Skip to main content

View Diary: Boehner just shot himself in the foot (170 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  i like that last line. thanks so much. (109+ / 0-)

    'if raising taxes was sufficient to harm the economy then Clinton would have harmed the economy. Since that didn't happen, the Republican claim is false.'

    sometimes I spend more time reading the comments than the diaries. no offense to diarists: thanks for the launch pad.

    by dunnjen on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 08:04:11 AM PST

    •  Careful ... (12+ / 0-)

      We all would prefer lower taxes -- we need to point out that these tax increases are necessary because (a) the infrastructure is crumbling (b) the economy needs a stimulus (c) the rich need to pay their fair share and (d) the deficit needs to be brought down in the long run.

      Tax increases are bad for the economy if the sole purpose is to take private wealth to spend on corrupt elites.

      •  Isn't that the diarist's whole point? (23+ / 0-)

        All that line says is that raising the top rates to Clinton's level does not ipso facto mean the economy slows.

        Certainly at no point does the diarist say or even imply that tax increases are meant to take private wealth to spread to "elites."

        The opposite actually, taxes on the elites must be raised (ever so slightly) so that the poor and old do not suffer cuts in social programs.

        Not trying to be an ass, your comment seems to misread the diarist's whole point.  Peace.

        Blessed are the peacemakers, the poor, the meek and the sick. Message to Repug Fundies: "DO you really wonder "what would Jesus do?" I didn't think so.

        by 4CasandChlo on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:59:22 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly (51+ / 0-)

          There is ZERO evidence the Clinton/Democrats tax bill that raised rates in 1993 (and got NO republican votes), had any negative impact on the economy.

          1. Tax rates raised in 1993
          2.  Economy growing by 1994
          3.  Largest economic boom in history 1994-2000 (much larger than the 1998-2000 dot-com bubble)
          4.  Balanced budget by 1999

          Or:

          1.  Bush tax cuts
          2.  Surpluses immediately turn into deficits
          3.  Deficits grow exponentially
          4.  Economy crashes seven years later

          Basic logic.  Personal income tax rates have no impact on the broader economy.  Still impossible for wingnuts to see.

          •  The entire pissing contest (12+ / 0-)

            is based around the fossilized economic philosophy of “trickle down economics”.  It's BS and the economic history of the US backs that up.  When the marginal rate is high all elements of society prosper, conversely, when the rate is low the economy suffers stagnation, recession or depression – that's, take it to the bank, history.  
            In 1922, a series of rate cuts on the marginal tax began. During and after WWI the highest marginal tax rate was 73 percent; by 1925 it was reduced to 24 percent.
            In 1924, Secretary of Treasury, Andrew Mellon (who was the richest man in America at the time)  wrote,

            It seems difficult for some to understand that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the Government, and that more revenue may often be obtained by lower rates." ..
            ...he pushed for the reduction of the marginal tax from 73% to an eventual 24%.
            Four years later came the crash of 1929 and the economy did not recover until after the onset of WWII – 12+ years later.
             Even Herbert Hoover realized the disastrous effect  the reduction had on the economy and late in his administration raised the rate to 64%.

            "If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them. Isaac Asimov (8.25 / -5.64}

            by carver on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 01:28:59 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The way I see it, there is no causal effect (6+ / 0-)

              regarding tax rates. Both the crashes of 1929 and 2008 were caused by market manipulation, caused by lack of regulation. Presently we need more revenue because that money can be used to stimulate the economy, and pay for social programs so that the poor don't drown. The diarist's point that Clinton's tax hike didn't hurt the economy merely negates the stupid Repuke argument that it will. It's a great comeback. We, as a society have to determine what we want for our country, and collect sufficient taxes to allow for that. That's the only reason we should be concerned about rates.

            •  I don't think so (0+ / 0-)

              the entire pissing contest is based on the fact that the true power/money brokers don't give a shit about anyone who even has to debate this issue.

              At the end of the day, what comes down will be to the benefit of those who truly pull the strings (because if it isn't they will simply relocate their money / selves / corporations / hidden money during the inevitable phase-in period or whatever it will be called.

