Estimates Say Fewer Jobs, Larger Deficits if Republicans Were in Charge

This may be true but I got as far as www.NEWSWEEK before I read that article with a high amount of skepticism. Newsweek is pretty much the number 1 most liberal biased magazine in existence.

yeah they are just lying only fox tells the truth. lol

who are the non partisan economic sources?

LOL, I love how it said from 2009 forward, the house and senate have been held in control by the democrats since 2006, when shortly after everything went to shit. And they have held control since then and have made no improvements to the economy or jobs,it's just got worse, sorry, I call BullShit Spin on that article.

yeah the dems did it all ,you are too funny lol bush giving tax breaks to the rich and going to war at the same time had nothing to do with it.

Don't expect much from the guy who has had "I sale cigarettes online" in his sig forever, and STILL not noticed the fail there.

Don't try to be polite and merely debate either. You'll just end up getting a million names and personal attacks thrown at you - the hallmarks of a weak position.

I never said they did it all

I said it turned to shit after they took control and it got worse

Or am I speaking too fast for you


I love the whole tax breaks for the rich thing, the poor of this country don't pay taxes and haven't for a very long time. I knew a girl that had 2 kids, paid no taxes all year working at the cafeteria at a hospital I worked at, full time. No federal taxes came out of her checks and she got over $5k back from the government every year. Things might have changed, that was about 12 years ago.


June 6th, Revenue Act of 1932 passed, the largest peacetime tax increase in the nation's history to that date
raised top tax rates from 25% to 63%
reduced personal exemptions from $1,500 to $1,000 for single persons
reduced personal exemptions from $3,500 to $2,500 for married couples

yet did it help the Great Depression, when was it over?

Whats wrong with tax cuts for the rich? They pay most of your taxes for you already, and you poor are getting a free ride pretty much in comparison.

I don't know what I did to piss you off, but if all you have to do is attack a joke in my sig, fuck off, I've had my fill of idiots and morons this week, Tony and I respect each other and have debates on this forum all the time and occasionally agree on things, although rare. If we get a little out of hand with each other, thats us, not you. So if you don't have anything of any intelligence to add to the discussion, kindly go fuck yourself.

No but the poor pay for other shit that benefits you like late fees to utility and other companies, traffic fines for no insurance, higher rent and interest rates, and over 50 billion dollars to banks last year in overdraft fees. Don't think the poor don't pay.

The altitude must be getting to you if you think penalties brought on by oneself are somehow comparable to mandated taxes.

No, I said they pay in other ways, do you deny that?

Are you serious?

You don't ruin an economy in 8 months. It takes 8 years or longer.

The root of the problem is the huge deficit most of the West has built up. Relying on Banking and Financial services to keep everything going. When that went bust the truth was exposed. The US like many other Western economies imports too much and exports too little.

Is that the fault of 1 administration or many?

Many... QFT

ahahahaha, what utter trash.
I can't imagine all but the stupidest segment of society believing that fairy tale.
The article doesn't even mention spending cuts.
the healthcare lie is also laughable as all intelligent people understand. yes, if you fuck with the numbers, collect taxes for 10yrs but only offer benefits for the last 6, you can pretend it saves money over 10yrs.
I guess when you are voting for your handout, its better to look stupid than greedy.
nothing about the rabble ever seems to change.

oh, and the lie of the "tax cuts for the rich" is laughable. It was an across the board tax cut. That portion of the tax cut that goes to the "non-rich" is much larger than that for those making over 250k.
This is simply the left playing the idiot poor with class envy.

haha I sale cigarettes online... Wow I can't believe I never looked at that Teabagger nutcases sig before.

an all American classic in a doublewide

here's a little education for the idiot left.
most likely to be ignored because they're not after a healthy economy and government, they're simply looking to have their betters harmed as revenge for doing what they can never do themselves..........succeed.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3015

We should do exactly what that says.... we should tax the rich (not really rich on todays standard, but whatever) 2x - 500x more than the poor. Hell, for the most part, other than the ultra poor, everyone was taxed more back then than today. The only reason the %'s through the 20's is so low is because most of the people (poor) were taxed from 1.1% - 16% - damn sure not the rich, which hit a high of 61% - double what todays is.

