Message #2834

[wbcoleman]

The facts behind unemployment include less troop deployment and actual downsizing of government, while there's still more job creation taking place than was ever the case in Dubya's two terms---which you won't hear cons even acknowledge.

Job creation is in progress but the influx of troops coming home without finding jobs plus last June's school graduates flooding the job-seeker rolls produces the current unemployment rate, and the job-seekers themselves (particularly the military job seekers) are already aware of the truth behind this situation.

If Obama's gonna run against Dubya's party, job creation on Obama's watch still trounces Dubya's record, bigtime.

Bring it.

Well, clara, the good news is that you didn't try to defend gnosisquest's ludicrous theory, the bad news is that you devised an equally fact-free one of your own.  Tell us, how many returning troops have there been to explain the last three years of unemployment?   And, I want to be sure I understand this, you are claiming that this year's June graduating class explains the rest?

The only thing is that it is not a ludicrous theory. The trickle down peddlers would like you to think so but that is what is a ludicrous theory.
The trickle down theory where the money all floats to the top is what we are still experiencing. Perhaps it will be necessary for all money to be hogged by the wealthy before you understand but net earnings should be taxed no less than 50% over 1Million.
Corporations do not need to be taxed higher than about 28% but there is no reason for anyone to net over a million!

OK, let's try again:

It makes no sense as theory, inasmuch as the wealthy person "writing off expenses" would still be worse off than one who did not.  You must, therefore, be referring to some contrary empirical evidence, eh?  Got a link?

Here is one of the links: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3756

Help me out!  I couldn't find anything in your link even remotely applicable tio your suggestion.  In fact, the study starts off by asserting, "The literature suggests that if the alternative to raising taxes is larger deficits, then modest tax increases on high-income households would likely be more beneficial for the economy over the long run."

Are you calling a 99% marginal tax rate "a modest increase"?

No; what I am saying is that one is better off suggesting a 99% tax rate and settling for 50% than asking for 50% and settling for 25%

Now you're saying that raising the marginal rate to 50% is a "modest increase".  Waiting for you to produce actual evidence that such a thing will create jobs will be forever, because you cannot.

Just as an aside, are you familiar with the U.K.'s 101% marginal rate back in the 1960's?