STUDY: Democrats create more jobs than Republicans

[Incorruptible]

Clinton did raise taxes on the top 2% or so.

Now there's some valuable history.

Every right-wing leader and commentator I can find - every one - predicted doom for the economy if it passed. Plummeting growth, high unemployment, and so on.

As I recall every Republican voted against his budget. It barely passed - IIRC by one vote in the Senate, and only two votes would have defeated it in the House.

His neck was on the line for passing an economic theory - and it not only did the opposite of what Republicans said, the economy did far better than Clinton expected.

This was a test of right-wing economic propaganda and ideology against a then-liberal policy (Clinton did cut some spending as well - without Republicans supporting it).

And the left was right, the right was wrong. In this massive test in which Republicans were totally commited to saying it would cause disaster.

They shoudl have no credibility with their propaganda after the facts proved them wrong.

You ignored other factors, stop spreading your bs liberal propaganda

 

[dank69]

You ignored other factors, stop spreading your bs liberal propaganda

The sound of your world shattering in the face of cold hard facts. GOP mantra: 'other factors!'

 

[Moonbeam]

I am genuinely curious, is there anyone you are aware of who doesn't hate himself?

I met one person who was 99.999% sure he was OK. He had relived all his traumatic experiences back to 6mo of age, had experienced a total transformation of consciousness, and was that 99.999% sure he had uprooted all his self hate which he also had claimed was total self hate previously despite the fact that he was a high roller, with a perfect marriage and kids. But he was a bit odd and different. He could sit in a room full of screaming vicious mad people like me attacking him and smile. I think of him as my teacher.

These days I have my suspicions about LunarRay. For no reason at all he just seems to be happily centered within himself. It's disgusting, really.

 

[woolfe9999]

You ignored other factors, stop spreading your bs liberal propaganda

He didn't claim the tax increase is what stimulated the economy. He stated, accurately, that it did not destroy the economy as the conservatives at the time predicted. And he's right: a) conservatives did predict it would destroy the economy, b) the economy was not destroyed. "Other factors" mean nothing here.

 

[Todd33]

Well to be fair, Republicans' goal isn't to create jobs, it's to maximize income for the wealthy.

This. /thread

 

[CallMeJoe]

The government cant create jobs and both the Democrats and Republicans are screwing everything up. It is foolish to believe government can create jobs

If you actually believe the Interstate Highway System created no jobs, you are beyond reasoning with.

 

[MiloC]

I don't know how many others have pointed this out, but this type of study regularly surfaces during election years. It essentially says that the president, not congress is what determines economic outcome. A Democratic president can take credit for what a Republican dominated congress allows.

Obviously, a president's desire for legislation can be blocked by congress, which is, after all, the legislative branch.

The same study, if done correlating congress with job creation, as similar studies have, will find the credit is with Republicans more than Democrats.

Showcase example: Clinton wanted to spend like crazy and the Republican congress said, "No way." Clinton, to his credit, when he realized he would not get elected to a second term if he didn't move toward the center (this was actually his advice from Dick Morris), adopted policies that Congress would not block.

 

[nehalem256]

He didn't claim the tax increase is what stimulated the economy. He stated, accurately, that it did not destroy the economy as the conservatives at the time predicted. And he's right: a) conservatives did predict it would destroy the economy, b) the economy was not destroyed. "Other factors" mean nothing here.

Of course I am sure that when the Democrats decided to raise the minimum wage in 2007 that they claimed it wouldnt lead to higher unemployment...

Or maybe other factors are important?

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't know how many others have pointed this out, but this type of study regularly surfaces during election years. It essentially says that the president, not congress is what determines economic outcome. A Democratic president can take credit for what a Republican dominated congress allows.

Obviously, a president's desire for legislation can be blocked by congress, which is, after all, the legislative branch.

The same study, if done correlating congress with job creation, as similar studies have, will find the credit is with Republicans more than Democrats.


Showcase example: Clinton wanted to spend like crazy and the Republican congress said, "No way." Clinton, to his credit, when he realized he would not get elected to a second term if he didn't move toward the center (this was actually his advice from Dick Morris), adopted policies that Congress would not block.

