Congress to lay off 240,000

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

This is pretty sad. The Recovery Act put in place a program that employs 240,000 people at a cost of only $2.5 billion per year. That’s only $10,000 per job. The funding is set to run out tomorrow unless Congress votes to extend it. You can read more about this program here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/casey-makes-last-effort-t_n_719707.html

The tax cuts put in place in 2001 have cost around $300 billion per year. Job growth, economic growth, and wage growth have all been negative since then. At the rate of $10,000 per job, it would only cost $150 billion per year to put all of the 15 million currently unemployed back to work.

So we have a choice. Congress can spend $150 billion per year to eliminate unemployment completely. Or, Congress can vote to extend the tax cuts for the top 2% at a cost of $300 billion per year which has over the last ten years led to negative job, wage, and income growth.

Don’t believe the politicians when they tell you that tax cuts will spur growth and lead to job creation because it’s been empirically proven over the last 10 years that that is not the case.

[abell]

Congress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.

[abell]

Congress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.

[abell]

Congress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.

[abell]

Congress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.

[abell]

Congress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=abell]Congress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.[/quote]

Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=abell]Congress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.[/quote]

Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=abell]Congress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.[/quote]

Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=abell]Congress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.[/quote]

Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?

[BigGovernmentIsGood]

[quote=abell]Congress has no money to spend. It’s our money, given for the good of society (at least that’s idea). Tax cuts haven’t cost Congress $300 billion per year, Congress has just been taking less of our money so they have less of it to spend.[/quote]

Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]

Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?[/quote]

Great idea. Count me in.

A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant!

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]

Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?[/quote]

Great idea. Count me in.

A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant!

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]

Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?[/quote]

Great idea. Count me in.

A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant!

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=BigGovernmentIsGood]

Has this been beneficial to society as a whole, though? Is it more important that the top 2% control most of the wealth or would the 98% at the bottom be better off with some modest wealth redistribution?[/quote]

Great idea. Count me in.

A better idea would be to increase the $2.5 B to something like 50 Billion. That way, each job would be $200K. Then those in that 200K would fall into the top few percent of taxpayers, which can be used to raise additional revenue for more jobs under the program. Brilliant!

[Author]

Posts