Rebuplican's............thanks alot

[SpinnerMan]

Back to the subject then, oh thanks for the bold face i was haveing a hard time reading.
Repubs want to add 600 bilion to our deficit in the form of extending bush era tax cuts,(mostly for the wealthy) the DNC wants to add 50 billion to help out those who have lost their job at no fault of their own. whats to debate?

So you clearly do not understand the CBO budget estimating process. They could set the tax rate to 100% and it would not catch the fact that everyone would stop taking income in that form and it would show a huge income to the Federal government.

It simply is an estimate which is known to overestimate tax revenue and underestimate spending.

It does not capture the feedback of incentives on the dynamics of the economy. Obama can threaten to bankrupt the coal industry and the CBO estimate will not capture that investors will require higher rates of return to build power plants which leads to higher electricity rates all because of the added risk. There are so many dynamic feedbacks that are missed, but we know which way the bias of the estimates are and they are pretty huge errors.

So that $600B is overestimated because it does not account for the reduced economic activity. The $50B is underestimated because it does not account for the incentive to stay unemployed or at least to work under the table. For example, there are a huge number of two income households and believe it or not, most of them do not require both incomes. This is one huge source of "unemployed" in my area. Same with working under the table, which are referred to as "side jobs" around here. My cousin was going to quit her job when she had her baby, her company needed to lay someone off, so they laid her off since she was going to quit anyways. As far as I know she may still be drawing unemployment. She was going to quit her lowly job in Manhatten where she probably made $100k+ because her husband made real money

What is the real cost of the tax cuts? Probably damn close to zero when accounting for the feedback.

What is the real cost of the unemployment welfare? If we had stopped the extensions from day one, it would have saved $100's of billions and probably would have reduced unemployment rates around 2%.

[Rat Creek]

Raising taxes or lowering taxes doesn’t have any effect on spending. They are independent of each other, and the problem is the spending. This notion that by not taxing someone more, you are adding to the deficit is simply a fallacy.

To liberals, allowing people who work to keep their money is “adding to the deficit,” but giving people money not to work is going to create jobs. Only in Pelosi like minds does this make sense.

The only solution is to slash spending and lower taxes. Then it is up to the engine that is America.

And as for unemployment, I know several people who are celebrating the extension because they are living comfortably on one income and one unemployment check, so the multi-year vacation continues. When it runs out, they will get a job.

I saw a statistic that about 1/3rd of people on unemployment find a job within 30 days of losing the handout. It would seem to me that the best way to create jobs would be to stop incentivizing people to not work.

[seastreet]

What is the real cost of the tax cuts? Probably damn close to zero when accounting for the feedback.

What is the real cost of the unemployment welfare? If we had stopped the extensions from day one, it would have saved $100's of billions and probably would have reduced unemployment rates around 2%.

He simply refuses to acknowledge that this current Congress doesn't have a revenue problem, but rather a spending problem. It's their class envy that feeds their hatred for anyone that is successful in life. It isn't enough that the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the revenue collected. He wants wants to see them punished simply because they earned it and he doesn't have it. Envy is just as much a sin as greed. Liberals just won't face that fact.

[seastreet]

I saw a statistic that about 1/3rd of people on unemployment find a job within 30 days of losing the handout. It would seem to me that the best way to create jobs would be to stop incentivizing people to not work.

I saw a study on CNN International (while in the airport) done in eastern Europe on unemployment, which showed that when the unemployment benefits were cut, each time by an equal amount of time, these people would find work within a month of their benefits expiring. The conclusion was that the unemployment benefits were making them dependent and unwilling to look for employment. It is plain to see that a great deal of that very thing is happening here.

[aggiechiro]

The conclusion was that the unemployment benefits were making them dependent and unwilling to look for employment.

talk to a group of people on unemployment. the majority routinely turn down jobs because it is beneath them or they get more in benifits. that tells me they have too much time on the rolls and too much money flowing their way.

[TomKat]

A mind is a terrible thing to waste













[img
]http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n24/terr-bo/Willwork4food.jpg[/img]

[cartervj]

I saw a statistic that about 1/3rd of people on unemployment find a job within 30 days of losing the handout. It would seem to me that the best way to create jobs would be to stop incentivizing people to not work.

I saw a study on CNN International (while in the airport) done in eastern Europe on unemployment, which showed that when the unemployment benefits were cut, each time by an equal amount of time, these people would find work within a month of their benefits expiring. The conclusion was that the unemployment benefits were making them dependent and unwilling to look for employment. It is plain to see that a great deal of that very thing is happening here.

too bad CNN will not show that here in America, many socialist Countries conducted similar studies and found that most found work right before their benefits ran out, went from 5 years to 2 with the exact same results