Tax cuts for rich do not spur job growth

Then why did Obama when he had control of Congress and the Senate lower taxes? Even Barack didn't believe your "non-partisan" source.

Democracy4Sale wrote: The job-creators are the consumers... Without people to buy what you're selling, you don't have a market. Without a market, NO ONE is going to "create jobs" out of the goodness of their wealth.

Trickle-down STILL hasn't, doesn't and won't.

Oh my god!

Something the Dog Said wrote: Typical right wing nonsense. The economy is driven by the consumers. Corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash, reporting record profits, yet they refuse to invest in more jobs because the consumers are unable to participate in the economy due to lack of income and jobs. The myth that only the wealthiest .1% create jobs is total bullsh**. The "risk takers" are the small businesses who risk their retirements and savings, not the wealthiest .1% who just shift their wealth offshore, as Romney has done, rather than invest it in America. But the right wing tools keep crying that we have to shift even more of the income in the US to those .1%.

Oh my god!!

This is rich. PS- you are 100% correct again.
But oh my god- I can't believe these two- LJ and Dog. Are they even living on the same planet as we are?

Consumers!! Just how do you take a lower class American and turn them into a "consumer"?
Geez- really- are you for real? I'm just aghast here!

A "consumer" folks.....
is a person with a good job- it's a person who has gainful employment. Gainful means they make more money than their bills- they have money left over after feeding their family and paying the rent.

A consumer is a guy who can afford a new TV- or a single mom who can afford a babysitter a few nights a month- or a family that can afford a vacation- or an addition to their house - or a few nights out for dinner.

A consumer - is a person with a decent job, and a dream of a good life.

Consumers are also businesses who can grow because they make a profit- consumers are also corporations who create wealth.

You have demonstrated by your posts that you do not understand how the economy works. My job- My job I'll use as an example- my company has consumers for the products I design- they are power companies. Those power companies are my consumers. Our company went from being a 40 million dollar company to a 240 million dollar company this year.

That's called creating wealth. The guy I work for makes $580,000 this year- he's a 5%'r- and maybe a 1%'r. He's a job creator. We went from 60 employees to 200 employees in 2 years.

Everyone on the board makes at least 450K/year. These are the people you want to tax- until they can no longer get wealthy. These are the targets of your class warfare. These are the people who would be directly affected by these socialist policies.

My job is here because we created a product that is in demand- and because my boss was able to make a profit and expand- even during these tough times. We are now waiting till after the elections to hire more people- because there are too many unknowns- my company wants to know what the cost of hiring more people will be, and what the impacts of the health care laws will do to us.

My company created 200 "consumers"- we all have good jobs that allow us to be consumers- and Obama and liberals are trying to destroy us, because they do not unerstand how this economy works.

I know what a consumer is- and how people get to be consumers- thank god for my 1%'r- and the investors who made it possible for me to be ...... a "consumer!!".

I understand.

The Democrats controlled Congress and Senate for about six weeks, hardly enough time to implement a major tax policy change. The Congressional Research Service is not "my" non-partisan source, but is a highly respected and well thought of agency of the Library of Congress for almost 100 years. But feel free to provide your own sources and we can compare.

Glad to hear another business success story under Obama. Thanks for sharing HIB!

FredHayek wrote: But it is interesting to see top coastal Dems like Pelosi saying taxs should not be increased on people earning 1,000,000 or less per year. A much smaller group size than Obama's 250K 1%'rs.

Just once it would be nice to see you tell the truth about something... Pelosi offered the higher $1million figure to the teabaggers to see if there would be ANY of them that would go along with a reasonable compromise...(Knowing full well that they wouldn't...) And when, as expected, their vow of obstruction-at-any-cost made them turn down the deal, she smiled and pulled it off the table.

Game/Set/Match ....

The teabaggers wouldn't even go for a $1million dollar exemption....

Ya gotta love it... rofllol

FredHayek wrote: Then why did Obama when he had control of Congress and the Senate lower taxes? Even Barack didn't believe your "non-partisan" source.

Still trying to sell that "control of Congress" crap?

The Big Lies of Mitt Romney V: Obama Had A Super-Majority In Congress For Two Years

This stood out to me in "The Lies of Mitt Romney III":

"we remember the president’s own party had a super majority in both houses for his first two years"

I'm not sure how Romney defines a super majority, but my recollection was that the Dems only had a filibuster-proof majority (including two independents) from the time that Al Franken was finally seated (July 7, 2009) until the point that Teddy Kennedy passed away (August 25, 2009). That's only seven weeks, not two years.

And there was never a supermajority in the House as Romney claims. The balance at the start of the Congress was 257 - 178, which is a Democratic share of only 59 percent, not 67. So again, Romney simply lied. Obama never had a super majority in both Houses, let alone for two years. In the Senate, his super-majority lasted seven weeks.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... years.html

Try again...

If the middle and lower income classes are unable to purchase power, how long would your "company" be in business? consumers create the market, not the supplier. If the consumer does not create a demand, there is no use for a supplier.

If the theory put up by yourself and Printsmith were accurate, then why don't the wealthiest 1% simply create jobs? According to your theory, the market will then be created and the economy would grow. Instead, corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash and refuse to create jobs because there simply is not enough consumer activity to create demand for their goods/services to warrant creating those jobs. Once the consumers are able to purchase additional goods/services, the economy will expand and jobs will be necessary to meet the additional demand.

Something the Dog Said wrote: If the middle and lower income classes are unable to purchase power, how long would your "company" be in business? consumers create the market, not the supplier. If the consumer does not create a demand, there is no use for a supplier.

If the theory put up by yourself and Printsmith were accurate, then why don't the wealthiest 1% simply create jobs? According to your theory, the market will then be created and the economy would grow. Instead, corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash and refuse to create jobs because there simply is not enough consumer activity to create demand for their goods/services to warrant creating those jobs. Once the consumers are able to purchase additional goods/services, the economy will expand and jobs will be necessary to meet the additional demand.

"Trickle-down" morphed into: "Supply-Side Economics" (Reagan?... ) It STILL hasn't, doesn't and won't.

This thread is an exercise in futility. Never will you convince a liberal that increasing a cost to businesses decreases their incentive to hire and, to invest, to expand. If goverment had the power to control business hiring and profit margins, liberals would be all for that IMO. It's just a natural reaction to blame those who hire for not hiring. And to say that tax policy does not affect business hiring decisions is like saying it doesn't matter if utilities double or if expenses can no longer be deducted from taxable income.

Heisenberg wrote: If goverment had the power to control business hiring and profit margins, liberals would be all for that IMO.

I hope you posted that knowing full well that you are wrong about what liberals think......I have NEVER heard a liberal say that.....so tell us, what do you base your opinion on?