              There's a stubborn refusal by most people to accept that it simply is not going to make a real difference to those who already have more money than 10 generations could fritter way. All of this pretend horse-trading is about which non high-tens-of-millionaires exactly shoulder how much.

              The road to repair (if it even exists) will be littered with sacrificial lambs of the unfortunates - who will include "entitlements", those wealthy but not enough to affect the way the tax code is actually written.

              The only thing that can make the repair work is the burden ending up (remaining) on the shoulders of those without the power/influence/money to escape shouldering however much falls on them. Norquist, Koch, Romney, Dimon, Blankfein and their ilk will not pay one cent more. They'll see to it, and y'all may as well accept it.

              Increased tax rates will, to these people, merely be inconveniences they'll instruct "Dewey, Cheatham and Howe LLC" lawyers to avoid.

              The regular person in the street should prepare for the massive tax-truck that's a coming down the road.

          •  Isn't McConnell, right now, trying to squelch a (6+ / 0-)

            report that states that cutting taxes on the very rich has no impact on job creation?

            Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

            by Sirenus on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 02:08:26 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  The GOP hasn't had an original (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            opinionated, WinSmith

            thought on taxes/spending/deficits in AT LEAST 20 years, going back to the 1993 Clinton Tax bill. That bill passed with NO GOP votes in the House and resulted in a 50-50 tie in the Senate that was broken by VP Gore.
                 We all know what happened: economy boomed, tax revenues rose, 22 million net new jobs created AND in 1999 we began running surpluses in the budget and paying down the national debt. (Indeed I recall learned articles estimating the ENTIRE NATIONAL DEBT would be paid off by about 2013 and that the Treasury needed to begin drawing up plans for financing America w/o bonds.)
                  And THIS link will give you all sorts of quotes from 1993 from the GOP: Gingrich, Kasich, Armey, Bunning, Pryce, Dornan predicting "job killing" policies, deficits, recession, more gay rights, fluoridated water, and dogs and cats living together in sin (OK, I made up a couple of those). SAME warnings/threats, often in the same words!

            (Bonus quotes when you scroll down: Republicans warning against the takeover of medicine and creeping socialism from 1965 with the enactment of Medicare;
            AND the end of America with the passage of Social Security in 1935. Ah....to be SO WRONG for SO LONG!!!)

            Shalom.

            "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

            by WineRev on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 06:01:07 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Raising taxes on the rich (36+ / 0-)

          will not slow the economy, it will stimulate it. That is what they don't seem to get.

          When you raise taxes on the rich to gather more revenue, you are gathering it from sources that do little or nothing to promote economic activity.

          If you then spend that money by increasing spending at the lower end of the income scale, every dollar stimulates the economy many times over.

          The converse is true .... cutting welfare programs in a recession is quite likely to worsen the economy.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          by twigg on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 10:43:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "That is what they don't seem to get" (27+ / 0-)

            is, unfortunately, false. They get it, they get it, they get it.

            A failing economy raises unemployment - increasing pressure on employees not employers. You get the "they should be happy for a minimum wage job".

            You get pressure to reduce public services, pressure to "privatize" the military - in gneral, you force the lowest overhead provider of services (governments) out of the markt, opening the market to profit seeking firms.

            Never, ever say they don't get it - they do. They just can't say they do.

            There is no environmental, social, economic or resource problem that wouldn't be helped by 3 billion fwer people on the planet.

            by tjlord on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:39:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  An additional benefit that is not discussed (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            trueblueliberal, elwior

            much here at DKOS is the supply of dollars will grow rapidly  because the government demand to fund deficits will decrease and competition for new borrowers will intensify . Supply and demand will allow banks and lenders to have beaucoup bucks to lend to home buyers, small business and consumers and they'll respond by loosening qualifying and allow commercial borrowing to foresee-ably explode . The demand for loans is great right now, the supply is limited because of government deficits and debt; reduce deficits and debt and whoosh the real estate market, entrepreneurs, credit lines and cash flow will expand dramatically as it did in 1995 under the same scenario.

