How long should a "stopgap" last?

[Big Money]

Federal unemployment benefits were signed into law in 2008 by President George W. Bush to provide an average of $300 a week to jobless Americans for an additional 28 weeks after their state benefits expired. It was meant as a stopgap measure...


https://plus.google.com/+nprpolitics/posts/7YZR96bharA

 

[StormX]

If you are Obama, that is how you create jobs....

LOL

 

[Althea]

Until you decide to take the same billions, and create jobs. Tax cuts have been proven to do nothing for job creation.

 

[Big Money]

Tax cuts have been proven to do nothing for job creation.

They have?

 

[Celticguy]

As long as the condtitution stipulates. Which is to say not at all.

 

[Truth Detector]

Until you decide to take the same billions, and create jobs. Tax cuts have been proven to do nothing for job creation.

They took $850 billion, one trillion if you add interest, and created nothing.

Tax cuts always create jobs. If, instead of passing a massive pork laden vote getting bill, they would have cut corporate tax rates in half, or passed a "Fair Tax"/ Flat Tax proposal, we would see incredible job growth.

But alas, we are talking to economically clueless liberals; might as well talk to a wall.

 

[zappasguitar]

They took $850 billion, one trillion if you add interest, and created nothing.

Tax cuts always create jobs. If, instead of passing a massive pork laden vote getting bill, they would have cut corporate tax rates in half, or passed a "Fair Tax"/ Flat Tax proposal, we would see incredible job growth.

But alas, we are talking to economically clueless liberals; might as well talk to a wall.

If tax cuts "always" create jobs(those are YOUR words), then where are all the jobs created by the last decade's worth of the Bush cuts?

 

[Truth Detector]

If tax cuts "always" create jobs(those are YOUR words), then where are all the jobs created by the last decade's worth of the Bush cuts?

They vanished when Obama took office and spent us into trillion dollar deficits. Since Obama has been sworn in, labor participation rates have declined to their lowest level in modern history with 2.7 million FEWER in the work force today than when he started.

Now you can pretend that after FIVE fucking years of divisive class envy rhetoric from this buffoon of a President, he had nothing to do with it; but you would be a dunce to try.

Now let's review what I stated again because reading comprehension is not your forte', nor is thinking; if Obama had cut CORPORATE taxes in half OR, had implemented the "Fair Tax"/ a Flat Tax, it would have created incredible job growth.

Carry on dumbass.

 

[zappasguitar]

They vanished when Obama took office and spent us into trillion dollar deficits. Since Obama has been sworn in, labor participation rates have declined to their lowest level in modern history with 2.7 million FEWER in the work force today than when he started.

But the Bush tax cuts are still in place and according to you, tax cuts ALWAYS create jobs...so where are these jobs?

Now you can pretend that after FIVE fucking years of divisive class envy rhetoric from this buffoon of a President, he had nothing to do with it; but you would be a dunce to try.

Or I could be a dunce like you and make ridiculous, patently false claims like "tax cuts ALWAYS create jobs".

Now let's review what I stated again because reading comprehension is not your forte', nor is thinking; if Obama had cut CORPORATE taxes in half OR, had implemented the "Fair Tax"/ a Flat Tax, it would have created incredible job growth.

Carry on dumbass.

But you said tax cuts "ALWAYS" create jobs...those are YOUR words.

IF you were telling the truth then...

Where are all the jobs recently created by the still enacted Bush tax cuts?

 

[Truth Detector]

But if tax cuts ALWAYS create jobs...again, those are YOUR words, why haven't we seen continual growth in job numbers thanks to the still enacted Bush cuts?

Do you think by repeating the same dullard question after it has already been answered will lead to a different answer? You really are as stupid as you look aren't you?

 

[Truth Detector]

For the dullard class:

Taxes were cut in 1965. Labor Participation rates from 1965 until taxes were raised in 1968 went from 58.6 million to 59.7 million; an increase in the labor force of 1.1 million.

