Republicans Lying About Tax Cuts for Rich

Alpo, the best example of why no one should vote Democrat...

Why are you here? Mama Grissly is calling.

You live in New Jersey, don't know anything about RE, don't even try to post on RE anymore... and you're asking me why *I'm* here.

Alpo, one of your funniest yet!

how many jobs have the tax cuts created so far ?

Tax cuts don't create jobs, companies do. However, taxes can kill job creation (or move it elsewhere).

Companies aren't getting a tax cut. (Most of them pay litle or no corporate taxes anyway.) Their highest-paid top executives are.

Companies could create more jobs by not having to pay their employees' health insurance than by enriching their executives at the public expense.

"Companies aren't getting a tax cut. (Most of them pay litle or no corporate taxes anyway.) Their highest-paid top executives are."

They aren't getting a tax cut... they just avoided getting their taxes *raised*.

"Companies could create more jobs by not having to pay their employees' health insurance than by enriching their executives at the public expense."

Of course, when they have to pay even more for that healthcare through higher taxes, you get the opposite effect you claim.

they just avoided getting their taxes *restored*.

Reminds me of the morons who say "tax cuts COST us..."

And the guy who robbed me saved money by taking mine.

The_Pres.. when will you realize its' the Dems' who are in bed with Wall Street??

You view employers in the same light whether it be Goldman Sachs vs. a mom and pop shop trying to save on labor due to the uncertainty of labor taxes from the current Administration..

Why don't you create your own company and hire people if you care so much about domestic jobs?

Ohh also Goldman Sachs and the other Big 8 banks heavily voted DEMOCRAT to screw the taxpayer..

the Finance Bill is a joke.. everyone on the Street knows it, and if penalties accrue it's simply passed on to the customer with a 2% admin fee...

Goldman ‘Should Win Big’ Under New Regulations
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/goldman-should-win-big-under-new-reform-law/

are you sure you know which party truly is the "Rich" Party??

If you imply Republicans (i.e. those "large companies" making a paltry $500MM in revenues and about $500,000 to its CEO's) are of the "rich" party..

then what do you make of the Democratic WS honchos making hundreds of millions from quasi-public institutions?

But to you, an employer is an employer, regardless of field or size of lobby..

Again open up your own company and hire domestic help if you really do care about US jobs, otherwise continue the rhetoric that Republicans are the "wealthy" party.

so if the tax cuts dont get extended, the captains of industry are just gonna stop doing business

hol4 - they (the pres and other "rich" and "conservative" bashers) know who the "rich" are (them) and they know where the money is (in their bank accounts). That's why they hind behind "humanitarian", "social justice", and "environmental" issues and attack "the rich". These "noble" causes are decoys and attacks on the "rich" is reverse psychology to keep the ingnorant masses out of their pockets!

I want to be taxed as little as possible because these assholes in Washington don't know how to spend it. I don't care how they get it done, more money in my pocket is good. Also, I totally agree with Obama on one thing. Tax cuts mean that I save more, so what?

go juicy---a one-man party: the selfish party

great values

juicy damned well deserves that his infrastructure be free--and police and fire, dammit, he's entitled...national security? juicy's owed all this...

and he's angry dammit

"Tax cuts don't create jobs, companies do. However, taxes can kill job creation (or move it elsewhere)."

Comapnaies are not getting a dime in tax cuts udner the bill. Learn the difference between the individual and corporate tax rate.

That reminds me: Wasn't there a European country that slashed their corporate tax rate to 12%? All of the Republicans love to cite it as an example that the US should follow. What is the name of that country? I think it begins with "Ire" and ends with "land."

uh-oh, newly elected Republican governor of Wisconsin cuts off funding for high speed rail, kills jobs in process:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/12/13/tea-party-job-loss/

> The_Pres.. when will you realize its' the Dems' who are in bed with Wall Street??

Shh, don't tell him... he's doing a great job of making them look bad as it is.

Tax cuts for the rich may help rich people afford an extra nanny or housekeeper. Of course, those aren't the kind of jobs that will make our nation more competitive with the Chinese.

Tax cuts won't directly create any business jobs, because salaries of business employees are paid for with pre-tax dollars.

