Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lol Christ. It does not matter how Obama described it. The cut is what it is. And no, Bush's big tax cut for the rich only helped the rich. Trickle down economics is a lie. 4.6 jobs per million dollar cut is all Bush has to show for.
why should we believe you over the Washington Post....?
instead of a BIG pay raise of say $50 in your dept.....would you rather have a BROAD pay raise where everybody in all depts. gets a nickle.....?
The people who received the cut still benefited from it on an individual level. Even if they didn't, It still pumped extra demand into the economy which helped to create jobs. Contrary to what you repubs like to believe, tax cutting creates more national debt. Obviously a tax cut cant be both broad and expensive. Tax cutting has to be carefully considered.
The debt that has accumulated under Obama is not just from spending. It is also because of a serious drop in revenue that began with Bush.
it obviously didn't pump enough demand into the economy since there aren't that many new jobs.....obviously there is a difference between big bucks and broad pennies....
The tax cut was apart of the 787 billion Recovery Act. Altogether it created or saved 2.5 million jobs and spared us from another great depression. Had it been bigger like it was supposed to be, we would be out of this mess.
It wasn't a "tax cut" since most of it went to people who don't pay income taxes. The "created or saved" meme is liberal abracadabra. It's made up out of thin air. There is nothing to support it.
why should we believe you over the Washington Post....?
instead of a BIG pay raise of say $50 in your dept.....would you rather have a BROAD pay raise where everybody in all depts. gets a nickle.....?
The people who received the cut still benefited from it on an individual level. Even if they didn't, It still pumped extra demand into the economy which helped to create jobs. Contrary to what you repubs like to believe, tax cutting creates more national debt. Obviously a tax cut cant be both broad and expensive. Tax cutting has to be carefully considered.
The debt that has accumulated under Obama is not just from spending. It is also because of a serious drop in revenue that began with Bush.
Every dollar it "pumped into the economy" had to be pumped out from somewhere else. Plus you have to add an overhead charge for government handling. Government spending does not create jobs. If it did, the economy should be booming.
Growth is simple. Cut taxes, reduce regulations, end public benefits for the able bodied. Growth will happen automatically.
If I went and looked, would the amount of money oil companies received in subsidies under Bush be more or less than the amount spent on food stamps?
What subsidies do oil companies receive? Be very specific.
You don't really expect rdean to answer that do you?
But I will:
But look at the breakdown (in 'oil subsidies). The single largest expenditure is just over $1 billion for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which is designed to protect the U.S. from oil shortages. The second largest category is just under $1 billion in tax exemptions for farm fuel. The justification for that tax exemption is that fuel taxes pay for roads, and the farm equipment that benefits from the tax exemption is technically not supposed to be using the roads. The third largest category? $570 million for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. (This program is classified as a petroleum subsidy because it artificially reduces the price of fuel, which helps oil companies sell more of it). Those three programs account for $2.5 billion a year in oil subsidies.
The Surprising Reason That Oil Subsidies Persist: Even Liberals Love Them - Forbes
The rest is not in direct outlay but in the form of a tax deduction that every corporation involved in manufacturing receives in return for keeping manufacturing processes here in the USA instead of outsourcing them somewhere else.
Few industries in the USA provide more jobs than does big oil. So Democrats, where is your plan to boost big oil and more job production there?
If I went and looked, would the amount of money oil companies received in subsidies under Bush be more or less than the amount spent on food stamps?
How does $1 billion compare with $70 billion?
The tax cut was apart of the 787 billion Recovery Act. Altogether it created or saved 2.5 million jobs and spared us from another great depression. Had it been bigger like it was supposed to be, we would be out of this mess.
It wasn't a "tax cut" since most of it went to people who don't pay income taxes. The "created or saved" meme is liberal abracadabra. It's made up out of thin air. There is nothing to support it.
Bullshit. The Congressional Budget Office, Moody, and JP Morgan all say the same thing: 2.5 million jobs created or saved. The evidence is overwhelming that it saved the economy from the brink of collapse.
[How else do you explain how that masive job loss rate that began in Sept of 08 turned into a recovery 6 months into Obama's presidency?
Go ahead tell me. How else was that economic shift so radical if it wasn't the Recovery Act that did it
The people who received the cut still benefited from it on an individual level. Even if they didn't, It still pumped extra demand into the economy which helped to create jobs. Contrary to what you repubs like to believe, tax cutting creates more national debt. Obviously a tax cut cant be both broad and expensive. Tax cutting has to be carefully considered.
The debt that has accumulated under Obama is not just from spending. It is also because of a serious drop in revenue that began with Bush.
Every dollar it "pumped into the economy" had to be pumped out from somewhere else. Plus you have to add an overhead charge for government handling. Government spending does not create jobs. If it did, the economy should be booming.
Every dollar given to the unemployed through that extension created 1.67 in growth. It was money quickly put into the market which is why it was so effective.
