It’s not bribery, it’s a public-private partnership!
-
‹ Home
Info
-
Subscribe
-
Users
Links
- All Hat No Cattle
- Andy Borowitz
- Axios
- Barry Deutsch
- Bearman Cartoons
- Beau of the Fifth Column
- Capitol Steps
- Cook Political Report
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos Comics
- Daily Show
- David Horsey
- Derf City
- Digby
- Eclectablog
- Electoral Vote
- Fair and Unbalanced
- Fark Politics
- Five Thirty Eight Politics
- Funny or Die
- Funny Times
- Go Comics
- Hackwhackers
- Heather Cox Richardson
- HuffPost Comedy
- John Fugelsang
- Kung Foo Monkey
- Last Week Tonight
- Margaret and Helen
- Mark Fiore
- Matt Davies
- Matt Wuerker
- McClatchy Cartoons
- News of the Weird
- O'Carl's Law
- Politicususa
- PolitiFact
- Propaganda Professor
- Raging Pencils
- Randy Rainbow
- RCP Cartoons
- Saturday Night Live
- Slowpoke
- Stonekettle Station
- Ted Rall
- The Nib
- The Onion
- Tom the Dancing Bug
- Tom Toles
- USN Political Cartoons
- What Now Toons
-
Tags
Abortion Bush Campaign Finance Cheney Climate Clinton Congress Conservatives Corporations Corruption Deficits Democrats Drugs Economy Education Election Elections Energy Environment Fox News Gays Guns Health Immigration Lies McCain Media Middle East Obama Palin Protests Racism Religion Republicans Romney Spying Supreme Court Taxes Tea Party Terrorism Terrorists Torture Trump Unemployment War
-
Archives
You are Visitor #
5 Comments
I believe their actual argument is that the tax cuts will pay back in jobs and economic growth. However, I don’t really understand how that would translate to managing the deficit. Can someone explain that?
I believe their argument is that tax cuts will create new jobs which if sustainable will in turn create revenue in terms of taxes. In addition it should also decrease federal expenses related to jobless aid, medicaid etc. I don’t disagree that creating jobs will reduce the deficit over time (however long that may be). However whether tax cuts for the rich will do that is arguable.
Yeah, Bush instituted these tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and we lost jobs after that.
How many jobs need to be created to overcome the deficit spending we’re seeing? Has anyone run the numbers? Either the jobs pay incredibly well, in which case they aren’t helping solve the unemployment problem, or there must be an awful lot of low-wage jobs.
So, if these jobs being created are supposed to be helping us fill in the deficit through taxes, how is that supposed to work when the tax rate is cut to the lowest in decades? Even if these are “well-paying” jobs, that just means that those who receive them will pay fewer taxes thanks to the cuts. It still doesn’t make sense to me. Is it supposed to?