By todays standards and your other posts... this is exactly what you don't want and exactly what Obama is doing. It says, tax the rich more and the poor less, and the Country rebounds - how logical.

Brilliant post

Good timing for article when unemployment from Obama rising fast and housing market not recovering and everything again going backwards. "oh, but it would have been worse if the other guys in control" has been his excuse for everything related to economy

wow, its no wonder you're a failure. you can't comprehend what you read.
lest you fool anyone with your nonsensical post, here is the text you can't comprehend:


Changes in marginal income tax rates cause individuals and businesses to change their behavior. As tax rates rise, taxpayers reduce taxable income by working less, retiring earlier, scaling back plans to start or expand businesses, moving activities to the underground economy, restructuring companies, and spending more time and money on accountants to minimize taxes. Tax rate cuts reduce such distortions and cause the tax base to expand as tax avoidance falls and the economy grows. A review of tax data for high-income earners in the 1920s shows that as top tax rates were cut, tax revenues and the share of taxes paid by high-income taxpayers soared (see Figure 1).
When the federal income tax was enacted in 1913, the top rate was just 7 percent. By the end of World War I, rates had been greatly increased at all income levels, with the top rate jacked up to 77 percent (for income over $1 million). After five years of very high tax rates, rates were cut sharply under the Revenue Acts of 1921, 1924, and 1926. The combined top marginal normal and surtax rate fell from 73 percent to 58 percent in 1922, and then to 50 percent in 1923 (income over $200,000). In 1924, the top tax rate fell to 46 percent (income over $500,000). The top rate was just 25 percent (income over $100,000) from 1925 to 1928, and then fell to 24 percent in 1929.

Secretary Mellon knew that high tax rates caused the tax base to contract and that lower rates would boost economic growth. In 1924, Mellon noted: "The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business." He received strong support from President Coolidge, who argued that "the wise and correct course to follow in taxation and all other economic legislation is not to destroy those who have already secured success but to create conditions under which every one will have a better chance to be successful."

The Effects of the Mellon Tax Cuts

[/b]It is often assumed that broad cuts in income tax rates only benefit the rich and thrust a larger share of the tax burden on the poor. But detailed Internal Revenue Service data show that the across-the-board rate cuts of the early 1920s-including large cuts at the top end-resulted in greater tax payments and a larger tax share paid by those with high incomes.[/b] Figure 1 focuses on those earning more than $100,000. As the marginal tax rate on those high-income earners was cut sharply from 60 percent or more (to a maximum of 73 percent) to just 25 percent, taxes paid by that group soared from roughly $300 million to $700 million per year. The share of overall income taxes paid by the group rose from about one-third in the early 1920s to almost two-thirds by the late 1920s. (Note that inflation was virtually zero between 1922 and 1930, thus the tax amounts shown for that period are essentially real changes).
The tax cuts allowed the U.S. economy to grow rapidly during the mid- and late-1920s. Between 1922 and 1929, real gross national product grew at an annual average rate of 4.7 percent and the unemployment rate fell from 6.7 percent to 3.2 percent. The Mellon tax cuts restored incentives to work, save, and invest, and discouraged the use of tax shelters.

The rising tide of strong economic growth lifted all boats. At the top end, total income grew as a result of many more people becoming prosperous, rather than a fixed number of high earners getting greatly richer. For example, between 1922 and 1928, the average income reported on tax returns of those earning more than $100,000 increased 15 percent, but the number of taxpayers in that group almost quadrupled. During the same period, the number of taxpayers earning between $10,000 and $100,000 increased 84 percent, while the number reporting income of less than $10,000 fell.

