Republicans Oppose Jobs Bill To Protect Millionaires

Yes, Bush leaves us losing 800,000 jobs a month, and on day one of Obama's presidency, the jobs that are still being lost because of Bush are Obama's fault.

You fail to understand that there is a delay factor between when someone takes office to when they are able to do things. Otherwise, we would have to believe that Charter was a good President, I mean, the unemployment was fine on the day he left, it didn't take until Reagan was in office. But we know that the economy tanked while Reagan was in office because of the actions of Carter, just like the economy continued to tank when Obama took office because of the actions (or lack there of) of Bush.

It's basic common sense.

 

...well you were cheering it on when Democrats and The Kenyan Tyrant defied the will of the people and crammed their bulls*it healthcare bill down our throats.

And Im betting if The People really wanted tax hikes on The Evil Rich.....then Democrats would have won handily in 2010....rather than being dealt The Largest Political Ass Whooping in US History.
.
.
.
.

 

Where is the lesson? Help us all out, please.

Even if this statement were true, how does this bill accomplish those things?

Can you prove that raising taxes will increase revenue? There is substantial proof that they may not.

I guess these "custom built investment vehicles" are safes or mattresses. How do you suppose the rich gain interest on these "custom built investment vehicles"?

My wife and I have a household income a little above 250k counting rental income and I have worked the past 4 weekends. Small business owners =/= Paris Hilton. When I take a vacation, I still work 4-5 hours a day.

Bush sucked. You aren't one of these people that think Bush was some sort of fiscal conservative free market capitalist are you?

 

No that is how YOU and OBAMA are attempting to paint it and it is silly and stupid and people see through the desperation.

 

Bush and the Republicans left us with full employment and a deficit of $161 billion.

You were not aware Reid and Pelosi and the Democrats took over both houses of Congress in 2007 and their first budget was 2008? And then in 2009 took over the White too, and took the deficits to TEN TIMES where Bush and the Republicans had them.

That just skip over you?

 

When a job creator is concidering creating a new job or not, they look at two things.

1) What is the cost of adding an employee (this includes all costs, from wages, to benefits, to how much extra cost is put on other departments like human resources and payroll, etc)

2) How much money will this job create for me (the owner). Direct revenues are easily measured and calculated, for people like sales and whatnot, however, indirectly revenue generation (like from your accounting department, customer service, HR, etc) is a little harder, but needs to be predicted.

If you make more then you spend, you'll create the job.

Taxes, cannot shift something from making money, to not making money. This is because it is only a percentage (and not a flat fee rate) of the difference.

If the difference is +$8,000 (meaning, the employee will make the employer $8,000 more than it costs for his labor and such), taxes only apply to that difference and cannot turn it into a negative. Even if the margine is so close that it is only +$10, a 80% tax would only be $8, and so it remains positive.

We are on the left side of Laffer curve. This is apparent since tax cuts lowered revenue when Bush first took office. From 2000 to 2003, the GDP increased 5.4% and the GDPPC increased 2.4% while the government revenue decreased 12.0%.

Note, that the GDP is in 2005 dollars, if needed or wanted, it can be re-calculated for the nominal amount.

http://www.measuringworth.com/datasets/usgdp/result.php
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...units=b&fy=fy12&local=s&state=US&pie=#usgs302

Good for you, but your acedotal story does not disprove any of what I said. I work three jobs (only 1 full time) and when I take a vacation... oh wait, I don't take vacations.

But I can also point to a mid-sized business owner that has setup a company that is self run so he puts in 0 hours a week, and brings in over $2 million a year.

No, I was merely pointing out the proof that our current economic issues were started while he was in office, not Obama. I'm not making any comments on whether he was conservative or fiscally smart.

 

Are you not familiar with how the budget is made and that it is started and finished at the president? It's nice to find a way to say that the 2007 and 2008 budgets are all the democrats fault, even though their majorities in the senate were dependent upon 2 independents and was only 51 - 49 (with those independents), and the house was only 233 - 202. Neither could override a veto of anything. And the president must sign the budget bill for it to become the actual budget.

 

Obama's approval rating is 43.6 - 50.7 (negative 7.1, which is a 3.1 improvement from 3 weeks ago).

Congress's approval rating is 13.5 - 83.3 (negative 69.8, which is a 15.4 point drop since the republicans stepped into the house, and 36.8 point drop from their highest point after the novelity of the new republicans wore off in March).