So if Obama was white, would you have called him a marxist WHITE chicago gutter trash? No of course not. Why? Because you are a racist. The color of his skin for some reason is significant to you.
NO the fact that he is lying about what he is, he claims to be the first black president when in fact he is the first mulatto president. The marxist SOB has been lying his whole life about what he is and what he believes, but he has hypocritical pieces of crap like you to keep praising his BS, so don't say shit to me when I am doing nothing but accurately portraying the bum. The left has perfected the use of race, gender, sexual orientation and other traits as political tools and weapons and most or your shit is mostly invented out of thin air and you have the nerve to call other bigots. Call me anything you want, I really don't give a shit any more, that's a club you no longer have when it comes to me. It's time others start telling you the same.
How can you be so dense? You called him a "marxist, mulatto chicago gutter trash". Are you really going to tell me that using his skin color in that context wasn't meant to be negative? That's completely moronic and you know it.
It wasn't a "tax cut" since most of it went to people who don't pay income taxes. The "created or saved" meme is liberal abracadabra. It's made up out of thin air. There is nothing to support it.
Bullshit. The Congressional Budget Office, Moody, and JP Morgan all say the same thing: 2.5 million jobs created or saved. The evidence is overwhelming that it saved the economy from the brink of collapse.
The Congressional Budget Office is a propaganda organ. If Moody and JP Morgan said that, there are plenty of other companies and financial experts who said just the opposite. Your argument is an appeal to authority - a logical fallacy, in other words.
[How else do you explain how that masive job loss rate that began in Sept of 08 turned into a recovery 6 months into Obama's presidency?
Go ahead tell me. How else was that economic shift so radical if it wasn't the Recovery Act that did it
All recessions end. In fact, the evidence shows that they end faster if government doesn't attempt to solve them. Government didn't ever get into the business of curing business slumps until the Herbert Hoover administration.
OP- Same strategy as always- Deregulate, put cronies in charge of Wall St. and business, have a gigantic corrupt bubble for insider,make them tons of money, then leave the nonrich and the country holding the bag...BRILLIANT.
AND CUT TAXES, AND FEDERAL AID TO STATES, WHICH STATES AND LOCALITIES MAKE UP FOR WITH THEIR TAXES WHICH HIT THE NONRICH, RUINING DEMAND. WHICH IS WHY everyone BUT THE POOREST ARE PAYING 21 PER CENT IN ALL TAXES NOW, AND THE POOREST 16, AND RICHEST MAKE OUT LIKE BANDITS...
GD SHIFT KEY...
NO the fact that he is lying about what he is, he claims to be the first black president when in fact he is the first mulatto president. The marxist SOB has been lying his whole life about what he is and what he believes, but he has hypocritical pieces of crap like you to keep praising his BS, so don't say shit to me when I am doing nothing but accurately portraying the bum. The left has perfected the use of race, gender, sexual orientation and other traits as political tools and weapons and most or your shit is mostly invented out of thin air and you have the nerve to call other bigots. Call me anything you want, I really don't give a shit any more, that's a club you no longer have when it comes to me. It's time others start telling you the same.
How can you be so dense? You called him a "marxist, mulatto chicago gutter trash". Are you really going to tell me that using his skin color in that context wasn't meant to be negative? That's completely moronic and you know it.
All 5 terms in my opinion are accurate, you would consider all of them negative, so why only focus on the one that there is no dispute of it's accuracy? Do you think that the race card is the biggest gun in your arsenal? WRONG!!!!
How can you be so dense? You called him a "marxist, mulatto chicago gutter trash". Are you really going to tell me that using his skin color in that context wasn't meant to be negative? That's completely moronic and you know it.
All 5 terms in my opinion are accurate, you would consider all of them negative, so why only focus on the one that there is no dispute of it's accuracy? Do you think that the race card is the biggest gun in your arsenal? WRONG!!!!
You know you are wrong. You are clearly racist. You aren't fooling anyone addressing his skin color in that context.
Bullshit. The Congressional Budget Office, Moody, and JP Morgan all say the same thing: 2.5 million jobs created or saved. The evidence is overwhelming that it saved the economy from the brink of collapse.
The Congressional Budget Office is a propaganda organ. If Moody and JP Morgan said that, there are plenty of other companies and financial experts who said just the opposite. Your argument is an appeal to authority - a logical fallacy, in other words.
[How else do you explain how that massive job loss rate that began in Sept of 08 turned into a recovery 6 months into Obama's presidency?
Go ahead tell me. How else was that economic shift so radical if it wasn't the Recovery Act that did it
All recessions end. In fact, the evidence shows that they end faster if government doesn't attempt to solve them. Government didn't ever get into the business of curing business slumps until the Herbert Hoover administration.
You obviously dont even understand what the CBO is. Okay prove me wrong, Show me the facts. As in reliable information not coming from actual propaganda machines like Fox News or Forbes.
