"You've had your tax breaks for 10 years, where are the jobs?"

[democrat_patriot]

Simple question all Republicans need to answer.

[Duer 157099]

1. China and India

why do you ask?

[cstanleytech]

29. You forgot the Philippines and Mexico. nt

[obxhead]

39. Actually Mexico is hurting as well.

Most of the jobs that got outsourced to Mexico in turn got outsourced to India.

[OhioChick]

43. +1000 n/t

[glinda]

63. yuppers

[Proud Liberal Dem]

2. Hear, hear!

[Whisp]

3. I think we need Anderson Cooper on this, stat!

this question is too hard hitting for many, if not all, of our little pundit/commentator/professional opinioner friends. They don't want nasty calls to their bosses from the Pugs.

[Blue Owl]

4. Exactly

n/t

[KansDem]

5. 10 years? Hell, it's been 30 years!

Reagan's "Trickle Down" was supposed to give more money to the rich so they could invest in America. They were supposed to reinvest their new-found swag in the economy, creating jobs and assuring prosperity for all Americans!

They didn't live up to their part of the bargain. Now it's time to increase their tax rate to pre-Reagan levels.

They had their chance...

[Tigress DEM]

11. We got the stuff that trickled down, only it wasn't money. (ewwwww) nt

[KansDem]

15. Former Rep. Pat Schroeder of Colorado (D) used to call it...

..."Trickle On" economics!

[thelordofhell]

22. "Trickle Down"

The art of pissing on your head and telling you it's raining

[SusanaMontana41]

66. TRUE! You are so fanned.

Whoops, wrong site ...

[WinstonSmith4740]

23. Ah, yes...

The "Trickle Down" Theory. It even sounded condescending, and the repugs didn't realize it then, either.

My dad had a perfect (and very polite) way of describing "trickle down". He said that republicans believe you can water a tree by spraying water on it's leaves. Democrats know you have to water the roots.

[Swagman]

50. wise Dad and a very apt saying.

[cgnick]

54. I like it.

[SusanaMontana41]

67. Your dad's words will be posted elsewhere. By me, for one ... nt

[WinstonSmith4740]

71. Thanks to all three of you...

For the kind words. Yes, Dad was indeed a wise man, and I'm glad I realized it when I was a kid. Pass his words on...I know he's smiling about it.

[tclambert]

27. Will Rogers, in 1932, explained trickle down:

"The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn’t know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow’s hands."

[chknltl]

44. A wonderful quote to say the least!

If you could be so kind, could you post a link as to where I can read this quote. I wish to pass it along to an elderly friend of mine who still believes in trickle down economics. Thanks.

[tclambert]

46. I found it on Wikiquotes.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Will_Rogers

Wikiquotes says it was from the St. Petersburg Times - Nov 26, 1932.

[chknltl]

47. Thanks. Found other gems there but not that particular one.

Now that i am aware of this quote, I will do a more detailed search for it later,.thanks again.

[klook]

57. Click the "Sourced" link

and scroll down to the third bullet.

[chknltl]

62. thanks, found it and this GREAT Will Rogers gem too:

"Sure must be a great consolation to the poor people who lost their stock in the late crash to know that it has fallen in the hands of Mr. Rockefeller, who will take care of it and see it has a good home and never be allowed to wander around unprotected again. There is one rule that works in every calamity. Be it pestilence, war, or famine, the rich get richer and poor get poorer. The poor even help arrange it. " (WR.)

Change out Mr Rockefeller for the Koch Brothers and it fits exactly with where our nation is currently. Startlingly exemplifies the adage that those who ignore history are forced to repeat history.

[klook]

65. Good one.

I need to read some more Will Rogers. A great writer and a friend to us regular folks.

[Populist_Prole]

6. Wonderfully simple and to the point

I gonna corner the next right winger I speak to with that question; And - I'm not going to let them move the goal posts and let them worm their way out of it. Their all tax cuts all the time meme is the standard they carry. If they can't run with it and defend it empirically, they should just STFU. That is all.

[democrat_patriot]

7. The response I get is:

"But Barry/Zero/TheKenyan has spent more than any other President!1!!!1 so nobody can hire"

I say - "Please answer how hiring 10 teachers affects DuPont/Halliburton etc from hiring anybody?"