When Republicans took over with Reagan's Presidency tax rates were again reduced. They went from 69% down to 28%. Labor participation went from 63.9 million to 66.4 million; a 2.5 million increase.

Tax rates were increased in 1992 through the persistence of Democrats. The labor participation rate went from 66.3 million to 67 million during this period; an anemic 700,000.

Tax rates were reduced in 2001 during the Bush years to counter the recession and the effects of 9-11. Labor participation rates floundered from 67.2 million to 65.8 million; a 1.4 million loss.

Under Obama, that decrease has continued unabated from 65.7 million to a paltry 63 million last data in 2013. That is a 2.7 million loss after spending a massive amount on the stimulus plan and Obamacare with trillions in deficits.

When Republicans were booted in 2006 from the House and the Senate the deficit was at $161 billion. By the time Democrats lost the House, they had ballooned the deficit to a massive $1.3 trillion dollars and never passed a budget.

Now I don't know how you do math; but based on my math, the Reagan years looked pretty damned good.

Historic labor participation rates:

R - Eisenhower Presidency 1953 to 1960: 200 thousand jobs created. – Average GDP 2.537%

D - JFK Presidency 1961 to 1963: -1.1 million jobs lost. – Average GDP 5.325%

D - LBJ Presidency 1963 to 1968: 1.1 million jobs created. – Average GDP 3.87%

R - Nixon Presidency 1969 to 1974: 1.6 million jobs created. – Average GDP 2.53%

R - Ford Presidency 1975 to 1977: 1.3 million jobs created. – Average GDP 3.445%

D - Carter Presidency 1977 to 1980: 2 million jobs created. – Average GDP 3.232%

R - Reagan Presidency 1981 to 1988: 2.2 million jobs created. – Average GDP 3.607%

R - Bush 1 Presidency: 1989 to 1992: -200 thousand lost. – Average GDP 2.247%

D - Clinton Presidency 1993 to 2000: 800 thousand jobs created. – Average GDP 3.823%

R - Bush II Presidency 2001 to 2008: -1.4 million jobs lost. – Average GDP 1.775%

D - Obama Presidency 2009 to 2013 so far: -2.7 million jobs lost. – Average GDP 1.625%

Allowing people and corporations to keep more of their money is a GOOD thing, not a bad one as professed by brain dead liberals; and they will ALWAYS lead to economic growth.

 

[zappasguitar]

Do you think by repeating the same dullard question after it has already been answered will lead to a different answer? You really are as stupid as you look aren't you?

I think repeatedly highlighting the incredible stupidity of your specious claim that tax cuts ALWAYS create jobs will drive you to resort to the same petty taunts and derisive attacks.

And hows about that?

Looks like I got precisely the response I was looking for.

You made a claim you couldn't possibly hope to defend, and then as you always do, you got your nappies in a twist when someone called you on your stupidity.

 

[Truth Detector]

But the Bush tax cuts are still in place and according to you, tax cuts ALWAYS create jobs...so where are these jobs?

Or I could be a dunce like you and make ridiculous, patently false claims like "tax cuts ALWAYS create jobs".

But you said tax cuts "ALWAYS" create jobs...those are YOUR words.

IF you were telling the truth then...

Where are all the jobs recently created by the still enacted Bush tax cuts?

The period from 2001 to 2013 have led to some exceptions due to an already deep recession inherited when Bush took over and the events of 9-11 combined with the mortgage collapse.

I guess we could use Obama logic and make the specious claim that had tax rates not been decreased, even deeper job losses would have been incurred as evidenced by Obama's Presidency.

Using that same logic; where are all the jobs recently created by spending $1 trillion dollars we do not have?

But let’s be a total dimwit like you and pretend that until 2001 tax rate decreases didn't have the job creating effect they did.

Now let's expand on your dimwitted view and claim that tax increases will create more jobs right?

Dunce.

 

[NOVA]

If tax cuts "always" create jobs(those are YOUR words), then where are all the jobs created by the last decade's worth of the Bush cuts?