            After all is said and done, a lot more is said than done.

            by Brahman Colorado on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:25:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  raising income taxes on rich helps economy (0+ / 0-)

            because those rich who actually have some business enterprise then can save on tax bill by investing in their enterprises thus lowering their taxable income.

            this investment in their enterprises helps them also in that it makes their enterprise more valuable (presuming they actually have a viable business operation).

            conversely, lowering their personal tax rate reduces the incentive for investing in productive business.

            perhaps eliminating all income taxes for,say, first $25,000 salaried income would help those who are frugal and enterprising to accumulate some capital to use in business.

            a transaction tax on stock trades could generate considerable income with very little pain or problem.  in this fashion, the increased productivity of computerization, etc., could be shared with more and further increase growth of the economy.  by the way, i do small stock trades and this would not make any appreciable difference in my income.

            there seems to be many easy and useful options to maintain and strengthen the entire society.  at  present, seems anything that does not enhance wealth of the wealthy is filtered out of most people's thought.

            regards,

        •  If low taxes created jobs we wouldn't have LOST (14+ / 0-)

          millions of jobs under GW Bush. That is the classic refutation of their argument.

          P.us, anyone who extracts over $250,000 from a business isn't owner of a small business.  Most of these are self-employed drpoctors and lawyers who make millions, not Mom-and-Pop grocery stores or a little catering business.

          The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

          by Mimikatz on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:56:11 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "small business", "job creators" (5+ / 0-)

            these are emotional taglines, they are not descriptors in the classic sense of...making sense.
            That is not what they are being used for.
            Small business, in the classic sense, is also not the "largest segment of job creation in the economy".
             My local general store is exactly that type of business. They have five employees, including the two owners. We would need hundreds of these types of businesses in my small town to employ the population, and that wouldn't happen because there is no demand for hundresds of these small businesses in a small town.

            The whole thing is ludicrous on its face. The expansive (read: fictional) definition of 'small business' that makes it barely possible to make the above claims nullifies the image of them as small, locally controlled enterprises. It's a brazen lie, but a very effective and destructive one.

            Stand for something, or you'll fall for anything - Malcolm X via Skindred

            by kamarvt on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:47:16 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  You mean like (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Hillbilly Dem, Sirenus, skyounkin, elwior

        me paying higher taxes so we can give subsidies to oil and gas companies and factory farms?

        O'Reilly just may be right this time. Democrats do want free stuff...Their Rights.

        by regis on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:25:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I don't need lower taxes (6+ / 0-)

        The higher tax rates I paid in the 1980s and 90s were just fine, as long as we get better schools, clean national parks and less wars.

        "I come close to despair because so many of the pieces of the country are broken, and when you see that, you have two choices: You can give up, or you can do something about it." Elizabeth Warren

        by Ed in Montana on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 02:28:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  why does no one.... (4+ / 0-)

        ...say how well the rich have done in the midst of this recession?  why is this not the frame?!

        in 2011, in the midst of this Wall Street created recession, there were 25% More millionaires.  It was infinitely easier to become millionaires because of the Bush tax cuts and the elimination of estate taxes.  they crated NO jobs, just personal wealth!

        NEVER was this part of the meme, and it should be conventional wisdom by now.

      •  Actually (0+ / 0-)

        if revenue from tax increases is spent, it really doesn't matter what it is spent on, any spending will stimulate the economy. Now, some expenditures, such as unemployment payments, food stamps and welfare have a greater economic multiplier than other types of expenditures, such as new weapons systems or sports arenas. But they all are good for the economy, because the money goes into circulation.

        Even if the revenue is spent on corrupt elites (not entirely sure what kind of spending falls under this rubric) it will be good for the economy as long as the money is spent in the brick and mortar world of products and services rather than spent on ownership paperwork or set aside in financial accounts.