The topic is changed.

[tk2kewl]

10. just point out that he has not spent more

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002696546

[Populist_Prole]

18. I would then just ask them:

So, it's all that and not the rate of taxation that's keeping the "job creators" from hiring?

Your counter question is a good one. They can't answer without looking like fools or looking like tools.

Of course, some just smugly retreat their line of defense of tool-dom. As was expressed by by others, and demonstrated in history, Reagan 'supply-side' trickle down economics did NOT result in reinvesting in the US: They took the money and ran. Now I'd point this out to a conservative and some will snort back at how they had every right to do so, "this is capitalism" blah blah. I counter: "So if that's the case, why are you selling this supply-side theory as some benign dynamic, only to tell us to go to hell when it's pointed out for the fraud it is? Come on, come clean!"

I recall another gotcha from the early 90's, regarding the then upcoming NAFTA vote. Corporate talking heads were trying to assuage concerns that manufacturers will wholesale pack up and leave the US for Mexico with the statement "We could do that NOW! Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it?

[deutsey]

8. Exactly what I've been wondering

Unfortunately, Republicans always have a scapegoat for why their market utopia never materializes.

"If it weren't for Obama..."

"If it weren't for all these remaining regulations..."

"If we only had more tax cuts for the job creators..."

Blah blah blah

For people who always preach taking personal responsibility, they sure are quick to put the blame on everyone but themselves.

[JHB]

58. 911 911 911

"No one could have foreseen a major terrorist attack and wars. Plus Bush inherited a recession!"

Sorry, pal, you don't get to rewrite history when it doesn't fit Conservative Correctness. Bush didn't inherit a recession. And those unforeseen expenses didn't spur you to repeal the tax break to pay for them, did they?

[HopeHoops]

9. They're "job creators" - just not AMERICAN jobs.

[Tigress DEM]

13. point taken

[JBoy]

12. E.J. Dionne said it best:

Conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more, and the poor will work harder if we give them less.

[no_hypocrisy]

14. Very Calvinistic.

You're poor because there's something wrong with you and God doesn't love you as much as rich people.

[JaneQPublic]

16. Great line!

And so true.

And deep in there somewhere is the underlying Repuke belief that the Poor are poor because they deserve it, and the Rich are rich because they deserve it, even when they're the offspring of rich, influential fathers, as are Rmoney and GWBush.

[democrat_patriot]

26. That is good.

Thanks!!

[sulphurdunn]

37. Bingo!

That's about as well as it can be stated.

[MissMillie]

40. Just more proof if Dionne's brilliance (n/t)

.

[Beartracks]

41. +1000 n/t

[Catch2.2]

17. Don't you know...

There would of been jobs because of the tax cuts for the rich but those pesky Firefighters, Cops, & Teachers screwed up the economy. They're to blame! Ignore the original question! Just blame unions!

[krispos42]

19. Trick question... it was never about jobs!

$$$$$

[libodem]

20. Exactly

[Initech]

21. Simple answer: they don't give a shit if it eats into their billions of profit.

[progressoid]

24. Needs to be asked at all political debates.

Local, State, and Federal.

[neeksgeek]

25. Walmart

[lib2DaBone]

28. 40 years of top-down ....

..time to try something new.

[nolabear]

30. They're taking a few years to rest up in Switzerland. They'll be back, really!

[ErikJ]

31. When the old tax cuts wear off, they need MORE tax cuts

until they're paying NO taxes. Only the little people pay taxes, silly!

[kentuck]

32. "Well, it's the uncertainty..."

of not knowing what the rates are going to be....whine....whine...

[ejpoeta]

33. that's what I've been saying. If tax cuts bring jobs then why the hell is the

unemployment number so high. simple.... it's a lie! tax cuts don't create jobs... putting money in the hands of the real 'job creators' otherwise known as folks who use their money to pay bills and buy necessities create jobs. Until we have disposable income the economy isn't going to come back. period.

[JPZenger]

34. the tax cuts trickled down onto the pee-ons

[yoyossarian]

35. Give it another decade or two...

These things take time.