Nice try at revisionist history. Repubs shut down the govt twice in the 1995-1996 time frame.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995_and_1996

When increasing federal revenues in Clinton's second term threatened to create surpluses, Repubs proposed top tier tax cuts & more spending on the military. When GWB became Prez & Repubs took both houses of Congress, that's exactly what they did.

They only care about deficits when they're not in power- ask Dick "deficits don't matter" Cheney. Reagan/GHWB quadrupled the debt. GWB doubled it again.

And they love to couple it to their smaller govt mantra, to their tax cut mantra, to their trickle down job creator mantra as if those things will actually benefit the middle & working class. Quite the contrary. A glance at the Ryan/Romney tax & spending proposals reveals that plainly, and their proposals are mild compared to many others on what really is the right fringe.

 

[nehalem256]

When increasing federal revenues in Clinton's second term threatened to create surpluses, Repubs proposed top tier tax cuts & more spending on the military. When GWB became Prez & Repubs took both houses of Congress, that's exactly what they did.

Untrue

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html

Extending them for the next 10 years would add about $3.8 trillion to a growing national debt that is already the largest since World War II. About $700 billion of that reflects the projected costs of tax cuts for those in the top 2 percent of income-earners.

So 81.5% of the Bush tax cuts went to people who are not rich according to Barack Obama's definition.

 

[dmcowen674]

You ignored other factors, stop spreading your bs liberal propaganda

You stop spreading your bs GOP propaganda first.

 

[Jhhnn]

Untrue

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html


So 81.5% of the Bush tax cuts went to people who are not rich according to Barack Obama's definition.

And 18.5% went to basically the top 1%, with those in the top .1% & .01% receiving the biggest cuts as a % of income. As if they needed tax cuts, and as if they used that money for anything other than buying govt bonds & fluffing up the housing bubble.

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001955.htm

If I get $100 & 10,000 others get a dime, who's the big winner?

 

[nehalem256]

And 18.5% went to basically the top 1%, with those in the top .1% & .01% receiving the biggest cuts as a % of income. As if they needed tax cuts, and as if they used that money for anything other than buying govt bonds & fluffing up the housing bubble.

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001955.htm

If I get $100 & 10,000 others get a dime, who's the big winner?

No 18.5% went to the top 2%

Of course only the top 1% pay more than that in taxes

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-bachmann-says-top-1-percent-pay-40-percent/

So one could easily say the Bush Tax cuts were progressive.

 

[fskimospy]

No 18.5% went to the top 2%

Of course only the top 1% pay more than that in taxes

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-bachmann-says-top-1-percent-pay-40-percent/

So one could easily say the Bush Tax cuts were progressive.

No, you really couldn't. I don't think you know what progressive taxation means.

 

[Jhhnn]

No 18.5% went to the top 2%

Of course only the top 1% pay more than that in taxes

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-bachmann-says-top-1-percent-pay-40-percent/

So one could easily say the Bush Tax cuts were progressive.

Attempted framing fail-

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

 

[nehalem256]

No, you really couldn't. I don't think you know what progressive taxation means.

It means that people with lower incomes would get a higher percentage back. Which is what rich people getting back a lower percentage of the cuts than they pay would suggest.

Attempted framing fail-

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf

2. For calculations of income shares and taxes as a % of income, income includes employerpaid FICA

Bogus numbers. It includes taxes the employer is paying as being paid by the employee. Of course without that the federal taxes paid would be the bottom 20% would be negative... I can see why they added that in.

And it includes property tax paid by people that dont own property :\

But it sounds like the easiest way to cut taxes on the poor and middle class would be to eliminate Social Security and Medicare... why arent they voting Republican?

 

[jackstar7]

But it sounds like the easiest way to cut taxes on the poor and middle class would be to eliminate Social Security and Medicare... why arent they voting Republican?

Because those things have a value beyond an extra few bucks per paycheck. The Republican answer looks almost solely at money as having supreme value. It's a flawed perspective.

 

[fskimospy]

It means that people with lower incomes would get a higher percentage back. Which is what rich people getting back a lower percentage of the cuts than they pay would suggest.