        "The problems of incompetent, corrupt, corporatist government are incompetence, corruption and corporatism, not government." Jerome a Paris

        by Orinoco on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 04:22:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well, Clinton also lowered spending to (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SuWho, dougfir30, VClib, nextstep

      around 19% of GDP (to go with revenue also around 19% of GDP) at the same time.  Today's spending is around 24% of GDP, with revenue around 15% - 16% of GDP.  

      So, if you want to say, with credibility, that the Clinton model resulted in growth, you have to talk about all aspects of the Clinton model, not just the parts you like.

      •  bS (35+ / 0-)

        You keep pushing these lines about "spending cuts". you do know that President Obama is the first president in 50+ years to run the leanest government with the lowest levels of deficit spending right?

        And No. Clinton's increased taxes is what got the debt & deficit low through economic growth which brought in increased revenue,

        Bush got us in this mess precisely because he atrophied revenue through his irresponsible tax cuts, and borrowed to up the spending on his wars which resulted in the huge debt & deficit..

        So when you have an economy that is so warped and the ratio of revenue to debt & deficit is so out of what, do you starve spending to grow the economy or do you spend to stabilize it out of the near-depression into some state of health. This is what president Obama has been doing. We cannot cut our way out of a deep recession. it is not tenable

        So now that there are signs of health, we need to correct the unsustainable dismal tax revenue receipts by clawing back the lopsidedly paltry rates that upper income and corporations pay

        "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them." -- Pres. Obama (1/20/2009)

        by zizi on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 09:57:29 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sigh. Facts are facts. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          VClib, nextstep, MrSpock

          See here and here (page 27).  

          1999:  Receipts 19.8% of GDP; Outlays 18.5% of GDP.

          2011 (last year with hard data) Receipts 15.8% of GDP: Outlays 24.1% of GDP.  The only other time spending was that high as a % of GDP was during FY 1943 - 1946 (i.e., World War II), and then when the war ended, we dropped dramatically for FY 1947 to 14.8% of GDP.

          Those are White House numbers.    I'm using the last year with hard data, because estimates are meaningless unless you know what assumptions (what growth in GDP, what spending) are included in those estimates.  If, for example, you assume that GDP will grow 5% in 2013 and spending will increase less than that same 5% of GDP, that would drop spending as a % of GDP.  

          All the talk about "cuts" and "tax increases" and "reducing deficits" are completely meaningless unless you are specific about what baseline you are using and unless you specify how you are measuring.  And -- as the White House document demonstrates -- when you want to compare government receipts and outlays, that is generally not measured in absolute numbers but instead as a percentage of GDP.   Our receipts are too low, and our outlays are too high.  That's what that chart tells you.  

          Look at the White House document outlining those numbers and then let's talk.  

          •  Those are in a relatively prosperous times (18+ / 0-)

            Outlays should and must be higher in times of recession.  The fact is higher taxes did not harm the Clinton economy, and more importantly, low taxes did not leave Bush with a great economy.

            These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. Abraham Lincoln

            by Nailbanger on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 11:35:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Clinton didn't lower spending. The left hand (7+ / 0-)

            out lay column on pg. 27 increased year after year to 1.7 trillion (on into 2012 i might add). The 19%  balance was achieved by an exploding GDP and the ratio of continuous increasing expenditures fell not government outlays.

            You have completely distorted the record.

            Besides we are talking of increasing revenue like in 1994 when tax increases stimulated the economy and brought us to your 1999 conclusions.

            BTW thanks for the links. I bookmarked them.

            After all is said and done, a lot more is said than done.

            by Brahman Colorado on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:49:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Clinton and the Republicans kept spending (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib, MrSpock

              in line with receipts.  That is the point.  No one in government requires actual decrease in dollars spent to constitute a "cut."  In government speak, a slowing in the projected growth of spending is a "cut."  

              And yes, part of the "balance" was the growth in GDP.  But the fact that spending was kept at below 20% of GDP also played a part.  Clinton and the Republican Congress did not increase spending to keep pace with, or exceed, that growth in GDP.  

