HOW TO LOSE OVER A MILLION JOBS Sacrifice Investments to Cut Taxes for the Rich Plan slashes investments in education, research, and infrastructure Besides costing the economy jobs today, the Boehner economic plan would be detrimental to our investment defi cit and longer-term growth. Th e nation’s schools, roads, railroads, sewers, and energy grid need repair, not funding cuts. If the 22.7%... [more]
HOW TO LOSE OVER A MILLION JOBS
Sacrifice Investments to Cut Taxes for the Rich
Plan slashes investments in education, research, and infrastructure
Besides costing the economy jobs today, the Boehner economic plan would be detrimental to our investment defi cit and
longer-term growth. Th e nation’s schools, roads, railroads, sewers, and energy grid need repair, not funding cuts.
If the 22.7% non-security discretionary cut were enacted across the board, it would undermine opportunities for
our children and hurt American competitiveness in the 21st century. For example, spending on education would drop
nearly $10 billion in one year alone. Funding for research at the National Institutes of Health would fall more than $7
billion. And spending on ground transportation and infrastructure investments would decrease nearly $8 billion—all in
one year.9 It is these cuts to investment that would account for much of the expected job losses and decrease in output.
Rep. Boehner’s plan to drive job growth would actually slow economic growth for years to come.
A confused rationale for cutting spending
Contrary to the misguided economics of Rep. Boehner, the expansion of the defi cit serves a purpose: intentional defi citfi
nanced spending has driven economic growth and brought our country out of a severe economic downturn. In an
interview on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Rep. Boehner told Bob Schieff er: “If we cut spending, we will help our economy.
We will send signals to the markets, to the business community that Washington’s attempting to get its fi scal house in
order.” Th is talking point is not supported by market data, and is misleading.
Th ere is no evidence in the bond market that government defi cit spending is crowding out private investment
and raising interest rates; the Federal Reserve continues to hold short-term interest rates at record lows (and expects
that resource underutilization will warrant exceptionally low rates for an extended period). Fears of a double-dip
recession have recently sent the yield on 10-year Treasury notes to relatively low levels and the two-year Treasury
note is trading well below its level at the peak of the fi nancial crisis; if anything, the bond market is signaling that
it wants more fi scal stimulus.
Finally, it should be noted that because interest rates are so low, it is a very cheap time for the federal government
to borrow, and because private fi rms and households are deleveraging from high debt loads, it makes sense for the government
to boost aggregate demand.
[less]
Rep. Boehner claims these two policies will drive job growth more than any proposal of President Obama’s. However,
we fi nd that this proposal would have a devastating impact on the struggling U.S. labor market while negligibly
improving the fi scal outlook.
Specifi cally, we fi nd:
• Relative to the president’s budget request, the plan would reduce funding for domestic programs—which include
investments in infrastructure, education, and research—by 22.7%, while extending the Bush tax cuts for top earners.2
• Th e Boehner plan would reduce the defi cit by less than 5.5% in 2011.3
• Because reductions in spending are larger than the tax cuts, and because tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers are poor
stimulus, the net job impact of the Boehner plan would be an estimated employment reduction of over 1 million jobs.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by somewhereelse
about 15 years ago
Posts: 7435
Member since: Oct 2009
I'll take that over the Democratic plan to destroy 100 million jobs...
And I can't believe you're still trying to work this "the government should employ everyone" nonsense. Incredible how you simply don't get the basic concept that that is unsustainable.
I never said the govt. should employ everyone. But either way the govt is going to support unemployed people. Either you give them jobs, or you give them welfare.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
Well, speaking about committing crimes in the past is a bit different than burning a Koran, which is not against the law.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
"I'll take that over the Democratic plan to destroy 100 million jobs..."
So your admitting that the Republicans are going to destroy 1.1 million jobs?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by oohah
about 15 years ago
Posts: 82
Member since: Feb 2010
"Well, speaking about committing crimes in the past is a bit different than burning a Koran, which is not against the law."
Sounds to me like you are hedging now. In the other thread you were a first amendment absolutist, now you are qualifying. It is probably better to admit that you were simply incorrect.