The best way to reduce unemployment is a moratorium on immigration. Letting people move here to work when so many millions are already unemployed defies all common sense. Unfortunately, neither Democrats or Republicans are talking about this.

best way to reduce long-term unemployment is to temporarily increase unemployment by cutting bureaucratic waste..

with tax savings that don't fund excessive free benefits and lifetime pensions (see Bell, CA case X a hundred towns all over the country), maybe people can afford that side-business/sex shop to start up and hire local talent..

Ok, Here's the stupid Republican comment of the year
because I'm fair and balanced!
----
Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), the incoming chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, is coming under fire from liberal groups for suggesting that federal lawmakers and regulators exist to "serve the banks."

Bachus, who is poised to oversee the implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory overhaul, made the comment in an interview with The Birmingham News.

"In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks," he said.

Bachus later clarified his remarks to the paper and said he meant that regulators should set parameters for banks, but not micromanage them.

The comment comes after Bachus had to fend off a challenge from Rep. Ed Royce (R-Calif.) to head the Financial Service committee. Bachus received the endorsements of all the ranking members of the committee's subcommittees, but Royce had the high-profile backing of some conservative groups, including an endorsement from The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/133379-bachus-tells-local-paper-that-washington-should-qserveq-banks

jobless recovery=strong stock market

corp profits owe much of recent to cheaper labor based on immigration, outsourcing and excess supply of unemployed

no, Fed printing money = strong stock market.
Uncle Ben is inflating the stock market in the hopes of convincing us we're all richer so we start spending.

RS -- I appreciate the fact that you are trying to be fair and balanced (like Fox News?), but if you are going to post stupid Republican comments you might have to clone yourself because that is a full-time occupation. Or you could just have a constant link to Palin's Twitter feed.

This NYT blog destroys utterly any notion that the original Bush cuts did ANYTHING. You have to read both, they are short and too the point:

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/were-the-bush-tax-cuts-good-for-growth/

The key point being: "Those tax cuts passed in 2001 amid big promises about what they would do for the economy. What followed? The decade with the slowest average annual growth since World War II. Amazingly, that statement is true even if you forget about the Great Recession and simply look at 2001-7." [Its "real" - adjusted for inflation.]

He destroys the rebuttals here:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/bush-tax-cuts-reader-responses/

And I should mention, the second post shows that EVEN IF OMIT both the beginning and end recession, and take any five year period beginning in a Bush year - 2001-2006, 2002-2007, 2003-2008, etc - it the worst post war growth and job creation period of all. Worse than Carter by far.

The challenge with looking at long term trends in a trough is the same problem as looking at them at a peak.

Every stock investor looked like a genius in 2000. RE investments were up by definition at the peak, too. Same for bad recessions.

To me, the message I get from the chart is that every 5 year period, we grow less. That seems more like a statement about the US in the global economy.

Extending personal income tax break will not improve a company's cost of doing business. It can arguably enriches their customer base. Well, it really depends on who their customers are. If the governments (federal and locals) are not going to borrow more money to fill their spending holes, there will be zero net gain in the spending potential in the overall economy. However, as we all know, the fed has QE1, QE2,....QE(N). That bought and will buy them some temporary reliefs in terms of urgency of resuming the old personal income tax rate. Not many people realize is, all these quantative easing is also a form of tax. When the Fed buy US bonds from the Treasury, it forces every American to lend money to the Government. Unlike selling bonds to the Chinese, we can cheat tons of money out by forcing them to jerk up their yuen/dollar exchange rate (eventually, and the Chinese dollar/US exchange rate had been jerked up more than 20% in the last 5 years already. The same is happening to the Japanese too. Their exchange rate had been jerked up more than 60% in the last decade). When American who also use US dollars lend their money to the Government with artificialy low interest, we bear the full burden of it.

"To me, the message I get from the chart is that every 5 year period, we grow less."

You are smoking the ganja. The charts are ordered from HIGHEST to LOWEST growth, NOT - NOT NOT NOT chronologically!!!!!! Thus 1996-2000 is in the MIDDLE of the chart, dummy, HIGHER than 1971-75, 56-60, 91-95, or 2001-2005.