Obama's threat "well over a million jobs"

[Enrique]

For real, or pulled out of his ass?

So, when ALL Democrats voted against the Bush tax cuts, they were voting to kill well over a million jobs?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/12/obama-tax-cuts.html

Make no mistake: Allowing taxes to go up on all Americans would have raised taxes by $3,000 for a typical American family. And that could cost our economy well over a million jobs.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[xchrom]

3. Recommend

[phleshdef]

4. Middle class tax relief and unemployment are both effective stimulus. Stimulus creates jobs.

If you are going to call yourself a liberal or a progressive, at least get your script straight.

People who have a middle class income or lower tend to spend extra money that they have on a regular basis, mostly because they have to. People that are wealthy, do not, because they have tons of it and do not have to.

So yes, if you put more money into the hands of the people that tend to spend it, then that money has a stimulative effect which is a catalyst for job creation.

[Enrique]

5. so why did all of the dems vote against Bush's tax cuts?

it was a very close vote. If the dems had succeeded in blocking those cuts, we'd be down a million jobs? Wow, it's a good thing Cheney came in and broke the tie.

Now if tax cuts create jobs, why stop where we are, why not cut them further? Think of the jobs!

[phleshdef]

6. In the middle of a jobs recession "down a million jobs" actually matters.

During strong economic times, other economic forces are stronger, and thus jobs are being created at a healthy enough pace to counteract job losses as they occur. Right after the post Clinton era, we were still doing pretty good, even with the small recession we had around that time. There was no need for a massive shot of stimulus to the economy at that moment. To get more to my point, if the economy is stimulated enough that its creating a LOT of jobs anyway, then middle class tax breaks probably won't have as much of an effect. But during times when the economy is doing exactly the opposite, then any stimulus at the MIDDLE CLASS level can have significant impact. Its called trickle up economics. I'm sure you are familiar with the term.

At that time, they were right to vote against the Bush tax cuts because it cut taxes way too much for the wealthy, which results in deficit problems. And we are "right" now to oppose extending those tax cuts for the wealthy. However, we are wrong to oppose middle class stimulus because its effective when the economy is bad.

I know you are being sarcastic, but in my view, we SHOULD cut middle class taxes even more because of its stimulative effect and counteract that with hikes in capital gains tax and taxes on the wealthy. I think capital gains above a certain level should be taxed at least 30-40%. If I had my way, we would not only be cutting middle class taxes even more at the end of this year, but we would be taxing the wealthy at levels that would make Eisenhower proud. Unfortunately, we don't have the votes to get anything close to that and we will have even less votes next year.

[COLGATE4]

7. Pure unadulterated bullshit. That figure is about as credible

as the 'statistics' Beck and the rest of the Fux 'News' consortium comes up with.