There is nothing illegal about speaking out about your checkered past like the teacher did. She won't be put in jail for that. The point is she is being scrutinized and might lose her job because of the merits of her behavior. Freedom of speech and freedom to behave like an idiot are two different things.
A transit employee charged with the safety of thousands of people every day, who tried to incite a riot by burning a Koran at a demonstration on September 11th proved himself to be an idiot that did not exhibit reasonable judgment to continue his work.
A schoolteacher bragging on her loose sexual escapades who is charged with the safety of children proved herself to be an idiot that did not exhibit reasonable judgment to continue her work.
However, the First Amendment guarantees that they are both free to talk about it as much as they want..
So, no hemming and hawing and qualifying; please Prez. You was wrong.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
Hey, stop hijacking my thread. This thread is about Republicans destroying jobs.
It is a lawyers' adage: If you have the law on your side, argue the law; if you have the facts, argue the facts; if you have neither, pound the table. Forgive the Democrats for their current table-pounding.
They cannot run on their record, which has two pillars. One is the stimulus that did not stimulate as they said it would (or else unemployment would not be above 8 percent). The report that the recession ended in June 2009 means the feeble recovery began before stimulus spending really started.
The second pillar is the health-care legislation. This may not be (as suggested by Michael Barone, author of the Almanac of American Politics) the most unpopular major legislation since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. But it remains as unpopular as it was when the administration told Americans to pipe down and eat their broccoli.
Unable to campaign retrospectively, Democrats also cannot campaign prospectively -- "Elect us and get more broccoli!" Hence the table-pounding: The Tea Party is a death panel for America's happiness.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by somewhereelse
about 15 years ago
Posts: 7435
Member since: Oct 2009
"I never said the govt. should employ everyone. But either way the govt is going to support unemployed people. Either you give them jobs, or you give them welfare."
> So your admitting that the Republicans are going to destroy 1.1 million jobs?
If (and only if) you're admitting the Democrats will destroy 100 million jobs, sure.
Of course, the jobs you're talking about aren't jobs, they're public works projects. I'm 100% fine not spending money on pork, and getting many more times the jobs back in *real* jobs.
> I never said the govt. should employ everyone.
Actually, you said that was fine on an earlier thread.
> But either way the govt is going to support unemployed people. Either you
> give them jobs, or you give them welfare.
Wow, spoken like a true socialist!
Uh, sorry, there is another option. You allow businesses to CREATE jobs. Then they don't have to go on welfare, and they don't have to go to government jobs (which is turning into welfare).
Funny, alpo starts a thread about jobs, and completely misses that most jobs are NOT created by government!
lol!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by truthskr10
about 15 years ago
Posts: 4088
Member since: Jul 2009
Bingo
WASHINGTON -- Trying to sell his economic record in Iowa yesterday, President Obama got an earful from a successful businessman who pleaded with him not to raise taxes.
"One of the things that concerns me is the repeal of the Bush tax cuts," said David Greenspon, referring to Democratic plans to raise taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and on families and certain businesses earning more than $250,000.
"The repeal -- I don't care if it is 5 percent -- that's 5 percent that would create a job," he told Obama during a meeting with about 70 people in a couple's back yard in Des Moines.
"Five percent on millions of dollars of profit creates many jobs . . . As the government gets more and more involved in business and more and more involved in taxes, what you're finding is you're strangling those job-creation vehicles."
Before Greenspon could complete his question, his microphone was cut off and taken out of his hand.
The president disputed Greenspon's statement, saying he's already signed eight pieces of legislation providing small-business tax cuts.
Showing some frustration, Obama said, "Your taxes haven't gone up in this administration. Your taxes have gone down in this administration. There's a notion that, well, he's a Democrat so your taxes must have gone up. That's just not true."
Greenspon's company, Competitive Edge in Des Moines, currently employs about 130 people.
His personal income, he later told The Post, is "significantly less than $250,000," and he has never had a raise in 15 years.
"I live just fine on what I make," he said.
Greenspon plows the rest right back into his company, expanding, hiring good people and keeping it debt-free, he said.