              My point was that the Clinton record was not just increasing revenues as a part of GDP, it was keeping spending in line with that 18% or so of GDP.  The low spending as a % of GDP also played a role in the Clinton economic record.  

              What the President is proposing -- increasing revenues as a percent of GDP but keeping spending some 5 - 6 percentage points greater than revenues (depending on the growth projections) -- is not the Clinton model.  And neither is what the Republicans are proposing, by the way.  

              My point is that it is overly simplistic and misleading to say, "Clinton increased taxes and growth was fine" as if  there was a unilateral cause and effect there.  There were a whole lot of things at play, including the dot.com boom and the fact that outlays were low as a percent of GDP.  It would as if the Republicans were to say, "Clinton kept spending below 20% of GDP and  we had a lot of growth, so let's cut spending to 20% of GDP."  That would be equally misleading.    

              •  Clinton .... (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bluezen, Odysseus, MrSpock, lostinamerica
                kept spending in line with receipts.
                ...during GOOD times with near-full employment.   Like a good Keynesian.  In case you hadn't noticed we are a long way from full employment now...keeping spending in line with receipts right now would be not only stupid but actually counterproductive in terms of deficit reduction (see: most of Europe).

                Oh, and you can cut that "Clinton & the Republicans" bullshit.  Most of us are old enough to remember how Clinton had to drag Newt & Dole kicking and screaming every step of the way....

                •  I don't think we should have a surplus (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  MrSpock, VClib

                  as they did at the end of the Clinton term.  I understand that times are different.  My point was only that the statement "Clinton raised taxes, and growth didn't slow" was overly simplistic and misleading in and of itself.  A lot of things happened during those years, and the combination of those things -- including raising taxes, limiting spending, and the dot.com boom -- lead to the growth of that period.  

                  And I say "Clinton and the Republican Congress" because a President doesn't authorize spending.  It takes a combination of a President and Congress. And, during the years of surplus,Clinton was President and  the Congress was controlled by Republicans.  

                  My personal view is that tax revenue needs to go back up to about 18% of GDP, and spending needs to come down to about 21% of GDP, so that the annual deficits are once again on a sustainable level.  

                  •  The most important factor rarely discussed (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    MrSpock

                    is that the supply of dollars will grow rapidly  because the government demand to fund deficits will decrease and competition for new borrowers will intensify . Supply and demand will allow banks and lenders to have beaucoup bucks to lend to home buyers, small business and consumers and they'll respond by loosening qualifying and allow commercial borrowing to foresee-ably explode . The demand for loans is great right now, the supply is limited because of government deficits and debt; reduce deficits and debt and whoosh the real estate market, entrepreneurs, credit lines and cash flow will expand dramatically as it did in 1995 under the same scenario.

                    So there is a cause and effect. A dramatic one. If the economy expands to 3-4-5-6 % because of expanded cash supplies, then the outlays to GDP will drop below any arbitrary magical number of 18-19-21% of GDP. The projections through 2014 already project us at 22% from our current 24%. Any surge in the economy (which I predict ala Warren Buffet) will render equal 20% ratios or lower and Obama will be master of the universe just in time for Hillary to step in.

                    After all is said and done, a lot more is said than done.

                    by Brahman Colorado on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 06:34:36 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Indeed, facts are facts. All of them, not just (7+ / 0-)

        the parts that you like.

        From downthread:

        have to pay back the free money they've been enjoying since 2000/2001. Meanwhile, we've been paying into SS at our Baby Boomer premium with every paycheck all along (diminished by a bit less than a third for the last two years). That is one of the stimulus tax cuts scheduled to end on January 1 - and it should end. For median income that's about $20 a week, easily made up for in a new Obama tax cut package for the 98% and an increase on the 2%. Which is coming no matter how many tears Boehner sheds.

        Only difference is in the dedication of the incoming tax revenue. What properly belongs to Social Security should be on the books for Social Security. Because that's a debt to we the people by the U.S. Treasury and it's backed by the very same "full faith and credit" of the U.S. of A. as any other debt we owe to anybody else in the world.

