STUDY: Democrats create more jobs than Republicans

[fskimospy]

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.

Do you even read your own links? You are trying to compare apples to oranges. The Bush tax cuts were primarily income tax rate based while your link is talking about income taxes combined with corporate taxes, excise taxes, etc. To think that the Bush tax cuts would need to equal or exceed that entirely different number in order to be labeled progressive is just showing an embarrassing lack of reading comprehension.

It's like you were built in a lab to exemplify the Dunning-Kruger effect.

 

[bradley]

Governments that govern least govern best.

 

[Jhhnn]

Governments that govern least govern best.

Yeh, that's worked out great wrt the financial sector.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Philosophies based on slogans are the best!

 

[bradley]

Thoreau's quote was a reflection on an intrusive govt. A government is meant to protect the liberty, property and lives of its citizens, giving equal rights and protections under the law. Though the military industrial complex has created plenty of new jobs. Right?

Here's another one, "Blessed are the young, for they will inherit the national debt." At least NAFTA/GATT helped keep those jobs on the same continent, makes it easier to borrow money.

 

[Incorruptible]

Yeh, that's worked out great wrt the financial sector.

You really need to educate yourself on what really happened

 

[Pr0d1gy]

You really need to educate yourself on what really happened

What really did happen? Please tell us.

 

[Exterous]

Anyone else find it ironic that the link is to an opionion piece by someone who ran the state with the worst GDP growth and often had the highest unemployment of any state during her tenure?

 

[nehalem256]

Do you even read your own links? You are trying to compare apples to oranges. The Bush tax cuts were primarily income tax rate based while your link is talking about income taxes combined with corporate taxes, excise taxes, etc. To think that the Bush tax cuts would need to equal or exceed that entirely different number in order to be labeled progressive is just showing an embarrassing lack of reading comprehension.

It's like you were built in a lab to exemplify the Dunning-Kruger effect.

And from my link "Federal income taxes: 39.5 percent share" are paid by the top 1%. So given an equal distribution of tax cuts one would expect that the top 1% would receive ~40% of the cuts. They receive less than half that.

Special tax cuts for the rich not found

 

[Incorruptible]

What really did happen? Please tell us.

Government caused the whole Wall Street Crisis, it wasn't Wall Street

 

[nehalem256]

Government caused the whole Wall Street Crisis, it wasn't Wall Street

Government didnt force banks to give loans to anyone with a pulse.

And they certainly didnt force them to come up with Mortgage Backed Securities, Credit Default Swaps, and other derivatives based on them.

 

[Incorruptible]

Government didnt force banks to give loans to anyone with a pulse.

And they certainly didnt force them to come up with Mortgage Backed Securities, Credit Default Swaps, and other derivatives based on them.

Government forced the banks to give loans to lower income people, they also subsidized the risk

 

[fskimospy]

And from my link "Federal income taxes: 39.5 percent share" are paid by the top 1%. So given an equal distribution of tax cuts one would expect that the top 1% would receive ~40% of the cuts. They receive less than half that.

Special tax cuts for the rich not found

Where are you getting this number that they receive less than half of that? That number was found nowhere in your NYT link.

 

[woolfe9999]

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?

Logical fallacy. Go back and read what Craig said and my summary of it. To repeat: dems raise taxes, conservatives say it will destroy the economy, the economy is not destroyed.

If conservatives had said merely that raising taxes was bad for the economy and jobs, then this "other factors" argument would make sense. However, they overplayed their hand by saying that this single act would wreck the economy, meaning they were saying that this tax increase was a variable that *would* override all others. Your analogy only works if at the time the dems raised the minimum wage, they said that no jobs would be lost for any reason because raising the minimum wage was so good for the job market that it overrode all other factors.

- wolf

 

[nehalem256]

Where are you getting this number that they receive less than half of that? That number was found nowhere in your NYT link.

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

for just the top 1%

Federal income taxes: 39.5 percent share

And the 18.5% tax cut figure included the top 2 percent

 

[fskimospy]

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

for just the top 1%


And the 18.5% tax cut figure included the top 2 percent

My question was where this 18.5% figure was coming from? It was not in your NYT link.

 

[dank69]

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?

Logical fallacy. Go back and read what Craig said and my summary of it. To repeat: dems raise taxes, conservatives say it will destroy the economy, the economy is not destroyed.

If conservatives had said merely that raising taxes was bad for the economy and jobs, then this "other factors" argument would make sense. However, they overplayed their hand by saying that this single act would wreck the economy, meaning they were saying that this tax increase was a variable that *would* override all others. Your analogy only works if at the time the dems raised the minimum wage, they said that no jobs would be lost for any reason because raising the minimum wage was so good for the job market that it overrode all other factors.

- wolf

Not to mention the minimum wage has been raised numerous times and has been shown to have no correlation with unemployment rate.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

Government forced the banks to give loans to lower income people, they also subsidized the risk

Yeah but it was your holy private business that bribed the ratings companies to rate those losers as AAA investments, allowing the Wall Street sales force to sell trillions in improperly labeled investments to a bunch of unsuspecting consumers who trusted those people giving the ratings.

 

[nehalem256]

My question was where this 18.5% figure was coming from? It was not in your NYT link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/us/politics/11tax.html?_r=1

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.

700B/3800B = 18.42%

 

[Craig234]

Poor person offered money for house, told they can afford it as houses only go up, they're bad.

Chase offered money at basically zero percent interest, gambles billions on 'casino gambling', loses, that's their right! No problem with the system there.

Poor person in foreclosure, don't help them.

Too big to fail bank failing, we have to save them, or it'll destroy our economy.

Reminds me of the old saying:

Kill one man, they call you a murderer. Kill a million men, they call you a conquerer.

 

[rudder]

So what types of jobs are we talking about? The economy grows and companies expand and actually need workers and a job is created.... or a job that is created by deficit spending or increasing the public sector payroll?

 

[Jhhnn]

So what types of jobs are we talking about? The economy grows and companies expand and actually need workers and a job is created.... or a job that is created by deficit spending or increasing the public sector payroll?

So what type of demand are we talking about that would cause the economy to grow, anyway? Is demand created by people with jobs & money to spend, or by the financial elite with ever larger excess savings & a tendency to hoard more?

Why hire anybody when their work just creates excess inventory because others don't have the jobs or money to buy it?

Answer those questions, and you'll see that your own are self serving ontology in support of failed ideology.

 

[Matt1970]

This must be true because we all know how pro-business the democrats have been.

 

[Jhhnn]

This must be true because we all know how pro-business the democrats have been.

Business has done extremely well in the Obama years, particularly considering a very rocky start in the wake of the financial sector looting spree of the Bush years. Profits are way up, cash reserves enormous, executive compensation huge.

If you're contending that the Obama admin has been bad for business, there's nothing to back it up other than hot air.

Contending that business has been bad for jobs would be another matter entirely.

 

[Matt1970]

Business has done extremely well in the Obama years, particularly considering a very rocky start in the wake of the financial sector looting spree of the Bush years. Profits are way up, cash reserves enormous, executive compensation huge.

If you're contending that the Obama admin has been bad for business, there's nothing to back it up other than hot air.

Contending that business has been bad for jobs would be another matter entirely.

Who knew all along that businesses never had to hire people to make money. They have been doing it wrong all these years.

*EDIT* You really need to change the channel off MSNBC once in a while to see what the real world is doing, not just a few examples Maddow or Shultz can find to make good talking points.