But because he files taxes as a Subchapter S corporation, all his company's earnings are calculated as personal income.
"The money being made by my business is being taxed before I can put it back into the business," he said.
He declined to be more specific, but said the pending tax hikes would cost his company hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of dollars.
As for Obama, Greenspon said he is "eloquent" and "has good intentions."
Its generally the folks who have never created a real job that talk about how jobs are created.
I like obama, but he's never *had* a real job, let alone created one. Given that alpo doesn't know how jobs are created, its pretty clear he's never created one either.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
"I like obama, but he's never *had* a real job,"
So working at Sidley Austin is not a real job?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
"His personal income, he later told The Post, is "significantly less than $250,000," and he has never had a raise in 15 years."
So the guy does not want taxes to go up even thoguh he won't be affected by the increase? What an IDIOT. Someone should tell him to shut off Fox News.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
"Of course, the jobs you're talking about aren't jobs, they're public works projects. I'm 100% fine not spending money on pork, and getting many more times the jobs back in *real* jobs."
So building infastructure is not a real job? You want bridges to collapse into the river?
2009 Grades
Aviation D
Bridges C
Dams D
Drinking Water
D- Energy D+
Hazardous Waste
D Inland Waterways D-
Levees D-
Public Parks and Recreation C-
Rail C-
Roads D-
Schools D Solid Waste C+
Transit D Wastewater D-
America's Infrastructure GPA: D
Estimated 5 Year Investment Need: $2.2 Trillion
And even the US CHamber of Commerce says we need to improve our infastrucutre. So in essence, the right wing US Chamber is arguign that we need MORE public works projects!
Businesses are not interested in creating jobs in the US when they can go get labor in 3rd world countires for 1/4 the cost. Busineses are going to continue to hoard $1.8 trillion.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by somewhereelse
about 15 years ago
Posts: 7435
Member since: Oct 2009
"So the guy does not want taxes to go up even thoguh he won't be affected by the increase? What an IDIOT. Someone should tell him to shut off Fox News. "
No, the idiot is the one who doesn't realize that taxes affect folks who the taxes themselves don't directly hit.
Again, this is why people like Alpo who have never created a job should not be talking about job creation.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
Wow, go figure, somewherelese is even more right-wing than the US Chamber of Commerce:
U.S. Transportation Infrastructure is Roadblock to Economic Growth
An army may travel on its stomach, but America’s economy travels on its highways, railroads and runways. And the pace at which America’s infrastructure is deteriorating is having a measurable impact on the U.S. economy.
That’s the finding of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s “Transportation Performance Indexes,” released last week. The index showed a significant decline over the last five years in how the nation’s transportation infrastructure is serving the needs of domestic commerce, international trade and the overall U.S. economy.
The survey combines indicators of supply, quality of service and potential for future growth across all modes of passenger and freight transportation — highway, public transportation, freight railroad, aviation and intermodal — to show how well the U.S. transportation system is serving the needs of business and the economy.
The index reveals a clear downward trend from 2003 to 2008, demonstrating that the performance of our transportation system is not keeping pace with the demands on that system. Over the period of the index, the performance of the transportation system increased only 6 percent, while the U.S. population grew by 22 percent, passenger travel grew by 39 percent and freight traffic increased by 27 percent.
“As our economy recovers, the nation’s transportation infrastructure must be prepared to meet the projected growth in freight and population,” said Thomas J. Donahue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “In fact, a ten-point improvement in the new national transportation could generate 3 percent more growth in the nation’s Gross Domestic Product. Our index, however, shows that from now through 2015 there will
be a rapid decline in the performance of the system if we continue business as usual. Right now we’re on an unsustainable path.”
The nation’s deteriorating infrastructure is placing a major drag on the economy, Donahue said.
“We must focus on improving the way transportation delivers for business, removing barriers to maintaining, modernizing and expanding our nation’s transportation infrastructure, and driving increased public and private investment,” he said.
"No, the idiot is the one who doesn't realize that taxes affect folks who the taxes themselves don't directly hit."