Where are those jobs ?.....Where do you think ?....they haven't moved. You know those people that go to work every day....they're going to the

jobs created by the last decade's worth of the Bush cuts.....

and those without jobs, sitting at home collecting unemployment checks....thats the result of Obama tax policy and mishandling of the economy....

 

[NOVA]

But the Bush tax cuts are still in place and according to you, tax cuts ALWAYS create jobs...so where are these jobs?



Or I could be a dunce like you and make ridiculous, patently false claims like "tax cuts ALWAYS create jobs".



But you said tax cuts "ALWAYS" create jobs...those are YOUR words.

IF you were telling the truth then...

Where are all the jobs recently created by the still enacted Bush tax cuts?

Still taking those stupid pills I see......tax cuts create jobs at the time of the tax cuts...they don't create jobs for centuries into the future......

 

[Big Money]

Another thread hijacking by Zappy...I blame myself.

 

[NOVA]

For the dullard class:

Taxes were cut in 1965. Labor Participation rates from 1965 until taxes were raised in 1968 went from 58.6 million to 59.7 million; an increase in the labor force of 1.1 million.

When Republicans took over with Reagan's Presidency tax rates were again reduced. They went from 69% down to 28%. Labor participation went from 63.9 million to 66.4 million; a 2.5 million increase.

Tax rates were increased in 1992 through the persistence of Democrats. The labor participation rate went from 66.3 million to 67 million during this period; an anemic 700,000.

Tax rates were reduced in 2001 during the Bush years to counter the recession and the effects of 9-11. Labor participation rates floundered from 67.2 million to 65.8 million; a 1.4 million loss.

Under Obama, that decrease has continued unabated from 65.7 million to a paltry 63 million last data in 2013. That is a 2.7 million loss after spending a massive amount on the stimulus plan and Obamacare with trillions in deficits.

When Republicans were booted in 2006 from the House and the Senate the deficit was at $161 billion. By the time Democrats lost the House, they had ballooned the deficit to a massive $1.3 trillion dollars and never passed a budget.

Now I don't know how you do math; but based on my math, the Reagan years looked pretty damned good.

Historic labor participation rates:

R - Eisenhower Presidency 1953 to 1960: 200 thousand jobs created. – Average GDP 2.537%

D - JFK Presidency 1961 to 1963: -1.1 million jobs lost. – Average GDP 5.325%

D - LBJ Presidency 1963 to 1968: 1.1 million jobs created. – Average GDP 3.87%

R - Nixon Presidency 1969 to 1974: 1.6 million jobs created. – Average GDP 2.53%

R - Ford Presidency 1975 to 1977: 1.3 million jobs created. – Average GDP 3.445%

D - Carter Presidency 1977 to 1980: 2 million jobs created. – Average GDP 3.232%

R - Reagan Presidency 1981 to 1988: 2.2 million jobs created. – Average GDP 3.607%

R - Bush 1 Presidency: 1989 to 1992: -200 thousand lost. – Average GDP 2.247%

D - Clinton Presidency 1993 to 2000: 800 thousand jobs created. – Average GDP 3.823%

R - Bush II Presidency 2001 to 2008: -1.4 million jobs lost. – Average GDP 1.775%

D - Obama Presidency 2009 to 2013 so far: -2.7 million jobs lost. – Average GDP 1.625%

Allowing people and corporations to keep more of their money is a GOOD thing, not a bad one as professed by brain dead liberals; and they will ALWAYS lead to economic growth.

Poor Zap......epic burn by history

 

[Truth Detector]

I think repeatedly highlighting the incredible stupidity of your specious claim that tax cuts ALWAYS create jobs will drive you to resort to the same petty taunts and derisive attacks.

And hows about that?

Looks like I got precisely the response I was looking for.

You made a claim you couldn't possibly hope to defend, and then as you always do, you got your nappies in a twist when someone called you on your stupidity.