Oh please. That recession was radically different from any other. We were losing 500,000+ jobs a MONTH. We were months away from a great depression. The job loss rate was not slowing down. Once the act was passed, that massive job loss rate turned to growth within months. You actually think the market corrected on its own that quickly and that dramatically? No way. Thats impossible.
All 5 terms in my opinion are accurate, you would consider all of them negative, so why only focus on the one that there is no dispute of it's accuracy? Do you think that the race card is the biggest gun in your arsenal? WRONG!!!!
You know you are wrong. You are clearly racist. You aren't fooling anyone addressing his skin color in that context.
That's your opinion. Opinions are like ass holes, everyone's got one and all of them stink.
Now you want to answer my question?
The Congressional Budget Office is a propaganda organ. If Moody and JP Morgan said that, there are plenty of other companies and financial experts who said just the opposite. Your argument is an appeal to authority - a logical fallacy, in other words.
All recessions end. In fact, the evidence shows that they end faster if government doesn't attempt to solve them. Government didn't ever get into the business of curing business slumps until the Herbert Hoover administration.
You obviously dont even understand what the CBO is. Okay prove me wrong, Show me the facts. As in reliable information not coming from actual propaganda machines like Fox News or Forbes.
Oh please. That recession was radically different from any other. We were losing 500,000+ jobs a MONTH. We were months away from a great depression. The job loss rate was not slowing down. Once the act was passed, that massive job loss rate turned to growth within months. You actually think the market corrected on its own that quickly and that dramatically? No way. Thats impossible.
The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office. It doesn't really assess job creation, but costs of legislation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does. So why use the CBO as a source? As for that act curbing job losses within months, it didn't. The ARRA was passed in February 2009, the unemployment rate continued to rise until it hit 10% in October that year, two years went by and the unemployment rate never dipped below 9%, and didn't touch the 7% mark until last November.
Sorry, the ARRA was a failure.
.
Seems to me the Republicans have been spending most of their time and energy pounding on each other. First things first.
Who has time to clearly, passionately and patiently tell voters why they should vote for Republicans? There are only so many hours in a day, y'know.
.
There really is only one reason. Both parties are populated with professional politicians and bureaucrats who will look to their own interests before ours, and if it comes down to them or us prospering, they will choose themselves every time.
But at least the Republicans represent that segment of society that still has its head on straight, who still appreciates the Constitution for the great document it is, who still understand the Founders intent of what sort of nation this was intended to be, who still hold traditional values and want options, opportunities, and choices to prosper rather than have the government dole out what it thinks we should have.
So......the Republicans, as bad as they are, will still implement more sound fiscal policy and common sense to keep its constituency voting for it. And therefore they do less damage than do the Democrats. They are still taking us to hell in a handbasket, but they are carrying it more slowly. That buys us who really want to fix things more time to do what we have to do to fix it.
You obviously dont even understand what the CBO is. Okay prove me wrong, Show me the facts. As in reliable information not coming from actual propaganda machines like Fox News or Forbes.
Oh please. That recession was radically different from any other. We were losing 500,000+ jobs a MONTH. We were months away from a great depression. The job loss rate was not slowing down. Once the act was passed, that massive job loss rate turned to growth within months. You actually think the market corrected on its own that quickly and that dramatically? No way. Thats impossible.
The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office. It doesn't really assess job creation, but costs of legislation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does. So why use the CBO as a source? As for that act curbing job losses within months, it didn't. The ARRA was passed in February 2009, the unemployment rate continued to rise until it hit 10% in October that year, two years went by and the unemployment rate never dipped below 9%, and didn't touch the 7% mark until last November.
Sorry, the ARRA was a failure.
I swear to god the most simple of nuance escapes you people. The economy lost about 5 million jobs. The stimulus created 2.5 million jobs. I already went through this. Obviously if the act was bigger like it was meant to be, we would be out of this mess. You can blame republicans for that.
The stimulus worked to a large extent. It was simply undermined by corrupt assholes. How do we fix our high unemployment rate? More demand side economic policies like the stimulus.
The CBO is the Congressional Budget Office. It doesn't really assess job creation, but costs of legislation. The Bureau of Labor Statistics does. So why use the CBO as a source? As for that act curbing job losses within months, it didn't. The ARRA was passed in February 2009, the unemployment rate continued to rise until it hit 10% in October that year, two years went by and the unemployment rate never dipped below 9%, and didn't touch the 7% mark until last November.
Sorry, the ARRA was a failure.
I swear to god the most simple of nuance escapes you people. The economy lost about 5 million jobs. The stimulus created 2.5 million jobs. I already went through this. Obviously if the act was bigger like it was meant to be, we would be out of this mess. You can blame republicans for that.
The stimulus worked to a large extent. It was simply undermined by corrupt assholes. How do we fix our high unemployment rate? More demand side economic policies like the stimulus.
Excuse me, but can you link me to where a reputable source says anything about Obama creating 2.5 million jobs at ANY POINT in his presidency? You're sitting there playing the blame game, but you are unable to substantiate your claims. And to which "stimulus" are you referring, by the way?
