Obama '08?

Bush43's tax cut to 35% in the year 2003 had nothing to do with Clinton's surplus ending in 2001. Obviously, Bush43's tax cuts from 39.6% to 39.1% in 2001 and from 39.1% to 38.6% in 2002 were too small to have caused Clinton's surplus to no longer exist in 2002.

It is NOT" impossible to cut our spending to the point where we would pay off our bills." All we have to do is cut spending over the next decade or two to maintain budget surpluses each and every year. That's something Obama could begin to do now and in each year including 2012.

Lower-tax environments and controlled spending can together lead us to reducing future budget deficits.

Now a new study from Ball State University's Center for Business and Economic Research says that the minimum wage increase may have cost the country 550,000 jobs

"Instead of hiring a dozen teens to work a popular summer restaurant or theme park, a company would hire six or less," Hicks said. "Instead of filling positions that required no skills, companies were making do with what they had. In the long run, this hurt young, unskilled workers."

Does anyone remember when the dems said raising the minimum wage would help create jobs?

The rates of job creation from 1980-present are not much different then what they were historically when tax rates were much higher. It gives the lie to your entire theory.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The rates of job creation from 1980-present are not much different then what they were historically when tax rates were much higher. It gives the lie to your entire theory.

Therefore, it follows from your statement that the rates of job creation historically, when tax rates were much higher, were not much different from 1980 to the present during which tax rates became much lower.

CONCLUSION FROM YOUR STATEMENT:
HIGH TAX RATES DO NOT INCREASE JOBS, SO INCREASING MAXIMUM TAX RATES DOES NOT INCREASE JOBS.

Why is it that you are so focused on creating jobs? The point of tax rates is not to create jobs! That is neither their function nor their purpose!

Who are you even talking to? Yourself?

I think that you think that if you repeat things often enough, others will believe that they are true. This is not an effective strategy. Instead, you would be better served if you could show people that you understand the difference between Correlation and Causation.

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=correlation&x=22&y=9
Main Entry: cor·re·la·tion
...
1 : ... the relation of phenomena as invariable accompaniments of each other whether causally connected or not
...
2 : reciprocal or mutual relation in the occurrence ... of different structures, characteristics, or processes in organisms
3 : an interdependence between mathematical variables especially in statistics
4 : determination of synchrony, of homotaxis, or of relation to the scale of geologic time -- usually used in the comparison of geologic formations or of fossil faunas or floras belonging to different districts

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=cause&x=26&y=10
Main Entry: 1cause
...
1 a : a person, thing, fact, or condition that brings about an effect or that produces or calls forth a resultant action or state
b : a reason or motive for an action or condition
c : a good or adequate reason : a sufficient activating factor
...
3 a : something that occasions or effects a result : the necessary antecedent of an effect : something that determines any motion or change or produces a phenomenon
b : an event or set of events that on the basis of scientific methods and laws has been established as the invariant antecedent or concomitant necessary for the occurrence of another event or set of events
...

http://www.heritage.org/research/budget/bg2208.cfm
November 12, 2008
Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth
by Brian M. Riedl
Backgrounder #2208

In a throwback to the 1930s and 1970s, Demo­cratic lawmakers are betting that America's economic ills can be cured by an extraordinary expansion of government. This tired approach has already failed repeatedly in the past year, in which Congress and the President:
Increased total federal spending by 11 percent to nearly $3 trillion;
Enacted $333 billion in "emergency" spending;
Enacted $105 billion in tax rebates; and
Pushed the budget deficit to $455 billion in the name of "stimulus."
...

It was not to be. Voters are in no mood for a wave of domestic transformation. The economy is already introducing enough insecurity into their lives. Unlike 1932 and 1965, Americans do not trust Washington to take them on a leap of faith, especially if it means more spending.

The country has reacted harshly to the course the administration ended up embracing. Obama is still admired personally, but every major proposal " from the stimulus to health care " is quite unpopular. Independent voters have swung against the administration. Voters are not reacting to the particulars of each bill. They are reacting against the total activist onslaught.