Link:
The article presented is ridiculous for no other reason than it only
addresses theory and not facts. This is a typical tactic by conservatives --
rhetoric -- as facts have a liberal bias. We have over seventy years of
historic policy that would -- and has -- refuted trickle-down
theory.
Three things:
1.) Tax cuts do not create jobs. They never really have. Go
back to 2001, or go back to the eighties when Reagan was forced to raise taxes
after cutting them.
A similar fate awaited Bush I.
Unfortunately, Bush II made that same mistake TWICE while
sending us into TWO wars (not to mention Medicare Part D which holds the
country hostage to pharmaceutical companies) thus having to borrow from China
to fund them.
Brilliant.
Oh yeah, no job creation from the tax cuts despite what the
article would have you believe.
There's that liberal bias again...
2.) The article does not address consumer spending...you
know...that little thing that attributes
seventy
percent of GDP. This is kind of
important when dealing with job creation as spending creates a demand; demand
creates jobs. Stimulus helps consumer
spending; it’s implicit.
3.) Which brings us to the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009. In 2010 alone,
the nonpartisan CBO reported job growth from the stimulus at upwards of 3.6
million jobs and unemployment reduced upwards of two percent (despite more investor
and consumer confidence driving more people into "unemployed"
status).
And I'm not sure what country the author is living in, but we have had
six-digit job growth almost every month for some time now.
I haven't even touched the auto bailout.
Again, the bottom line is that the author only writes in
theory. I just don't understand why he ignores past policy...unless he just
doesn't like the facts being presented.
