The regime is claiming this will cost $700B over the next decade.

Your "SOURCE" states 750,000 small businesses. Let's double that.

Your "SOURCE" states $700.00 per small business. Let's quadruple that.

The regime claims the loss in a decade. Let's make it a century.

If you take ridiculous assumptions and multiply them by ridiculous factore the regime is still overstating the loss by nearly 70% ... and that's after doubling the amount paying the higher rate, quadrupling the amount collected per, and changing the time frame from 10 years to 100 years.

Now ... when you factor in that the Bush, Reagan, and JFK era tax cuts all flooded the treasury with more money and you can see the odds of the myth of Zeus being true is greater than this myth being true.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a247/lww/ONLINE%20ARGUMENTS/Snoopy.jpg

LWW

Qtec
11-16-2010, 02:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Invincible Ignorance

Just in case you had some lingering notion that anyone in the Republican party was fiscally responsible, Mitch McConnell has weighed in in support of Jon Kyl:

[T]here’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.

In a way you have to wonder what point there even is in trying to argue here. But anyway, look: it’s been a long time since Morning in America. We’ve now been through two two-term administrations, one of which raised taxes, the other of which cut them. Which looks like it presided over a more vibrant economy? </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u>LLW</u>.....'Now ... when you factor in that the Bush, Reagan, and JFK era tax cuts all flooded the treasury with more money'. </div></div>

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/revenue_clinton_bush.PNG

link (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/invincible-ignorance/)



Q,,,,,,,,where the debt is.

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/6-11-10f2.jpg

LWW
11-16-2010, 03:22 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Invincible Ignorance

Just in case you had some lingering notion that anyone in the Republican party was fiscally responsible, Mitch McConnell has weighed in in support of Jon Kyl:

[T]here’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.

In a way you have to wonder what point there even is in trying to argue here. But anyway, look: it’s been a long time since Morning in America. We’ve now been through two two-term administrations, one of which raised taxes, the other of which cut them. Which looks like it presided over a more vibrant economy? </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u>LLW</u>.....'Now ... when you factor in that the Bush, Reagan, and JFK era tax cuts all flooded the treasury with more money'. </div></div>

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/revenue_clinton_bush.PNG

Q,,,,,,,,where the debt is.

</div></div>

Let's review what your chart says ... because you obviously have no idea.

After the Clinton era tax hikes took hold and the dot bomb meltdown began, revenue tumbled. Following the tax cuts revenue jumped. After the democrooks took over congress and began it's war on prosperity revenue tumbled again.

You crack me up dude.

LWW

Gayle in MD
11-16-2010, 03:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Invincible Ignorance

Just in case you had some lingering notion that anyone in the Republican party was fiscally responsible, Mitch McConnell has weighed in in support of Jon Kyl:

[T]here’s no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue. They increased revenue, because of the vibrancy of these tax cuts in the economy. So I think what Senator Kyl was expressing was the view of virtually every Republican on that subject.

In a way you have to wonder what point there even is in trying to argue here. But anyway, look: it’s been a long time since Morning in America. We’ve now been through two two-term administrations, one of which raised taxes, the other of which cut them. Which looks like it presided over a more vibrant economy? </div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><u>LLW</u>.....'Now ... when you factor in that the Bush, Reagan, and JFK era tax cuts all flooded the treasury with more money'. </div></div>

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/revenue_clinton_bush.PNG

link (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/invincible-ignorance/)



Q,,,,,,,,where the debt is.

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/6-11-10f2.jpg

</div></div>

As one of the responders to the article stated, very well, I think,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are two sides to this claim... there is the non-fictional (factual) side, which always seems to be the Democratic viewpoint.

Then there is a the fictional side...also known as the Republican side.

Unfortunately, there are far too many people in this country who see real intelligence and expertise as a negative, so they believe the morons. In this case, Senators Kyl, McConnell, and the rest of the GOP leadership.
</div></div>

Good summation... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Qtec
11-16-2010, 06:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">After the Clinton era tax hikes took hold </div></div>

What do you mean <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"took hold?"</span>

Q

Qtec
11-16-2010, 06:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
After the Clinton era tax hikes took hold and the dot bomb meltdown began, revenue tumbled. </div></div>

What year was that?

Q

Qtec
11-16-2010, 06:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the dot bomb meltdown began, revenue tumbled. </div></div>

What year was that?

Q

LWW
11-16-2010, 06:27 AM
Read your own chart.

LWW

Qtec
11-16-2010, 06:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Following the tax cuts revenue jumped.</div></div>

Is there something wrong with you? Please say so becaues you are starting to sound a little crazy. [ Put youré glasses on.]

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/revenue_clinton_bush.PNG

Can you see?

After the first round of Bush Tax cuts revenue fell. It took another 4 years of borrowing to get the levels back to where Clinton was.

Then again, Clinton didn't need to borrow 6 Trillion dollars to do it.

Q

LWW
11-16-2010, 07:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Can you see?

Q </div></div>

Quite well ... obviously you can't.

LWW

Gayle in MD
11-16-2010, 01:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Following the tax cuts revenue jumped.</div></div>

Is there something wrong with you? Please say so becaues you are starting to sound a little crazy. [ Put youré glasses on.]

http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/revenue_clinton_bush.PNG

Can you see?

After the first round of Bush Tax cuts revenue fell. It took another 4 years of borrowing to get the levels back to where Clinton was.

Then again, Clinton didn't need to borrow 6 Trillion dollars to do it.

Q </div></div>

No he didn't, and most ecnomists still say the Clinton Era was one of the best, surely far better than Bush, REagan, or Bush.

But these repubs on here just embrace whatever lie that allows them to post more crap on here, regardless of the fact, that not only are they wrong, but regardless of your proof, they refuse to admit it.


Here's a goo example....after all their lies about how many Jobs this president has created with the Stimulus money.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ads by Republicans in Connecticut, Florida, Washington, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and elsewhere have claimed that the economic stimulus has failed to create jobs. We heard the same claims on talk shows and in speeches. House Minority Leader John Boehner even said in an address that the stimulus had harmed the job situation, since "America’s employers are afraid to invest in an economy stalled by ‘stimulus’ spending and hamstrung by uncertainty."
<span style='font-size: 14pt'>
In fact, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the stimulus increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million people, compared with what employment would have been otherwise.</span> Observers may differ on whether that’s a reasonable return on investment, but it’s not accurate to say that the stimulus harmed employment or that it didn’t help.

</div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif