You and I rarely agree, but I've always found your posts clear and informative. This, however, is way out there.

 

:thumb:

 

Right out there with the "birthers" and the "Obama is a Muslim" theories...:lol:

Thanks for your help. I did know it was expiration. Let's just say nothing is extended. What's the damage per household?

I don't know because no one is proposing that. Democrats want to extend them for everyone under $250K and Republicans want to extend them for everyone.

Why would they not extend them for all of them? Makes zero sense not to. You let the taxes go up for those making the top 1.5% and you can say bye bye to even more jobs.

That's one theory. But I would point out that letting the Bush era tax cuts expire for the top 1.5% of household earners would bring their rate back to the Clinton era-- I think we added a few jobs to the economy then.

In the sense of educating myself. is there a way to determine how much total tax, say a 100,000 household income family pays in a year? I'm talking every type of tax that one pays.

Actually the numbers have been posted before that when the tax cuts went into effect jobs were created. I will see what I can find and post it again.

 

It still doesn't answer my question, though, of what has happend to the job creation in the time between the cuts went into effect and now, even though the cuts have been in place the whole time. And it doesn't prove that jobs will be created if they are extended. I don't see how job creation can be used as a reason to extend the cuts, when with the exception of the short time period one can consider "when they went into effect" the job creation has not been significant, and is now virtually non-existant. That is the crux of my dilemma.

 

And again, apparently the rich are the job creators. Apparently the rich are GOP supporters. Therefore, when I hear McConnell speaking for the GOP, and referring to the GOP as representing "the people", then I can only conclude that at least a significant number of "the people" are "the rich". Further, if McConnell's goal is to limit Obama to one term, and the economy is a major factor in the results of this year's election, I feel it's not off base to feel that the rich are passive-agressively holding the economy hostage until Obama is out of office. I highly dobut that job creation will skyrocket if the tax cuts are extended for the rich.

You and I rarely agree, but I've always found your posts clear and informative. This, however, is way out there.

 

Maybe if you read my post above you'll see more of why I feel the way I do.

VOR, like it or not the health care issue is a big reason a lot of the Dems lost. Not that all the other things you mention weren't a big part of it but health care, as it was passed, made a lot of people unhappy.

Glad to see this thread proving my main point when I started it. We are over 60 posts now and the focus of the thread is on the economy. So why are McConnell and Boehner listing repeal of health reform as one of their top priorities? They are headed down the same patrh the Dems went 2 years ago if they spend time and energy fosucing on health care reform.

VOR, like it or not the health care issue is a big reason a lot of the Dems lost. Not that all the other things you mention weren't a big part of it but health care, as it was passed, made a lot of people unhappy.

Nope. Like it or not, exit polling data doesn't support your conclusion.

It still doesn't answer my question, though, of what has happend to the job creation in the time between the cuts went into effect and now, even though the cuts have been in place the whole time. And it doesn't prove that jobs will be created if they are extended. I don't see how job creation can be used as a reason to extend the cuts, when with the exception of the short time period one can consider "when they went into effect" the job creation has not been significant, and is now virtually non-existant. That is the crux of my dilemma.

 

And again, apparently the rich are the job creators. Apparently the rich are GOP supporters. Therefore, when I hear McConnell speaking for the GOP, and referring to the GOP as representing "the people", then I can only conclude that at least a significant number of "the people" are "the rich". Further, if McConnell's goal is to limit Obama to one term, and the economy is a major factor in the results of this year's election, I feel it's not off base to feel that the rich are passive-agressively holding the economy hostage until Obama is out of office. I highly dobut that job creation will skyrocket if the tax cuts are extended for the rich.

How does it not answer your question? Jobs were created after the cuts. Some are still there some aren't. Our current situation has nothing to do with the cuts.

That's one theory. But I would point out that letting the Bush era tax cuts expire for the top 1.5% of household earners would bring their rate back to the Clinton era-- I think we added a few jobs to the economy then.

 

It doesn't matter if jobs were created then. If they're savy and smart businessmen, they aren't going to go back to that level of taxation. If I own a business and my taxes are raised by say 5% for allowing the tax cuts to expire, I'm going to cut my expenses so that it doesn't impact my bottom line. The easiest way to do that for a company is to cut employees or find cheaper employees, i.e. overseas.

 

If you're a businessman and you don't do so, you're a) an idiot and b) not going to be successful.

Glad to see this thread proving my main point when I started it. We are over 60 posts now and the focus of the thread is on the economy. So why are McConnell and Boehner listing repeal of health reform as one of their top priorities? They are headed down the same patrh the Dems went 2 years ago if they spend time and energy fosucing on health care reform.

True ... the Obama administration has been vilified for supposedly making health care reform a priority over addressing the job situation.

 

Are Boehner, McConnell and Co. in danger of doing the same thing?

It doesn't matter if jobs were created then. If they're savy and smart businessmen, they aren't going to go back to that level of taxation. If I own a business and my taxes are raised by say 5% for allowing the tax cuts to expire, I'm going to cut my expenses so that it doesn't impact my bottom line. The easiest way to do that for a company is to cut employees or find cheaper employees, i.e. overseas.

 

If you're a businessman and you don't do so, you're a) an idiot and b) not going to be successful.

Yep. And how many of this 250,000 are not business owners? They don't create jobs. But if they spend less, it may certainly cost jobs.

Glad to see this thread proving my main point when I started it. We are over 60 posts now and the focus of the thread is on the economy. So why are McConnell and Boehner listing repeal of health reform as one of their top priorities? They are headed down the same patrh the Dems went 2 years ago if they spend time and energy fosucing on health care reform.

 

 

 

Because HC is a huge huge part and one of the fastest growing segments of our economy. HC and the ecomomy are linked , Medicare (ssi -disability) and Medicaid , you can't discuss the economy without deciding what to do with Obamacare.

Glad to see that the libs on BGP got a copy of the Democratic talking points following their "humbling" mid-term election. I listened to John Yarmuth on the Mandy Connell Show today and he was regurgiatating the same tripe. I think the Dems just don't get it. Most Americans do not like the health care bill that was force fed down our throats. To deny that is to have ones head buried so far in the sand an ostrich would be envious.