Tax breaks haven’t created jobs in U.S.
The years between 2000 and 2010 were a terrible time for most Americans. Congress gave big tax breaks while we still had a national debt. We had a surplus, but that didn’t justify cutting revenue so much. It was “temporary,” they said. It is still with us. The tax breaks came in June 2001. On Sept. 11, 2001, the World Trade Center was destroyed by terrorists. We were stunned with grief at the loss of life and shocked that we were so vulnerable to terrorist attack. Our government needed money to cover huge financial losses and to strengthen our defenses. The stated purpose of the tax breaks was to “create jobs.” Instead, we lost 800,000 jobs over that 10 years. The breaks were continued in 2004, thus giving big corporations more money with which to create jobs in India, Pakistan and other countries not in the U.S. India’s economy grew by roughly the same amount that ours shrank. East Indians paid taxes to their government for doing our jobs while our government suffered the loss of that tax revenue. In 2006, our economy crashed. In 2008, President George Bush sent us checks to try to stimulate our failing economy. It was not enough, so he, with the help of Congress, prepared and passed a huge bill to bail out failing banks and businesses. Should we continue tax breaks to corporations that continue to ship our jobs overseas, or for bankers who took our bailout money and used it to give $30 million bonuses? Would not that money have supported, for one year, 600 families earning $50,000 a year? Get out your calculators. Republicans in Congress are playing fast and loose with the good of the American people by refusing any additional tax revenue. Is that what we want? Write, telephone or email your representatives in Congress. They need your guidance. n Dora Payne, Nampa---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dem-led Congress shares jobless blame
In response to Betty Williamson (July 22), she is correct that the highest unemployment level since 1948 was under Reagan. But until Obama, it has not been this high for this long, with no end in sight. It is record unemployment. I hope the same thing doesn’t come true for gas prices. That is yet to be seen, but Obama and the Democrats have not made me optimistic. In response to Chuck Whitten (July 20), there are some glaring omissions from your history lesson on unemployment and tax rates. Betty might pay notice, also. Unemployment was on a downward trend for six months prior to Clinton’s inauguration. Therefore, his tax increases did not cause that. But he did, later, lower capital gains taxes by more than 28 percent. You know — “taxes on the rich.” Yes, Bush also lowered them another 25 percent. Finally, you omitted Congress’ role in all this. Democrats controlled Congress during both record unemployment periods mentioned above. During the Republicans’ reign for 12 years straight, under Clinton and Bush both, unemployment never broke 6.3 percent. It was 4.5 percent when the Democrats, including one Senator B. H. Obama, took over Congress in January 2007. A third of the current national debt has accrued since the Democrats, including one Sen. B. H. Obama, took over Congress in January 2007. Citizens, please, the president is one man heading one branch of government. Please look at which party has been in control of Congress during the most troubling times in the last 60 years. Betty knows where to find the data. n Ron Hitt, Nampa--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social Security threat isn’t legitimate
I have tried to wait and see how the current U.S. government debt squabble worked out before commenting, but I can wait no longer. The leader of the present administration threatens that there can be no checks for Social Security recipients if the debt ceiling is not raised. This can only happen if he orders the Treasury Department and the Social Security Administration to not issue those checks. Social Security payments are debt-neutral until such a time that there are no Social Security Trust Fund bonds left. Presently there are $2.4 trillion of them in the kitty. When $1 of those bonds is requested from Treasury to pay a recipient, $1 is reduced from the government debt that all the hassle is about — Thomas Saving, Wall Street Journal. (What I just quoted is only true to a few. Many say the $2.4 trillion has been spent, and therefore the adjusted U.S. debt is already $16.8 Trillion.) It is apparent to me that the leader of the present administration does not want the debt limit to be raised. That is why he is doing nothing to resolve the issue. He can blame the opposition party for the financial chaos that he will direct and control. Case in point: he has the legal authority to sell the $400 billion of government-held gold. He can benefit from this sale by letting his puppeteer, George Soros, know when that sale will take place. George has a longtime expertise in inside information utilization. He would short gold and make billions. He would then illegally transfer a few percentages of that to someone’s 2012 campaign. It has been proven, if you have enough campaign money, anyone can be elected to the presidency. But take heart and read the last Chapter of the Holy Bible and understand that Jesus is going to win! n Glen Benedict, Nampa---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Let's look at Ms. Payne's statement that tax breaks have not created jobs. She is right, and she is wrong. Tax breaks to businesses have created jobs. Let's take a look in my own state, Idaho. In Fruitland, Coca Cola got a 2 year tax break to move one of their bottling plants to move into Fruitland. They in turn hired 75 employees. The tax break definitely make a difference. However, huge tax breaks to the richy-rich don't seem to create anything. In general, the rich simply invest the break money either in already-in-production businesses or to start up businesses in places like Mexico and Malaysia. Rich people are rich because they save and invest and they don't spend if it does not put profits back into their pockets.
- Next, we have Mr. Hitt. He throws out a bunch of stats. Good for him. At least he seems to do some research. Unlike the person I heard on MSNBC who said 60% of Americans pay no taxes. [That stat is so skewed it's actually silly. People do pay taxes, they simply get a refund at the end of the year or their tax burden at the end of the year is -0-. They still pay taxes all year long.] Actually, Mr. Hitt makes a good argument until he blames the Dems for the problem. Reps are the most fiscally irresponsible people ever. They actually believe if you cut taxes unemployment will go down. And, if you give the rich big loopholes in the tax code, they will see that the money helps their fellowman. Ridiculous.
- Then there is Mr. Benedict. Jesus will take care of the whole darned thing! Come on Mr. B., you gotta be kiddin.
No comments:
Post a Comment