To see if the taxes are progressive or not is extraordinarily simple. There was a larger decrease in marginal rates for the wealthiest tax brackets than there was for the lower brackets. That is the definition of regressive taxation. It has nothing to do with the number of dollars. Progressive taxation is about rates.

 

[nehalem256]

To see if the taxes are progressive or not is extraordinarily simple. There was a larger decrease in marginal rates for the wealthiest tax brackets than there was for the lower brackets. That is the definition of regressive taxation. It has nothing to do with the number of dollars. Progressive taxation is about rates.

Stop obsessing over marginal rates. They are meaningless in and of themselves :\

 

[Jhhnn]

It means that people with lower incomes would get a higher percentage back. Which is what rich people getting back a lower percentage of the cuts than they pay would suggest.

Bogus numbers. It includes taxes the employer is paying as being paid by the employee. Of course without that the federal taxes paid would be the bottom 20% would be negative... I can see why they added that in.

And it includes property tax paid by people that dont own property :\

But it sounds like the easiest way to cut taxes on the poor and middle class would be to eliminate Social Security and Medicare... why arent they voting Republican?

Repubs generally claim that the employers' share of SS would go to employees if SS were eliminated... but they lie, obviously. So it's reasonable to include those as being paid on behalf of employees resulting in delayed gratification.

Property taxes? what- are you saying that landlords don't factor that into rents, act as a pass-thru for money obtained from renters?

That's like claiming that corporate taxes aren't passed thru to clients & customers...

All of the taxes that cut into middle & working class incomes become meaningless at the top, because they spend only a small % of income supporting even lavish lifestyles. Sales, excise, sin, energy, licensing fees & all that stuff shrinks to insignificance, as do SS contributions. If I pay 13% of earned income at the $110K limit, a guy making $1.1M in earned income pays 1.3%, and nothing on dividends or LTCG's...

 

[fskimospy]

Stop obsessing over marginal rates. They are meaningless in and of themselves :\

Stop making false statements about the Bush tax cuts and we'll be fine. They were not progressive.

 

[shortylickens]

If by "create" you mean "rip off taxpayers and expand government needlessly and give bullshit jobs to sorry ass losers who cant make their own way in life" then yes, they do.

 

[nehalem256]

Stop making false statements about the Bush tax cuts and we'll be fine. They were not progressive.

18.5% of the bush Tax cuts went to the top 2%, using the liberal number the top 1% pay 22.7% of taxes.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...e-bachmann-says-top-1-percent-pay-40-percent/

If the bush tax cuts were flat they should have relieved a cut in proportion to the amount they were paying. They clearly received less. Sorry to burst a decade of Liberal lies.

 

[nehalem256]

Repubs generally claim that the employers' share of SS would go to employees if SS were eliminated... but they lie, obviously. So it's reasonable to include those as being paid on behalf of employees resulting in delayed gratification.

Its a tax on the corporation. Hence why it is clearly split. The employer pays half. The employee pays half.

Property taxes? what- are you saying that landlords don't factor that into rents, act as a pass-thru for money obtained from renters?

Many things factor into rent. The tax is on owning property.

That's like claiming that corporate taxes aren't passed thru to clients & customers...

Well if you believe that we should just cut corporate taxes to zero right? :\

All of the taxes that cut into middle & working class incomes become meaningless at the top, because they spend only a small % of income supporting even lavish lifestyles. Sales, excise, sin, energy, licensing fees & all that stuff shrinks to insignificance, as do SS contributions. If I pay 13% of earned income at the $110K limit, a guy making $1.1M in earned income pays 1.3%, and nothing on dividends or LTCG's...

If SS is such a bad deal for the poor then we should clearly eliminate right?

Of course you are also failing to factor in how benefits are paid out...

 

[Jhhnn]

Its a tax on the corporation. Hence why it is clearly split. The employer pays half. The employee pays half.



Many things factor into rent. The tax is on owning property.




Well if you believe that we should just cut corporate taxes to zero right? :\



If SS is such a bad deal for the poor then we should clearly eliminate right?

Of course you are also failing to factor in how benefits are paid out...

Still luvin' your strawmen, huh?