So is the director of CBO also an idiot? Because apparently he does not share you opinions about tax cuts creating jobs:
CBO Director Trashes Bush Tax Cuts
Testifying before the Senate Budget Committee yesterday, CBO director Doug Elmendorf destroyed the case for an extension of the Bush tax cuts in general, and President Obama's proposed extension of just the cuts for income under $250,000 in particular. First, he said, the tax cuts will not help the economy in the long-run. In fact, they'll hurt it. The new debt and the spending cuts and tax increases necessary to retire it will reduce future incomes and gross national product. Let the tax cuts expire, and incomes and the economy will be larger down the road.
Hey SWE where did you go? YOu can't just leave when the heat is too much to handle...
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
Reagan's and Clinton's tax increases proved that you can raise taxes and create millions of new jobs. Clinton and Reagan both raised taxes and, combined, created nearly 30 million new jobs.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by somewhereelse
about 15 years ago
Posts: 7435
Member since: Oct 2009
> Hey SWE where did you go? YOu can't just leave when the heat is too much to handle...
Wait, *this* is heat? ROTFL. I'm just amusing myself arguing with a fool.
This is watching a putz on fire on the side of the road.
"No, the idiot is the one who doesn't realize that taxes affect folks who the taxes themselves don't directly hit."
> So is the director of CBO also an idiot?
No, just you. YOU are the one that claimed that. The director of the CBO did not claim anything like that.
whoops.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by somewhereelse
about 15 years ago
Posts: 7435
Member since: Oct 2009
> Reagan both raised taxes
oh my lord, ok fool... time to start adhering the old advice...
"never argue with a drunk or a fool".
Enjoy arguing with yourself about how Reagan's INCREASED the marginal tax rate.... because going from 70% to 50% is INCREASING.
I love it.
Enjoy, alpo!
you have the full fool floor to yourself!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
So what did the director of CBO claim? I read the report and it seems he is quite against tax cuts:
"All else being equal, lower tax revenues increase budget deficits and thereby government borrowing, which reduces economic growth by crowding out investment."
"However, even a temporary extension would add to federal debt and reduce future income if it was not accompanied by other changes in policy. A permanent extension of all of those tax cuts without future increases in taxes or reductions in federal spending would roughly double the projected budget deficit in 2020; a permanent extension of those cuts except for certain provisions that would apply only to high-income taxpayers would increase the budget deficit by roughly three-quarters to four-fifths as much.
"As a result, if policymakers then wanted to balance the budget in 2020, the required increases in taxes or reductions in spending would amount to a substantial share of the budget—and without significant changes of that sort, federal debt would be on an unsustainable path that would ultimately reduce national income."
Compared with the options examined here for extending the expiring tax cuts, various other options for temporarily reducing taxes or increasing government spending would provide a bigger boost to the economy per dollar of cost to the federal government."
"No, the idiot is the one who doesn't realize that taxes affect folks who the taxes themselves don't directly hit."
> So is the director of CBO also an idiot?
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS!
bye, fool!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
"The 1982 hike alone, which applied to corporations and individuals, increased taxes by about $17 billion, according to a 2006 U.S. Treasury report. The increase represented 0.8 percent of the GDP. That's why it is sometimes billed as the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. That same year he also raised the gasoline tax.
In 1983, Reagan hiked taxes again. This time it was the passage of the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which increased payroll taxes to provide long-term funding for Medicare and Social Security. According to liberal economist Paul Krugman, in a June 8, 2004, commentary in The New York Times, "this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts" for many middle- and low-income families.
Reagan also significantly increased taxes through the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, the Tax Reform of 1986 and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987."
So then tell me what he claimed instead of giving me cheap one liners.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by somewhereelse
about 15 years ago
Posts: 7435
Member since: Oct 2009
bye, alpo.
the little doggie is running in circles again...
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
well you did not disprove any of my arguments with facts.. just one line insults. So goodbye. I win!
