The Washington Post has checked into whether Bush's favorite reasons for cutting taxes, that it will create jobs is actually true. Since cutting taxes in 2001 the unemployment rate went from 4.7 percent to 5.8%. Then last year, when taxes were cut again, unemployment bumped above 6% according to the Post.
When President Clinton raised taxes in 1993, as part of his defecit reduction plan, the unemployment rate dropped from 6.9% to 6.1%, and the rate of jobless Americans fell every year after that for 7 years.

Any volunteers to send back their tax refund?

Tax refund? DIDNT GET ONE! How about you send me yours

I'll gladly return mine and pay the postage in exchange for a job for my unemployed mate.

Ouch! Sorry about that bud, claiming single and zero dependents works for me.

Let's try this again, without all the brouhaha. The Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan branch of Congress (so that means it's neither GOP nor Democrat), has stated that the tax cuts will NOT STIMULATE the economy.

The report, from the Detroit Free Press:

Detroit Free Press: Bush proposals wouldn't stir economy

The actual report, from the CBO: CBO Report (pdf)

I think we've hit on this before. Regardless of the affect on the economy I'm all for tax cuts; I don't know about you, but I like having more money to spend! But, I also think they have to be tempered as well. We cannot cut taxes, increase spending and create a gigantic budget deficit. That doesn't help anybody.

I hate to be the one to break it to you but thats exactly what the chimp-in-chief has done.

Pay attention much?

I agree completely. I am not happy with everything Bush has done in office. I just don't think John Kerry is a better alternative. His atrocious stand on defense issues makes me want to build a bomb shelter if he is elected.

One thing I'm having trouble remembering; did Kerry first vote against body armor for our troops and then vote for it, or, did he first vote for it THEN against it?

Does it matter? What a shmuck.

actually, timber, raze is right. you need to pay attention more because kerry did EXACTLY what you said should be done -- tax and spend responsibly and mind the deficit.

my understanding is that when the bill first came up it had tax provisions to pay for itself. it failed because the tax-cut and spend crowd defeated it. when it was reintroduced sans tax provisions which paid for the body armour, et al., kerry -- recognizing the perils of cutting taxes and increasing spending -- voted against it.

so you see, jfk fits your political philosophy to a tee. and yet you support the candidate who has, by your own admission, not done a good job, and violates your own tax-cut, spending, deficit golden rule.

pay attention, you'll change your mind.

I don't know about you guys, but I know no one who got a tax CUT. Many of us received a tax REFUND, meaning our taxable amount was less than what we paid in over the year, but that had nothing to do with G.W.Bush. The people he cut taxes for were in a far higher tax bracket than I have ever been. Please mind that you don't think that the refund you got this year is a cut. It's about the same refund I get every year because I arrange for sufficient withholding to allow for the refund. If I were richer, that would not be so smart. But if I were richer (lots richer)I might have got one of those elusive refunds!

Incorrect, efter. The checks people received last year were a tax rebate. You see, the tax cuts were made retroactive to January 1, 2003, but they weren't implemented until after that date. Therefore, because people already had paid under the higher rate, those who did got rebate checks. The same thing happened to those who have dependent children. The child tax credit, which Kerry voted against, BTW, was increased, resulting in a $400 per child additional rebate.

My brother, as an example, received in early September of last year an $800 check for his two kids. He's not the only one I know. Ditto for my sister and many of my friends, who (a) received rebate checks last summer, and ( who saw both their take-home pay and their current tax refunds rise.

[ March 20, 2004, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

What about the elephant in the room -- the ever growing deficit? Giving crumbs to people while mortgaging their children's future is reckless and immoral.

I think John Kerry knows a bit more about defense and war than His Royal Chimpness. You may not know but Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam, he risked his life, saved the lives of other soldiers while Sir AWOL was getting his teeth cleaned in Alabama.

"bring 'em on"

Sure, we should give people more incentive to over-populate the planet - great.

As for the earlier supposed rebate - the $300 I got (which I sent to Equality Maryland to fight for the anti-discrimination law in that state) was apparently just an early refund. My refund the next tax season was about $300 lower than the year before, even though my basic salary/witholding/etc. was the same.

As far as I can tell, I did not get a tax cut (I did get a big refund this year, but only because I just bought a house).

It's not "our" money if it's already been spent by incurring debt in our names by our elected representatives. That's like saying I'm not going to pay my Visa bill because I deserve to have more of my money in my pocket. Our government spent the money in our names (whether we like it or not) and until the debt is retired (as it was on course to be until the ill-advised tax giveaways of Shrub), it's not "ours" to have.

Amazing how the Republicans have abandoned their supposed principles of fiscal responsibility.

Ask people in the "battle ground" states, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania whether Chimpys wondeful tax cuts have stimulated job growth. The answer you recieve will be a resounding NO.

And ask those same people if they would be willing to send their tax cuts back and see what they say.

Mind you I never got a tax "rebate". This past round I never received (dont have kids!). The previous one was $40 (didnt work most of 2000 so I didnt qualify for a full 300).

The only thing remotely resembling a tax "cut" did affect my paycheck this past year. I think I got an extra $10 a check possibly out of it. So thats around $240 a year that wouldnt have been taken out. Well, this year instead of getting a refund like I ALWAYS have, I owe the feds $105.10. So really, my tax cut came out to $135 for the whole year.

What does $135 a year really buy you when you spread it out? 2 extra Happy Meals a month? An extra 7 gallons of gas per month? Less than a month of property tax on my condo?

I mean honestly, how does that stimulate the economy when middle class guys like me only get that much back and have higher expenses due to inflation, gas prices soaring, sales tax being 8.25% in TX etc?

I know there are MANY out there who would disagree with me; but the more money you pay into taxes, the more you should be entitled to get back with any tax cuts. But, ANY extra money people have in their pockets means that they will have more money to spend. Some more than others. And, regardless of what the Liberal Outsporters might say, spending helps to stimulate the economy. Consumer spending fueled the economy in the 1990's.

There is a thread out there with different ideas for making the tax burden more equal among the wealthy and the poor. The best idea I heard came from Outsporter MIB, a national sales tax instead of income tax. What could be more fair? The more expensive the items you buy the more taxes you pay.