Greenspawn Forecasts Golden Showers for All

4/09/05

According to Fed Chairman Alan Greenspawn, Grand Poobah of Moneyville, USA, very soon average Americans will finally begin to feel the warming effects of trickle-down economics. "It's about to hit 'em all right in the kisser," he said at a recent fundraiser to raise funds for the banking industry, which can always use some extra dough.

(snip)

Mr. Greenspawn made headlines last month in declaring "Evil is Good!" in a speech before various foaming and gibbering creatures from Hell's nether regions.

MORE at
http://presidentevilonline.com/sn_goldensh.html

[treestar]

36. yes. Why haven't they created them?

[dechone]

38. Interesting article

When looking for rebukes to a Republican's answer to this, I came upon this article: http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/the-tax-cut-myth.html

I can't speak to the validity of any of it (I'm no tax or economics expert) but it basically says that tax cuts, in it of itself, really don't do much - that the government has to change its spending habits as well. The interesting part of the article was when it said that when the Government borrows money (for the deficit) it "removes productive resources from private hands".

I guess that this guy is assuming private hands are more productive than public, which sounds like a whole different discussion.

Anyway, I just hope we start getting some jobs soon! Maybe we try raising taxes next, because cutting doesn't seem to have worked.

[JHB]

59. That's by John Stossel (from 2007), so yes, he's making a number of false assumptions

You pegged one assumption, that private hands are more productive than public. That's a big discussion which depends on exactly what sort of activity you're talking about, but as a blanket assumption it's just false.

He also cites the Laffer curve as an authority, which is another false assumption.

Stossel is not an analyst, he's a propagandist. He's pushing the "starve the beast/make government small enough to drown in a bathtub" view, so he winds up with the same conclusions no matter what the actual circumstances are.

[The Wizard]

42. 11 years (NT)

[spanone]

45. this needs to be repeated over & over & over & over & over & over & over& over & over & over& over &

& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over& over & over & over...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

48. Not only that but where are all the charities that were supposed to spring up

that were supposed to take the place of government having to provide for the poor?

One of the things Reagan claimed was the rich would generously provide things like shelter for the homeless, food for the hungry, health care for the sick...

Scores of Capitalist Mother Teresas would build monuments to themselves with new wings of universities and hospitals named after them. They would be pushing past each other filling needs nationwide so their name would live on forever as beloved benefactors to the aged and downtrodden.

Then again, they could just consider the rest of us scum and buy OUR government right in our face.

[Kablooie]

49. Everyone knows it takes at least 3 decades for the job effect to kick in. Have patience.

[Gore1FL]

51. 10? it's not 1991. n/t

[B Calm]

52. The GOP Congress is focusing on it like a lazer

[RainDog]

53. k&r n/t

[On the Road]

55. This is What Kills Me

All the conditions Republicans are insisting will lead to recovery have been in place for years.

There seems to be absolutely no reality test for these claims.

[blkmusclmachine]

56. Where are the jobs?

In Malaysia, China, Equador, Honduras, Mexico. NOT the USA, silly.

[Ganja Ninja]

60. We gave the "job creators" their chance and they failed to produce for us.

Perhaps instead of giving them tax breaks to the top 1% we should make them EARN their tax breaks by linking their tax rate to the unemployment rate. Here's what I propose for taxing the top 1%.

20% unemployment = 80% tax rate
5% unemployment = 36% tax rate

For every 1% the unemployment rate is over 5% the tax rate goes up 3%
If the unemployment rate is 9% you would add 12% to the 36% base rate. Taxes would be 48%.

If they truly are job creators then they should have no problem keeping their taxes low.

[JayhawkSD]

61. This was said by Barack Obama,

"I've cut taxes for businesses seventeen times, and no one has cut taxes for the middle class more times than I have."

So, where are his jobs, and where is all of the consumer spending that his tax cuts have produced.

I know, I know, things would be much worse if he had not done those tax cuts, and this post will be deleted with me being banned for some period as a "Romney supporting troll," even though I never mentioned Romney. Go ahead. It happens every time I inject reality into the discussion.

[JHB]

64. Well, you already answered that with what followed "I know, I know"...

...so I guess the reality has been injected.

[paparush]

68. Pic

[HiPointDem]

69. kr

[progressiveinaction]

70. The jobs are coming

once the stimulus fully kicks in. It won't be because of tax breaks but Rethuglikkkans will say it was.