        The Republicans, knowing that the SS T-Bills were borrowed by the government for the general fund in order to offset their tax cuts and tax evasion schemes, simply want the Treasury to default on that debt now that it's coming due. That is a much, much bigger threat to the nation than raising taxes on the insanely wealthy.

        The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

        by ozsea1 on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 12:45:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's more proved (3+ / 0-)

      by pointing to FDR.

      •  The rate went from the low 80's to 91% when we (0+ / 0-)

        ...started becoming the wealthiest nation ever in the 50's. Under Truman in 1946 we had a national debt of 121%, millions of ex GI's needed jobs, the economy was entering a recession. Our strongest import / export markets where in rubble along with any chance of them floating loads of credit as we do with China today. By the 50's under Eisenhower, a Republican (though Keynesian) president it remained at 91% top tax rate throughout the decade. As we grew into the world's first modern superpower. As we spent hugely and paid down the lions's share of the debt, rebuilt Europe with the Marshall plan, started the GI bill and built ourselves an interstate highway system. If high taxes kill jobs why did those (largely unionized) wages get to being higher into the 60's than you get paid today doing the same job after counting for inflation? Even when Kennedy got them down to a 73% top rate (the rate Paul Ryan mentioned in his debate but dare not name) wages and economic expansion incresed with the wealthiest on the hook for well over half their pay. That's a tax rate about 25% higher than what's being proposed now.

        Screw the Clinton tax hikes. Make the Neocons explain how we prospered at a greater rate than we ever have, then or now, despite astronomically high tax rates under far graver economic conditions than we are in now. Put this stupid, self serving BS about long term economic damage in the trash in of history where it belongs and embarrass a neocon over their ignorance of how macroeconomics works in the real world.

        •  Because US rebuilt Europe (0+ / 0-)

          I've used the same argument that you are using in the past but got stumped when someone pointed out that the US economy got supercharged after WWII since we we the only country to have a fully functional large scale manufacturing capability. That is no longer the case. If those rates were applied today, business would now have the ability to move operations or investment overseas.

          I'd love to hear a good counter argument to that if anyone knows one.

          •  We don't need a 90% rate. Either way though, (0+ / 0-)

            I... if we have smart spending to go along with even current plans to raise high taxes . We'll still recover sooner. And an America firing on all 8 cylinders provides an economic environment they won't find elsewhere. Where is it cheaper to live tax-wise with an infrastructure like ours? Our rates are generally lower other than the corporate rate, which we only collect a small portion of.

            Our situation only needs a child's dose of the medicine needed in 1946. My point is to make neocons admit that America's golden age of growth which they revere was built under a tax that only allowed top earners 10% of their earnings (before loopholes and tax shelters) and 1 in 3 jobs may have been unionized with better wages for workers then. And we prospered in a way not seen since, economically and an overall improvment in living standards and freedoms.

            Indeed part of the solution then was building better markets in Europe and Japan. Half the world would prosper from being part of those markets they can't participate in now.

            Yes we need to shrink everyone's overall energy adn resource blueprint. But if we and the EU, Japan and others build them carefully in self sustaining ways there is room for more economic growth and the spread of peace.

    •  If raising taxes was harmful to the economy (4+ / 0-)

      Reagan should have ushered in a second Great Depression.

      "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

      by glorificus on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 01:16:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Or, if cutting tax rates on the rich was truly the (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TheDuckManCometh, elwior, elginblt

      way to create jobs, we should, right now, be awash in jobs.

      Since tax rates on the rich and coporations are the lowest they've been in decades.

      But even someone sitting on a mountain of cash is not going to hire an employee to stand around doing nothing.

      Demand for goods and services is what creates jobs. But that doesn't get more money in the pockets of the 2% who make their money from vulture capitalism or outsourcing or putting everyone on a part-time basis. So the GOP pushes this absurd "job creator " theory.

      Tell Boehner to take the damn deal. I just did.
      www.speaker.gov/contact

      Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

      by Sirenus on Sun Dec 02, 2012 at 02:06:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site