Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most 2012 GDP estimates are for around 2% ~, so if the Dems are right, the GDP will be 3% ~. Time will tell.
According to the link:
Quote:
“If Congress extends these income supports, as looks increasingly likely, the (first half of 2012) forecast will be raised to something closer to the recent trend of 2.5% growth,” JPMorgan [JPM 33.45] economists said in their weekly research note.
Without the extension, JPMorgan was looking for economic growth of around 1.5 percent.
There is no doubt the Dems are much better politicians than the Repubs. That does not mean they are better at helping the economy.
Two months is horribly inefficient and costly way to pump very little into the economy. The non-productive cost to private enterprise to do this does more damage, than any small benefit this may have for the economy.
Did anyone realize that the friends of the middle class let The Making Work Pay Tax credit expire for 2011. For anyone not paying attention, that was a refundable tax credit that equaled $800 in 2009 and 2010. Whose kidding who here?
In 2009 and 2010, the Making Work Pay provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided a refundable tax credit of up to $400 for working individuals and up to $800 for married taxpayers filing joint returns. Most wage earners benefited from larger paychecks in 2009 and 2010 as a result of the changes made to the federal income tax withholding tables to implement the Making Work Pay tax credit.
According to the link, tax cuts grow the economy, something I've argued with you liberals over and over again who said it dont.
Remind me again how you felt about the Bush tax cuts
Thats right.. When Obama does it, its good.. Bush does it, it was bad..
What I said about the Bush tax-cuts was re-stating known economics. When you lower taxes on the wealthy, they save it and there is practically no stimulative effect. When you lower taxes on workers, they tend to spend it, especially in hard economic times. My position is completely consistent.
What I said about the Bush tax-cuts was re-stating known economics. When you lower taxes on the wealthy, they save it and there is practically no stimulative effect. When you lower taxes on workers, they tend to spend it, especially in hard economic times. My position is completely consistent.
You keep talking and displaying your lack of economics. The wealthy actually seen an INCREASE in the amount they paid in taxes because they SPENT it
They only save their wealth when taxes are high. look at when the richest americans lived, coincidence it was during times we had 90% tax rates on the wealthy? Not at all..
Its called pay as you go economics, maybe conservatives can spin this thing and say it was their idea all along.
Where is the paying part ? What got cut to cover this ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For anyone not paying attention, that was a refundable tax credit that equaled $800 in 2009 and 2010. Whose kidding who here?