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
about 15 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009
so sad, doesn't have the facts or the law on his side, so he's pounding the table.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
"The law"? Since when does the law come into play regarding taxes?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
about 15 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009
I meant slaw. Kapusta anyone?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
The truth is that tax hikes on the rich are actually a Socialist plot that is fully endorsed by noted Socialists such as Reagan's OMB director, Alan Greenspan, John McCain, and Paul O'Neil, Geroge W. Bush's first treasury secretary.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Riversider
about 15 years ago
Posts: 13572
Member since: Apr 2009
Time for the tin-foil hat....
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
hey Riversider, are you still getting your information from Glenn Beck's chalkboard?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
about 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
I guess destroying jobs is not good enough for the Rpeublicans. Apparently now they also want to increase the number of the working poor:
Linda McMahon: 'We Ought To Review' The Minimum Wage
After the event, "McMahon admitted she didn't know what the current minimum wage is or if any of her employees at World Wrestling Entertainment are paid it," CTNewsJunkie.com reported.
McMahon's opponent jumped on the remarks: "Linda McMahon laid off ten percent of her workers and takes home $46 million a year so it's no surprise she's thinking about lowering the minimum wage," said a spokeswoman for Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D).
John Olsen, president of the AFL-CIO in Connecticut, also jumped on the remarks: "It is outrageous that multi-millionaire McMahon is open to reducing the minimum wage, and mind boggling that she doesn't even know how much it is."
'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
http://www.epi.org/page/-/pdf/pm171.pdf
Rep. Boehner claims these two policies will drive job growth more than any proposal of President Obama’s. However,
we fi nd that this proposal would have a devastating impact on the struggling U.S. labor market while negligibly
improving the fi scal outlook.
Specifi cally, we fi nd:
• Relative to the president’s budget request, the plan would reduce funding for domestic programs—which include
investments in infrastructure, education, and research—by 22.7%, while extending the Bush tax cuts for top earners.2
• Th e Boehner plan would reduce the defi cit by less than 5.5% in 2011.3
• Because reductions in spending are larger than the tax cuts, and because tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers are poor
stimulus, the net job impact of the Boehner plan would be an estimated employment reduction of over 1 million jobs.
I'll take that over the Democratic plan to destroy 100 million jobs...
And I can't believe you're still trying to work this "the government should employ everyone" nonsense. Incredible how you simply don't get the basic concept that that is unsustainable.
Hey Prez Check out this link, 3 posts from the bottom: http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/22701-ny-post-tears-chris-christie-to-shreds
I never said the govt. should employ everyone. But either way the govt is going to support unemployed people. Either you give them jobs, or you give them welfare.
Well, speaking about committing crimes in the past is a bit different than burning a Koran, which is not against the law.
"I'll take that over the Democratic plan to destroy 100 million jobs..."
So your admitting that the Republicans are going to destroy 1.1 million jobs?
"Well, speaking about committing crimes in the past is a bit different than burning a Koran, which is not against the law."
Sounds to me like you are hedging now. In the other thread you were a first amendment absolutist, now you are qualifying. It is probably better to admit that you were simply incorrect.
There is nothing illegal about speaking out about your checkered past like the teacher did. She won't be put in jail for that. The point is she is being scrutinized and might lose her job because of the merits of her behavior. Freedom of speech and freedom to behave like an idiot are two different things.
A transit employee charged with the safety of thousands of people every day, who tried to incite a riot by burning a Koran at a demonstration on September 11th proved himself to be an idiot that did not exhibit reasonable judgment to continue his work.
A schoolteacher bragging on her loose sexual escapades who is charged with the safety of children proved herself to be an idiot that did not exhibit reasonable judgment to continue her work.
However, the First Amendment guarantees that they are both free to talk about it as much as they want..
So, no hemming and hawing and qualifying; please Prez. You was wrong.
Hey, stop hijacking my thread. This thread is about Republicans destroying jobs.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/29/AR2010092905608.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
It is a lawyers' adage: If you have the law on your side, argue the law; if you have the facts, argue the facts; if you have neither, pound the table. Forgive the Democrats for their current table-pounding.
They cannot run on their record, which has two pillars. One is the stimulus that did not stimulate as they said it would (or else unemployment would not be above 8 percent). The report that the recession ended in June 2009 means the feeble recovery began before stimulus spending really started.
