"It's a very simple equation" Boehner said. "Tax increases destroy jobs. And the Joint Committee is a jobs committee. Its mission is to reduce the deficit that is threatening job creation in our country." ----
By Ronald Brownstein
"Political Connections" focuses on the intersection of politics and policy.:
Sounds like a pretty good case for tax cuts. But the economy produced even more jobs after President Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993. Four years after Clinton's tax increase ;which Republican opponents at the time denounced as a certain job-killer ;the economy had produced 11.8 million new jobs, an increase of nearly 11 percent. Eight years after the tax increase, the economy had added 20.6 million jobs, up 18.6 percent. Measured in both absolute and percentage terms, the economy produced more jobs after Clinton raised taxes than after Reagan cut them.
Then, after President George W. Bush's massive 2001 tax cut, the economy recorded its most dismal decade for job creation since the Great Depression. Eight years after Bush signed his cut (and added another round of reductions in 2003), nearly 1.6 million fewer Americans were at work. And although the median income for average families rose by about 12 percent in the eight years after both the Reagan tax cuts and the Clinton tax increase, income for average families declined almost $1,400 (or 2.7 percent) in the equivalent period after Bush signed his reductions.
A simple google search will verify any post where I do not provide a link. I thank you realtimecoffee, yes I have my research handy on word files, but I did spend many hours running this stuff to ground. I enjoy the fur flying when people of knowledge get involved. Posts by the rude or impolite not so much.
CBO-stimulus worked
President Obama's stimulus I worked and had good effects on the economy, confirmed by the CBO in a report "Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output" through March 2011. CBO estimates that ARRA's policies had the following effects in the first quarter of calendar year 2011:
Raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.1 percent and 3.1 percent Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.6 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 3.3 million Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.6 million to 4.6 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise, as shown in Table 1 (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)
While subsequent data indicates economic growth was much lower than originally estimated, the ill effects of the big hole in the economy GW Bush & crew left would have been worse without the ARRA.
The full CBO report is at:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12185/05-25-ARRA.pdf
- By a 43-35 percent margin, a plurality of Americans approve of the economic program Obama outlined in his speech.
- Two-thirds believe that creating jobs should take precedence over the federal budget deficit.
- Only 29 percent say reducing the deficit should be more important that reducing unemployment.
- Six in 10 want federal aid to the victims of recent hurricanes and wildfires even if that amount of money is not cut from other government programs.
- Two-thirds like the idea of cutting the payroll tax for workers.
- Two-thirds like greater spending on infrastructure projects.
- Three quarters approve of sending federal money to states to hire more teachers and first responders
"David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, as op-ed contributor to the New York Times, blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s."
"Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, attributes the increase in the national debt since the 1980s to the policy of "starve the beast" and an aversion for tax increases."
- Two-thirds like the idea of cutting the payroll tax for workers.
===
Two thirds favor underfunding SS for grandma to put a couple extra bucks in their pocket today. SS is doomed, now thanks to President Obams it's doomed even faster.
Democrats contended the true costs of the tax cuts would be nearly $80 billion higher because Republicans used accounting gimmicks such as having popular provisions expire after a few years.
Keith Ashdown, a spokesman for the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, agreed.
"Our concern is they've used smoke and mirrors and accounting gimmicks to make the legislation look much smaller than it is," he said.
He also called it a giant step backward for efforts to simplify the tax code.
The original purpose of the legislation was to repeal a $5 billion annual tax break provided to American exporters that was ruled illegal by the Geneva-based World Trade Organization.
Repeal of the tax break was needed to lift retaliatory tariffs that are now being imposed on more than 1,600 American manufactured products and farm goods exported to Europe.
The bill replaces the $49.2 billion export tax break with $136 billion in new tax breaks over the next decade for a wide array of groups from farmers, fishermen and bow and arrow hunters to some of America's largest corporations.
The legislation also includes a $10.1 billion buyout of quotas held by tobacco farmers. A Senate provision that would have coupled this buyout with regulation of tobacco by the Food and Drug Administration was dropped by the conference committee that resolved differences between the two chambers.
The measure is the most sweeping overhaul of corporate tax law since 1986. It provides a wide range of tax benefits for native Alaskan whalers, importers of Chinese ceiling fans and NASCAR race track owners.
The centerpiece is $76.5 billion in new tax relief for the battered manufacturing sector, but manufacturing is broadly defined to include not just factories but also oil and gas producers, engineering, construction and architectural firms and large farming operations.
The bill also includes a $5 billion tax break primarily for residents of seven states that have no income tax. The measure allows taxpayers to take a deduction for sales tax instead.
MSNBC.com's Martin Wolk contributed to this story.
