Corporate Tax Cuts Don't Stimulate Job Growth

And if not for the Bush tax cuts the current unemployment rate would be 12%.

Or 15%.

Or 18%.

What, Milligan not like me taking a page from the Plouffe handbook, viz a viz claiming that without the mega-wazoo $787 billion stimulus -- and that extra-special little $26 billion Aug. 2010 something for teachers -- that the current unemployment rate would be higher?

Good for the stimulus goose job claim. Good for the tax-cut gander job claim.

And what a prick Bush was, with introducing that entry-level 10% income-tax bracket. Knocked so many of the little people down a notch with what they have to part with as their... fair share.

Oooo! I can also pull a Krugman and say that the Bush tax cuts didn't go FAR ENOUGH. And that's why unemployment during this jobless recovery remains above 9% (officially, 17% in real life).

Wayhhh, eee-uh, wayhhh! He pulled another page from the Plouffe handbook!

So boo hoo. Both the mega-wazoo stimulus and tax-increase-on-anyone-or-anything ships left port. Not coming back. Learn to live within those constraints. And come up with something better.

We really have only one unemployment problem:

1) The wrong people are unemployed. That would be those still pounding the drum for tax increases while also saying we can't cut spending meaningfully. And that would be anyone that sticks up for big-liar Weiner. Or tries to scrape some of the sleaze off of Edwards. Or tries to say that some sort of Canadian hockey jingoism caused the bad behavior in Vancouver. But that particularly includes those like Obama and McCain who go the extra doofus mile to drop an additional couple billion of new federal debt to help out the Libyan... 'rebels.'

Oh yeah, look at the date, 20 June, 90 days plus one. Hey Milligan, what about that Obama lawyer-shopping to not need any stinkin' War Powers Resolution badge to keep his non-war Libyan war going? Any cultured pearls of shill wisdom from you on that, on how that positively affects job creation???

Well, if Milligan still can't find anything in the Palin e-mails to pontificate on for her next blog entry, she could show some real hustle and calculate how much of a tax break we are providing the well-to-do in Mexico annually, by providing so many of their campesinos with jobs, education, and health services via illegal immigration here in the US. Think we have wealth disparity here in the US? We're amateurs compared to Mexico.

Lookout Canadians. Things are grim for Obama's reelection. It's only a matter of time before he pulls a Calderon, and tells our unemployed here in the US: "Yo, go see what kind of work you can scrape up for yourselves in Canada. I'll tell the Canadians that your 'undocumented-worker' selves are good for their economy. Then send some of that good Canadian money back here. And hurry, you know?"

Now that would be giving corporations and the rich here in the US a real and indefensible tax break.

dom youngross of OH 8:14PM June 20, 2011

Susie Q_ Why do you point in differing directions to prove your point. Your example says “targeting tax cuts at business executives may do little to improve the dismal unemployment picture.”

While you wrote “Prevailing conservative wisdom dictates that businesses need tax cuts—and investors need capital gains tax cuts—to get the economy moving. ”

You are comparing apples to oranges. Beside you are being DISHONEST. Not really “Prevailing conservative wisdom”, but John F. Kennedy and Reagan conservative wisdom. But Susie Q does not wish to associate John F. Kennedy to this. This TRUTH goes back to the 20's

JOHN F. KENNEDY QUOTE:

“Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.”

_____

Then Susie Q writes from her source:

“The Washington Post offers a startling analysis of income disparity, noting that the gap between the very rich and the rest of us has grown dramatically in the past few decades, reaching current levels that have not been seen since the Great Depression”

As John F. Kennedy predicted, rich invest, create jobs, and pay more in taxes with reduced income tax rates.

AS CBO SAID:

“According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Bush tax cuts actually shifted the total tax burden farther toward the rich so that in 2000-2004, total income tax paid by the top 40% of income-earners grew by 4.6% to 99.1% of the total.”

Bush tax cuts were included for lower income brackets. Punish the rich you punish the poor. Less money in government revenue...

Another great point made in my link:

“If policymakers intend cigarette taxes to discourage smoking, then they should know that high investment taxes will discourage investment and income taxes will discourage work. Lowering taxes encourages people to engage in the given behavior, which expands the base and replenishes some or all of the lost revenue. This is the "feedback effect" of a tax cut.”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/lying_about_bushs_tax_cuts.html

Bill Hedges of MO 5:44PM June 20, 2011