The second pillar is the health-care legislation. This may not be (as suggested by Michael Barone, author of the Almanac of American Politics) the most unpopular major legislation since the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. But it remains as unpopular as it was when the administration told Americans to pipe down and eat their broccoli.
Unable to campaign retrospectively, Democrats also cannot campaign prospectively -- "Elect us and get more broccoli!" Hence the table-pounding: The Tea Party is a death panel for America's happiness.
"I never said the govt. should employ everyone. But either way the govt is going to support unemployed people. Either you give them jobs, or you give them welfare."
> So your admitting that the Republicans are going to destroy 1.1 million jobs?
If (and only if) you're admitting the Democrats will destroy 100 million jobs, sure.
Of course, the jobs you're talking about aren't jobs, they're public works projects. I'm 100% fine not spending money on pork, and getting many more times the jobs back in *real* jobs.
> I never said the govt. should employ everyone.
Actually, you said that was fine on an earlier thread.
> But either way the govt is going to support unemployed people. Either you
> give them jobs, or you give them welfare.
Wow, spoken like a true socialist!
Uh, sorry, there is another option. You allow businesses to CREATE jobs. Then they don't have to go on welfare, and they don't have to go to government jobs (which is turning into welfare).
Funny, alpo starts a thread about jobs, and completely misses that most jobs are NOT created by government!
lol!
Bingo
WASHINGTON -- Trying to sell his economic record in Iowa yesterday, President Obama got an earful from a successful businessman who pleaded with him not to raise taxes.
"One of the things that concerns me is the repeal of the Bush tax cuts," said David Greenspon, referring to Democratic plans to raise taxes on individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and on families and certain businesses earning more than $250,000.
"The repeal -- I don't care if it is 5 percent -- that's 5 percent that would create a job," he told Obama during a meeting with about 70 people in a couple's back yard in Des Moines.
"Five percent on millions of dollars of profit creates many jobs . . . As the government gets more and more involved in business and more and more involved in taxes, what you're finding is you're strangling those job-creation vehicles."
Before Greenspon could complete his question, his microphone was cut off and taken out of his hand.
The president disputed Greenspon's statement, saying he's already signed eight pieces of legislation providing small-business tax cuts.
Showing some frustration, Obama said, "Your taxes haven't gone up in this administration. Your taxes have gone down in this administration. There's a notion that, well, he's a Democrat so your taxes must have gone up. That's just not true."
Greenspon's company, Competitive Edge in Des Moines, currently employs about 130 people.
His personal income, he later told The Post, is "significantly less than $250,000," and he has never had a raise in 15 years.
"I live just fine on what I make," he said.
Greenspon plows the rest right back into his company, expanding, hiring good people and keeping it debt-free, he said.
But because he files taxes as a Subchapter S corporation, all his company's earnings are calculated as personal income.
"The money being made by my business is being taxed before I can put it back into the business," he said.
He declined to be more specific, but said the pending tax hikes would cost his company hundreds of thousands -- if not millions -- of dollars.
As for Obama, Greenspon said he is "eloquent" and "has good intentions."
"But this guy has never built anything," he said.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/iowa_man_axing_bush_cuts_job_killer_6HEngTvvMOkveqI1D0quNL
Its generally the folks who have never created a real job that talk about how jobs are created.
I like obama, but he's never *had* a real job, let alone created one. Given that alpo doesn't know how jobs are created, its pretty clear he's never created one either.
"I like obama, but he's never *had* a real job,"
So working at Sidley Austin is not a real job?
"His personal income, he later told The Post, is "significantly less than $250,000," and he has never had a raise in 15 years."
So the guy does not want taxes to go up even thoguh he won't be affected by the increase? What an IDIOT. Someone should tell him to shut off Fox News.
"Of course, the jobs you're talking about aren't jobs, they're public works projects. I'm 100% fine not spending money on pork, and getting many more times the jobs back in *real* jobs."
So building infastructure is not a real job? You want bridges to collapse into the river?