.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/bush-quietly-signs-corporate-tax-cut-bill/
10 percent pay no tax
All the attention being showered on "47 percent" is ultimately a distraction from that reality. The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years, the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama, have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability. But the modifiers here, federal and income are important. Income taxes aren't the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too. Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.
I was recently at River Walk in San Antonio. Though I had been there before and found it to be a lovely place that brings hundreds of thousands of people to central Texas and provides jobs for thousands in an uncommonly beautiful environment, I did not know that this was a project initiated and completed by FDR. All these decades later, it is an extraordinarily vibrant and heartening place.
This is the sort of lovely project we should now be initiating all over the country -- both to create jobs and to create something worthwhile that lasts. President Obama recognizes this. For our own betterment we need to support him (and ourselves) in this.
Mortar, you're an antagonistic cretin who wishes to tear down the fabric of society. The nicest thing I can say to you is that you're an ignorant, testosteronic spartan (those who fought and died and left behind no art, no culture, no historical record, nothing of value).
If given a choice between being a spartan or an Athenian, those who create and try to civilize and move toward something better, I prefer to be an Athenian.
Hello, I'm back briefly. I see Mortar is putting up nonsense again in response to factual posters. Thanks for your post, it is appreciated. Signing out, retired Army Nurse, Life Member VFW & DAV.
Once again, the neocons can only resort to name calling when you put out a few facts. I served a full Army career, had a combat tour, received a chestfull of medals, well-deserved retirement & VA disability, but according to Mortar I'm a liar, unamerican, neomarxist who has failed to follow my oath of commission--anyone else see anything wrong with all those comments? We need to call out Mortar when we can, along with the other radical neocons.
I read it. Shame on you and Mortar. Someone puts up a positive post about something that got a good result and your kind wants to "break him." For shame--the Army taught me respect, but I see little of it from neocon posters.
Hang in there Hairy, when the neocons cannot win on the facts they resort to name calling. You are right that it is not the rich who create jobs, it is the middle & lower classes who spend all their money on products & services. The rich, in relation to their worth, spend next to nothing. Per Tax Wise Money, they only spend 2% of their net worth paying taxes, while the rest of us spend up to 40% total as our net worth is what we earn in a year.
With no fanfare, President Bush Friday signed the most sweeping rewrite of corporate tax law in nearly two decades, showering $136 billion in new tax breaks on businesses, farmers and other groups. Intended to end a bitter trade war with Europe, the election-year measure was described by supporters as critically necessary to aid beleaguered manufacturers who have suffered 2.7 million lost jobs over the past four years.
But opponents charged that the tax package had grown into a massive giveaway that will add to the complexity of the tax system and end up rewarding multinational companies that move jobs overseas.
There will be no increase in taxes for the wealthy. The wealthy have the money to control exactly what gets through Congress and what does not. With the continued income disparity in the U.S. we will likely see continued shifting of the cost of services from the taxpayer to the user and transference of government assets, such as parks and national forests, to private companies.
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
realtime,
Have had 7 jobs in 25 years, NONE working for a rich person!
=================================================================
7 jobs in 25 years? You have enough to worry about let alone with what's happening in our country.
----
By Ronald Brownstein
"Political Connections" focuses on the intersection of politics and policy.:
Sounds like a pretty good case for tax cuts. But the economy produced even more jobs after President Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy in 1993. Four years after Clinton's tax increase ;which Republican opponents at the time denounced as a certain job-killer ;the economy had produced 11.8 million new jobs, an increase of nearly 11 percent. Eight years after the tax increase, the economy had added 20.6 million jobs, up 18.6 percent. Measured in both absolute and percentage terms, the economy produced more jobs after Clinton raised taxes than after Reagan cut them.
Then, after President George W. Bush's massive 2001 tax cut, the economy recorded its most dismal decade for job creation since the Great Depression. Eight years after Bush signed his cut (and added another round of reductions in 2003), nearly 1.6 million fewer Americans were at work. And although the median income for average families rose by about 12 percent in the eight years after both the Reagan tax cuts and the Clinton tax increase, income for average families declined almost $1,400 (or 2.7 percent) in the equivalent period after Bush signed his reductions.
President Obama's stimulus I worked and had good effects on the economy, confirmed by the CBO in a report "Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output" through March 2011. CBO estimates that ARRA's policies had the following effects in the first quarter of calendar year 2011:
Raised real (inflation-adjusted) gross domestic product (GDP) by between 1.1 percent and 3.1 percent
Lowered the unemployment rate by between 0.6 percentage points and 1.8 percentage points
Increased the number of people employed by between 1.2 million and 3.3 million
Increased the number of full-time-equivalent jobs by 1.6 million to 4.6 million compared with what would have occurred otherwise, as shown in Table 1 (Increases in FTE jobs include shifts from part-time to full-time work or overtime and are thus generally larger than increases in the number of employed workers.)