And now, the congressional generic vote is a dead heat (statistically, the dems have a 0.5 point lead, but that doesn't really matter).

I think that the people are not siding with the republicans in congress, since their stand firm against the president is not helping their numbers.

 

Uh huh...

 

Indeed, but increasing the amount of taxpayers is a better solution than increasing taxes on fewer and fewer taxpayers.

 

Obama and his administration has added $5.2 Trillion to the national debt in the last three years.

Be honest.

 

Looking pretty good there. 4.4% unemployment in 2006, then going up. Hmm, what happened between 2006 and 2007? Oh, that's right. The Dems took control of Congress.

First year of Obama and the super majority and they triple Bush's biggest annual deficit.

And the intellectually dishonest lefties have the audacity to claim Bush was bad for this economy?

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Franks and Dodd. The major players. Elois, every last one.

 

Thank your Democrat controlled Congress, Mr. Eloi.

 

Ah yes, if only there was a Republican Congress in 2007 to further inflate and sustain the massive credit/housing bubble built during their tenure (that they did nothing but add more hot air into) and was set to pop in late 2007. Maybe everything would be fine and dandy now.

And maybe if McCain assumed the presidency in Jan. 2009, the 800K record monthly job losses that Obama inherited from that massive bubble bust, and the $1.6 trillion projected budget deficit in early 2009 wouldn't have existed.

Then there's the reality of the avoidance of another Great Depression.



Right-wingers are clueless partisan hacks.

 

But tax cuts and and wars can lead to deficits. In fact how did Bush Jr. disapear the 800 billion surplus that was left from the last administation.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aufAtuTwKlE"]FLASHBACK: Obama Says You Don't Raise Taxes In A Recession - YouTube[/ame]

 

[

Presidents like that don't exist in the U.S. except in your dream world.


But you’re right Bush sucked!!! And were still suffering for it.

 

The Bush tax cuts reduced the tax rate on the lowest earners in society from 15% to 10%, why do you want to hurt the poor with a 33% increase in their income taxes?

 

Keep the cuts for the poor and middle class and let them expire on the rich. simple.

 

Post a link to that being proposed by the Democrats.

 

Both China and a number of EU countries (NL for example) spent on public projects (in the case of NL, using private contractors and government employees) to overcome the dip from the housing bubble burst. Guess what? It worked! Unemployment in the NL has been around 4% through this mess and we've new roads, canals and bridges.

 

Obviously you aren't aware of the budget process or the dead on arrival Bush budgets for 2008 and 2009. The President's budget submission is not worth the paper it is written and and if congress is controlled by the opposing party is routinely ignored and in one case Congress passed the budget bills before they even received the Presidents submission.

A lot better than claiming those were Bush budgets.

Bush Budget Reactions, Part 2: Dead On Arrival?
By Alexander Russo on February 6, 2007 8:41 AM

This morning, NPR points out what a big difference it makes to the budget process to have a Congressional majority that's not the same party as the occupant of the White House. In the past, the Republican majority would actually receive and make use of the President's budget, perhaps even have helped develop it. This year, the Democratic response is just as negative, and much more empowered. Of course, that leaves the Democrats with the task of coming up with their own budget ideas.
http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/thisweekineducation/2007/02/bush_budget_reactions_part_2_d.html

"So these differences over foreign policy have an enormous impact on domestic policy, as the Democrats' reaction last week to President Bush's final budget makes clear. This was the first ever budget to be submitted electronically--no trees sacrificed, no tons of paper to be pulped. Good thing, since the budget was labeled by the Democrats D.O.A.--dead on arrival. Or, as Senator Judd Gregg, the New Hampshire Republican who is the party's senior man on the Senate budget committee put it a bit more politely, the president's budget "is some bit of an academic exercise.""
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/729ghdxu.asp

 

There was no $800 billion surplus and what surplus there was was going away BEFORE Bush was even elected. The economy was already in a slowdown that turned into a recession within weeks of Bush taking office. His policies help to prevent that from going too deep and unemployment peaked at a one month 6.5%. The tax cuts then helped to kick start the economy back into gear and we had 52 months of full employment and declining deficits down to $161 billion. The Democrats took over then and now we have 9.1% unemployment, new jobless claims of 428,000 this morning and deficits TEN TIMES where the Republicans had them and no end in site under Obama's policies.

 

What sucked about 52 months of full employment, growing revenues and declining deficits?

 

Trust me...I'd much rather be abused by her than...