2009 Grades
Aviation D
Bridges C
Dams D
Drinking Water
D- Energy D+
Hazardous Waste
D Inland Waterways D-
Levees D-
Public Parks and Recreation C-
Rail C-
Roads D-
Schools D Solid Waste C+
Transit D Wastewater D-
America's Infrastructure GPA: D
Estimated 5 Year Investment Need: $2.2 Trillion
http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/
And even the US CHamber of Commerce says we need to improve our infastrucutre. So in essence, the right wing US Chamber is arguign that we need MORE public works projects!
http://www.uschamber.com/lra/transportation-index
"You allow businesses to CREATE jobs."
Businesses are not interested in creating jobs in the US when they can go get labor in 3rd world countires for 1/4 the cost. Busineses are going to continue to hoard $1.8 trillion.
"So the guy does not want taxes to go up even thoguh he won't be affected by the increase? What an IDIOT. Someone should tell him to shut off Fox News. "
No, the idiot is the one who doesn't realize that taxes affect folks who the taxes themselves don't directly hit.
Again, this is why people like Alpo who have never created a job should not be talking about job creation.
Wow, go figure, somewherelese is even more right-wing than the US Chamber of Commerce:
U.S. Transportation Infrastructure is Roadblock to Economic Growth
An army may travel on its stomach, but America’s economy travels on its highways, railroads and runways. And the pace at which America’s infrastructure is deteriorating is having a measurable impact on the U.S. economy.
That’s the finding of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s “Transportation Performance Indexes,” released last week. The index showed a significant decline over the last five years in how the nation’s transportation infrastructure is serving the needs of domestic commerce, international trade and the overall U.S. economy.
The survey combines indicators of supply, quality of service and potential for future growth across all modes of passenger and freight transportation — highway, public transportation, freight railroad, aviation and intermodal — to show how well the U.S. transportation system is serving the needs of business and the economy.
The index reveals a clear downward trend from 2003 to 2008, demonstrating that the performance of our transportation system is not keeping pace with the demands on that system. Over the period of the index, the performance of the transportation system increased only 6 percent, while the U.S. population grew by 22 percent, passenger travel grew by 39 percent and freight traffic increased by 27 percent.
“As our economy recovers, the nation’s transportation infrastructure must be prepared to meet the projected growth in freight and population,” said Thomas J. Donahue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “In fact, a ten-point improvement in the new national transportation could generate 3 percent more growth in the nation’s Gross Domestic Product. Our index, however, shows that from now through 2015 there will
be a rapid decline in the performance of the system if we continue business as usual. Right now we’re on an unsustainable path.”
The nation’s deteriorating infrastructure is placing a major drag on the economy, Donahue said.
“We must focus on improving the way transportation delivers for business, removing barriers to maintaining, modernizing and expanding our nation’s transportation infrastructure, and driving increased public and private investment,” he said.
http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/us-transportation-infrastructure-is-roadblock-to-economic-growth-0566/
"No, the idiot is the one who doesn't realize that taxes affect folks who the taxes themselves don't directly hit."
So is the director of CBO also an idiot? Because apparently he does not share you opinions about tax cuts creating jobs:
CBO Director Trashes Bush Tax Cuts
Testifying before the Senate Budget Committee yesterday, CBO director Doug Elmendorf destroyed the case for an extension of the Bush tax cuts in general, and President Obama's proposed extension of just the cuts for income under $250,000 in particular. First, he said, the tax cuts will not help the economy in the long-run. In fact, they'll hurt it. The new debt and the spending cuts and tax increases necessary to retire it will reduce future incomes and gross national product. Let the tax cuts expire, and incomes and the economy will be larger down the road.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/29/cbo-director-thrashes-bus_n_743952.html
Hey SWE where did you go? YOu can't just leave when the heat is too much to handle...
Reagan's and Clinton's tax increases proved that you can raise taxes and create millions of new jobs. Clinton and Reagan both raised taxes and, combined, created nearly 30 million new jobs.
> Hey SWE where did you go? YOu can't just leave when the heat is too much to handle...
Wait, *this* is heat? ROTFL. I'm just amusing myself arguing with a fool.
This is watching a putz on fire on the side of the road.
"No, the idiot is the one who doesn't realize that taxes affect folks who the taxes themselves don't directly hit."
