By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - How effective are the Bush tax cuts at creating jobs?

hobbit on 14 December 2010
whatever said:
hobbit said:
whatever said:
hobbit said:
richardhutnik said:

The Bush tax cuts have had about a 10 year run.  They are set to expire, unless renewed.  It looks like, due to political partisanship, they will ALL expire, including tax cuts on the middle class, because the GOP doesn't want to extend them for the Middle class unless the the top X% also get them.

Well, in the years they have run, how has unemployment been?  Have they been effective at creating jobs in America?
January 2001, when Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 4.2%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administration#Unemployment

It rose to 6.3% in 2003 and then declined to 4.4% in 2007, before rising to 7.6% at the end of the Bush administration.  Since that time, the unemployment rate rose further, to the current stagnant rate between 9% and 10% today.

So, I have to ask, how effective are the Bush tax cuts at creating jobs?  I don't see any sign of them working at all.  I know people will argue, "But unemployment will get worse if they are repealed or changed!" Well, if they haven't been working, why would it work any different?

 


lol you do realise that the dems controled congress for the last 4 years and have done nothing. Maybe you should go look at the retards in power and not blame people that don't have any say in it.

What exactly does this have to do with the effectiveness of the tax cuts from 2003?  Maybe you should stop listening to the retards at fox news.


so he can blame republicans  and nobody is allowed to say anything? lol at blaming fox news, your hippie school teacher must think you're so cool.

Your allowed to say whatever you want, but it should be relevant to the topic.  Saying Democrats have been in power since 2006 means exactly what in reference to what happened in 2003?  Republicans controlled Congress and the Presidency in 2003, yet they are somehow not to blame?  Even a hippie school teacher could figure that out.  Seems you need to go back to school.

lol so the dems didn't force the 10 yr clause to not filibuster the tax cuts? History is not your strong suit i see. Does the name Max Baucus ring a bell?



Around the Network
Tigerlure on 14 December 2010
hobbit said:

lol so the dems didn't force the 10 yr clause to not filibuster the tax cuts? History is not your strong suit i see. Does the name Max Baucus ring a bell?


I'm glad the dems did too. Who knows how much debt we would have if the Republicans made those UNPAID FOR Tax Cuts permanent.



Mitsurugi on 16 December 2010

I personally don't think the Bush tax cuts have been effective at creating jobs, and for one very simple reason, no accountability or loyalty. Giving a wealthy person a tax cut is a good idea, if he/she uses their money to create new jobs. I think there should've also been a law which required people making 200k /yr who want the tax-cuts (30-35%) to invest in job creating ventures (start-up companies, growing industries, expanding small businesses)that operate and employe people here, in AMAERICA (not overseas).If your helping create jobs in America and strengthening our economy, you get a tax cut (or deduction if you make less than 200k/yr). If your buying bonds and investing in other countries, give Uncle Sam 40-45% of your annual income.