While subsequent data indicates economic growth was much lower than originally estimated, the ill effects of the big hole in the economy GW Bush & crew left would have been worse without the ARRA.
The full CBO report is at:
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12185/05-25-ARRA.pdf
- By a 43-35 percent margin, a plurality of Americans approve of the economic program Obama outlined in his speech.
- Two-thirds believe that creating jobs should take precedence over the federal budget deficit.
- Only 29 percent say reducing the deficit should be more important that reducing unemployment.
- Six in 10 want federal aid to the victims of recent hurricanes and wildfires even if that amount of money is not cut from other government programs.
- Two-thirds like the idea of cutting the payroll tax for workers.
- Two-thirds like greater spending on infrastructure projects.
- Three quarters approve of sending federal money to states to hire more teachers and first responders
"David Stockman, director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, as op-ed contributor to the New York Times, blamed the "ideological tax-cutters" of the Reagan administration for the increase of national debt during the 1980s."
"Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, attributes the increase in the national debt since the 1980s to the policy of "starve the beast" and an aversion for tax increases."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
===
Two thirds favor underfunding SS for grandma to put a couple extra bucks in their pocket today. SS is doomed, now thanks to President Obams it's doomed even faster.
Democrats contended the true costs of the tax cuts would be nearly $80 billion higher because Republicans used accounting gimmicks such as having popular provisions expire after a few years.
Keith Ashdown, a spokesman for the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense, agreed.
"Our concern is they've used smoke and mirrors and accounting gimmicks to make the legislation look much smaller than it is," he said.
He also called it a giant step backward for efforts to simplify the tax code.
The original purpose of the legislation was to repeal a $5 billion annual tax break provided to American exporters that was ruled illegal by the Geneva-based World Trade Organization.
Repeal of the tax break was needed to lift retaliatory tariffs that are now being imposed on more than 1,600 American manufactured products and farm goods exported to Europe.
The bill replaces the $49.2 billion export tax break with $136 billion in new tax breaks over the next decade for a wide array of groups from farmers, fishermen and bow and arrow hunters to some of America's largest corporations.
The legislation also includes a $10.1 billion buyout of quotas held by tobacco farmers. A Senate provision that would have coupled this buyout with regulation of tobacco by the Food and Drug Administration was dropped by the conference committee that resolved differences between the two chambers.
The measure is the most sweeping overhaul of corporate tax law since 1986. It provides a wide range of tax benefits for native Alaskan whalers, importers of Chinese ceiling fans and NASCAR race track owners.
The centerpiece is $76.5 billion in new tax relief for the battered manufacturing sector, but manufacturing is broadly defined to include not just factories but also oil and gas producers, engineering, construction and architectural firms and large farming operations.
The bill also includes a $5 billion tax break primarily for residents of seven states that have no income tax. The measure allows taxpayers to take a deduction for sales tax instead.
MSNBC.com's Martin Wolk contributed to this story.
.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6307293/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/bush-quietly-signs-corporate-tax-cut-bill/
All the attention being showered on "47 percent" is ultimately a distraction from that reality.
The 47 percent number is not wrong. The stimulus programs of the last two years, the first one signed by President George W. Bush, the second and larger one by President Obama, have increased the number of households that receive enough of a tax credit to wipe out their federal income tax liability.
But the modifiers here, federal and income are important. Income taxes aren't the only kind of federal taxes that people pay. There are also payroll taxes and investment taxes, among others. And, of course, people pay state and local taxes, too.
Even if the discussion is restricted to federal taxes (for which the statistics are better), a vast majority of households end up paying federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data suggests that, at most, about 10 percent of all households pay no net federal taxes. The number 10 is obviously a lot smaller than 47.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/14/business/economy/14leonhardt.html
This is the sort of lovely project we should now be initiating all over the country -- both to create jobs and to create something worthwhile that lasts. President Obama recognizes this. For our own betterment we need to support him (and ourselves) in this.
If given a choice between being a spartan or an Athenian, those who create and try to civilize and move toward something better, I prefer to be an Athenian.
You mean limke every government contractor and businessman does.
Have had 7 jobs in 25 years, NONE working for a rich person!
Bush sends jobs overseas
With no fanfare, President Bush Friday signed the most sweeping rewrite of corporate tax law in nearly two decades, showering $136 billion in new tax breaks on businesses, farmers and other groups.
Intended to end a bitter trade war with Europe, the election-year measure was described by supporters as critically necessary to aid beleaguered manufacturers who have suffered 2.7 million lost jobs over the past four years.
But opponents charged that the tax package had grown into a massive giveaway that will add to the complexity of the tax system and end up rewarding multinational companies that move jobs overseas.
Don't copy and paste an old comment you put up over 3 years ago because it really makes you look STUPID!!!