> So is the director of CBO also an idiot?
No, just you. YOU are the one that claimed that. The director of the CBO did not claim anything like that.
whoops.
> Reagan both raised taxes
oh my lord, ok fool... time to start adhering the old advice...
"never argue with a drunk or a fool".
Enjoy arguing with yourself about how Reagan's INCREASED the marginal tax rate.... because going from 70% to 50% is INCREASING.
I love it.
Enjoy, alpo!
you have the full fool floor to yourself!
So what did the director of CBO claim? I read the report and it seems he is quite against tax cuts:
"All else being equal, lower tax revenues increase budget deficits and thereby government borrowing, which reduces economic growth by crowding out investment."
"However, even a temporary extension would add to federal debt and reduce future income if it was not accompanied by other changes in policy. A permanent extension of all of those tax cuts without future increases in taxes or reductions in federal spending would roughly double the projected budget deficit in 2020; a permanent extension of those cuts except for certain provisions that would apply only to high-income taxpayers would increase the budget deficit by roughly three-quarters to four-fifths as much.
"As a result, if policymakers then wanted to balance the budget in 2020, the required increases in taxes or reductions in spending would amount to a substantial share of the budget—and without significant changes of that sort, federal debt would be on an unsustainable path that would ultimately reduce national income."
Compared with the options examined here for extending the expiring tax cuts, various other options for temporarily reducing taxes or increasing government spending would provide a bigger boost to the economy per dollar of cost to the federal government."
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/
> So what did the director of CBO claim?
Not at all what you claimed!
"No, the idiot is the one who doesn't realize that taxes affect folks who the taxes themselves don't directly hit."
> So is the director of CBO also an idiot?
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS!
bye, fool!
"The 1982 hike alone, which applied to corporations and individuals, increased taxes by about $17 billion, according to a 2006 U.S. Treasury report. The increase represented 0.8 percent of the GDP. That's why it is sometimes billed as the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. That same year he also raised the gasoline tax.
In 1983, Reagan hiked taxes again. This time it was the passage of the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which increased payroll taxes to provide long-term funding for Medicare and Social Security. According to liberal economist Paul Krugman, in a June 8, 2004, commentary in The New York Times, "this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts" for many middle- and low-income families.
Reagan also significantly increased taxes through the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, the Tax Reform of 1986 and the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987."
http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2010/sep/05/john-loughlin/loughlin-says-reagans-1981-tax-cuts-led-exponentia/
"> So what did the director of CBO claim?
Not at all what you claimed!"
So then tell me what he claimed instead of giving me cheap one liners.
bye, alpo.
the little doggie is running in circles again...
well you did not disprove any of my arguments with facts.. just one line insults. So goodbye. I win!
so sad, doesn't have the facts or the law on his side, so he's pounding the table.
"The law"? Since when does the law come into play regarding taxes?
I meant slaw. Kapusta anyone?
The truth is that tax hikes on the rich are actually a Socialist plot that is fully endorsed by noted Socialists such as Reagan's OMB director, Alan Greenspan, John McCain, and Paul O'Neil, Geroge W. Bush's first treasury secretary.
Time for the tin-foil hat....
hey Riversider, are you still getting your information from Glenn Beck's chalkboard?
I guess destroying jobs is not good enough for the Rpeublicans. Apparently now they also want to increase the number of the working poor:
Linda McMahon: 'We Ought To Review' The Minimum Wage
After the event, "McMahon admitted she didn't know what the current minimum wage is or if any of her employees at World Wrestling Entertainment are paid it," CTNewsJunkie.com reported.
McMahon's opponent jumped on the remarks: "Linda McMahon laid off ten percent of her workers and takes home $46 million a year so it's no surprise she's thinking about lowering the minimum wage," said a spokeswoman for Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal (D).
John Olsen, president of the AFL-CIO in Connecticut, also jumped on the remarks: "It is outrageous that multi-millionaire McMahon is open to reducing the minimum wage, and mind boggling that she doesn't even know how much it is."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/30/linda-mcmahon-we-ought-to_n_745639.html