The decade of the 1920s had started with very high tax rates and an economic recession. Tax rates were massively increased in 1917 at all income levels. Rates were increased again in 1918. Real GNP fell in 1919, 1920, and 1921 with a total three-year fall of 16 percent. (Deflation between 1920 and 1922 may also help explain the drop in tax revenues in those years, evident in Table 1).

As tax rates were cut in the mid-1920s, total tax revenues initially fell. But as the economy responded and began growing quickly, revenues soared as incomes rose. By 1928, revenues had surpassed the 1920 level even though tax rates had been dramatically cut.

Conclusion

The tax cuts of the 1920s were the first federal experiment with supply-side income tax rate cuts. Data for the period show an initial decline in federal revenues as tax rates were cut, but revenues grew strongly during the subsequent economic expansion. After the cuts, total tax payments and the share of total taxes paid by the top income earners soared. President Bush's current proposal to make phased-in rate cuts effective immediately also promises to expand the tax base. Indeed, Congress should consider further rate cuts to stimulate even larger gains in incomes and economic growth.

yeah posting links to cato is like me posting links from mother jones. lol

The 1920's, we had a rather small Gov - todays standard, cutting the taxes to the point that the poor reached, I don't think is possible. Now if we made some changes in Gov size, then yes.

If you look at the numbers, you'll see that the tax rate for the poor slowly declined over the period to almost nothing. While the rich did get a tax cut too, it increased over the period to double what it is today. This explains why the rich paid most of the taxes. But it also tells us, that we should tax the lower incomes far less than the rich get taxed, percentage wise.

We've already gone through the economic boom... the peak has happened. If you want to follow in the foot steps of what you posted, you would agreeing with is what Obama has suggested we do. Cut the tax rate for the lower income and increase it for the higher income. Another 8% cut in the tax rate for top income earners will do exactly what the last tax cut did, increase the deficit. We're past that point.


Now if they slash the capital gains tax for corps on money brought into the Country for local investing/growth that would spark huge growth. But to get to that point, we need to make it so corps can easily abuse the system they were setup to work within. Which is the game plan.

you'd have a point if mother jones contained facts.
Cato listed facts followed by conclusions

Cutting taxes or increasing taxes will do very little to improve an economy in the long run. It's just shifting around the money within the box. If the money in the keeps decreasing or supported by more borrowing the economy gets worse.

Opps, missing the word not.

"But to get to that point, we need to make it so corps can not easily abuse the system they were setup to work within. Which is the game plan."

You clearly have no concept of vague idea of what you are talking about.

Cutting taxes can result in a major boon for an economy if done correctly.

clinton raised taxes and there was a huge boom in this country and a government surplus.

incorrect

http://www.heritage.org/research/rep...the-1990s-boom

When pressed about the harmful effects on the economy, proponents of highertaxes often fall back on what can be called the "Clinton defense." President Bill Clinton pushed a major tax increase through Congress in 1993, and, so the story goes, the economy boomed. How, then, can tax increases be so bad for the economy? The inference is even stronger: that highertaxes actually strengthened the economy.
The Clinton defense is superficially plausible, but it fails under closer scrutiny. Economic growth was solid but hardly spectacular in the years immediately following the 1993 tax increase. The real economic boom occurred in the latter half of the decade, after the 1997 tax cut. Lowtaxes are still a key to a strong economy.........

LOL, you actually think traffic fines, late fees and overdrafts fees benefit the public? And where do you get they pay higher rents? Stop pulling things out of your ass

Hey shit for brains, got anything to add, or just pulling hateful shit out of your ass?

that's because Republicans were in charge of the house and senate to manage the money, or is that what you're hoping this November?

Did you read about the Tax Increase they did during the depression, it didn't work! Why do you think it will work now?

In a country where more then 3 people think that Sarah Palin would be a good president I don't expect much more.

in a country where 50% of the population doesn't pay income tax and therefore gets their government for free, I don't expect much more from the media that votes 90% democrat