The Effects of the 2003 Bush Tax Cuts
$14,374,330,000,000 Total Increase in Household Wealth Since April 2003
$5,700,000,000,000 Total Increase in Shareholder Wealth Since May 20, 2003
$863,654,000,000 Total Amount of Tax Cuts Enacted Since Fiscal Year 2003
$783,890,000,000 Total Amount of Additional Tax Cuts to be Returned to Taxpayers Through 2010
$625,000,000,000 Total Increase in Federal Tax Revenues Since FY 2003
$207,788,000,000 Reduction in the Deficit in the Past 29 Months Due to Stronger Economic Growth
$98,600,000,000 Combined Income Gains for Shareholders From Dividend Increases & Tax Savings 03-05
$62,000,000,000 Surplus of Capital Gains Tax Revenue Not Accounted For By Revenue Estimators
$60,000,000,000 Deficit REDUCTION Since the Tax Cut Was Signed Into Law
300,001,643 Total Number of Americans benefiting from President Bush’s Tax Cut
91,000,000 Number of Individuals Owning Shares of Stock in America
23,000,000 Number of Small Businesses Benefiting from Income Tax Reductions
6,600,000 Number of Jobs Created Since the Tax Cut Was Signed Into Law
12,000 The Magic Number of the Dow Jones Industrial Index is an Arms Length Away
$2,092 Tax Increase for a Family of Four With $50k of Income if Tax Cuts Are Repealed
200 Number of House Members Who Voted Against This Growth Generating Tax Cut
50 Number of US Senators Who Voted Against This Growth Generating Tax Cut
25 Number of Years Dividend Paying Companies Declined Prior to the 2003 Tax Cut
164.0% % Increase in the Dividend Tax Rate if the Income and Dividend Tax Cuts Expire
123.0% % Increase in Dividend Income and Share Repurchases Since 2003 Tax Cut
91.0% % Increase of Stock Ownership in the Bottom Quintile of Income Distribution Since 1995
74.0% % Increase in S&P 500 Companies Boosting Their Dividend Since 2002
65.0% % of Voters Who Were Investors in the 2004 Elections
51.2% % of Total Tax Cut "Cost" That Has Been Recouped From Higher Levels of Growth
14.0% % Margin of Victory for Republicans From Investor Voters in 2002 Elections
4.6% Unemployment Rate Which Continues To Disprove the Constant Economic Pessimism
3.7% % Average Quarterly GDP Growth Since Tax Cut Was Enacted (long run average is 3.3%)

Economic Impact

If the Bush tax cuts are not extended, the economy would contract by $281 billion in 2013, Moody's Analytics Inc. Chief Economist Mark Zandi forecasts. That would mean a net 1.8 percent decrease in the level of gross domestic product.

These numbers suggest the U.S. would narrow its budget deficit considerably with a relatively limited short-term effect on the economy. That is because the fiscal multiplier on the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which measures the "bang for the buck" in economic output from net government spending, is low compared with the other forms of spending cuts and tax increases in the fiscal cliff.

The tax cuts on the top incomes would have substantially less impact on the economy than the tax policies that affect lower-income Americans. Allowing just the top-end cuts to expire would reduce GDP growth in 2013 by 0.1 percent and total employment by 200,000, according to the CBO. That represents $40 billion in lost economic activity, compared with the $174 billion provided by the cuts that benefit the middle class and the poor, according to Zandi. (Those policies include the earned income tax credit, the child and dependent care tax credit, the changes to the 10 percent and 15 percent marginal income-tax brackets.)

 

[Callinectes]

They should extend them until after the midterms so as to take the issue off the table, then ask the democrats what they intend to do to stop this cycle of idiocy that THEY caused.

 

[Big Money]

They should extend them until after the midterms so as to take the issue off the table, then ask the democrats what they intend to do to stop this cycle of idiocy that THEY caused.

Don't some liberals say that Obama created jobs and all the job losses are because of Bush and the GOP?