why do republicans get away with repeating that lower taxes on the rich create jobs?

[spanone]

bu$h* tax cuts created NO jobs.

bu$h* had the worse jobs record of any Presidency.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - check out the chart in this link....

President George W. Bush entered office in 2001 just as a recession was starting, and is preparing to leave in the middle of a long one. That’s almost 22 months of recession during his 96 months in office.

His job-creation record won’t look much better. The Bush administration created about three million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton’s administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office.

Here’s a look at job creation under each president since the Labor Department started keeping payroll records in 1939. The counts are based on total payrolls between the start of the month the president took office (using the final payroll count for the end of the prior December) and his final December in office.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/tab/print/

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Because nobody's standing up to refute the bastards!

:banghead:

[rfranklin]

2. The Democrats have decided that they don't want to win that one...

and one has to wonder why.

[DJ13]

10. No wondering needed

Many Dems are close friends with the same corporate bastards that finance the GOP.

[ThomCat]

16. Democratic polticians are rich too, and funded by rich people,

and funded by corporations run by rich people, so of course they don't want to offend rich people.

But it is always okay to offend poor people. We don't have any way to bite back when they offend us. We don't have any teeth.

[ljm2002]

22. I've been wondering why, also...

...the only reason I can think of is this: if they bring up the awful job numbers, that reminds people of how bad it is, and the Democrats have to take some of the blame because it's on their watch.

I don't agree with that as a strategy, because I think people don't need to be reminded of how bad it is, since we see the evidence all around us. Rather, people need a good strong dose of truth right about now. I think people would respond positively to some straight talk, and part of that straight talk certainly should include the fact that 8 years of tax cuts for the rich has not resulted in job creation, not by a long shot.

[spanone]

3. funny, the proof is in our current economy. we should have been saved by now!

it's a complete fantasy that the media has accepted as truth where there is none.

[COLGATE4]

15. You said it!! We just let them get away with this s--t unchallenged

again and again and then act surprised when the low-information voters believe it. :banghead:

[thereismore]

17. Exactly. They repeat the lie so much it has become accepted truthiness. nt

[jannyk]

27. Bingo!!!

[joeybee12]

29. Exactly...it is maddening! n/t

[Maine-ah]

4. stealin' and FB'ing it

:hi:

knr

[spanone]

5. certainly!!!!

[Techn0Girl]

6. Why do some Democrats believe the same thing?

I know because I've been arguing all week here on DU with some self proclaimed Democrats who believe that lower business taxes promotes job growth.

[guitar man]

7. Because our side is letting them

Every single Democrat in DC needs to HAMMER them every single time it comes out of their mouths. Every. Single. Time!! :grr:

If they keep fooling around like this we are going to find out that the sequel to Atlas Shrugged is The Grapes of Wrath...and when it does finally come crashing down this time it's liable to be a whole lot worse :(

[ejpoeta]

8. i would argue if they create jobs then why is it the unemployment rate

is so high and the economy tanked? that was WITH those tax cuts. why is that? they supposedly created jobs, but during the bush years wasn't there a net loss in jobs? I could be wrong, but I thought there were less jobs and the income of us little people stagnated or decreased. and the income of the rich went up. so that would lead me to believe that those tax cuts didn't create jobs, they just went into the pockets of those who already HAD money.

[zipplewrath]

9. No fact checking

Because the modern media feels no obligation what so ever to fact check their sources. The modern definition of "objectivity" is to regurgitate anything anyone else says and "let you decide".

[HughBeaumont]

11. Because I cannot get on Bill Maher to show it's incorrect.

And the M$M has no spine or interest in putting on someone who will either.

Soooooooooo, I guess we're just going to be relegated to putting all these great musical charts, stats and posts for the choir to read and K & R . . . while the rich continue to get their way because they're petulant, greedy, spoiled fuckers, the politicians that enable them are part of the ruling class that don't give a shit about us and the voters of this country obviously love to drink their urine, kidding themselves it tastes like champagne.

[KharmaTrain]

12. Cause The Messengers Are Rich Or Wannabe...

Many in our corporate media make a nice buck. Just sell a book and you're golden. Many have directly benefited from the tax breaks and shelters and have become spoiled into believing they're overtaxed. The GOTB trope has long resonated with these people and thus they are easy conduits to the lies and distortions.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

13. So more jobs were created under Clinton than Reagan, Bush, and Bush combined

un - effing - believable

[ladjf]

14. Falsehood fatigue. There has been such a continuous torrent

of outright lies from the Republicans for so long that everyone is weary from refuting the lies.
It's now as though no one really cares whether they are lies or not. It's just election politics as usual. (shouldn't be, but is.)

[Ozymanithrax]

18. Because a majority is willing to believe you can get something for nothing.

It is an effective myth that sounds simple. Humans are almost programed to believe simple answer are true.

[hootinholler]

19. kick to find later n/t

[unpossibles]

20. not only that but there is statistical proof they don't work for any but the rich

Check this out. The only real growth of wealth was in the top 20% - and because of their spurious abuse of statistics, the right says meaningless things like "the wealthy paid a larger share of taxes in 1988 than 1980 so they were taxed more" or "the top 10% pays 40% of taxes." Both of these statistics completely ignore the real question - how much wealth does the same percentage of people also own? Yes, the tax burden on the poor shrank a little during Reagan's terms but their share of wealth and income shrank even more! In other words, the reason they paid no taxes is because they had no money, and the reason the rich paid more (as a percentage of all of America's taxes) is because they made more. So yes, the top 10% pay 70% of America's taxes but they also own 70+% of the wealth in America! Yet they will complain that it's so unfair.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/4Inequality.htm

Furthermore, the idea that tax cuts promote real revenue growth is also false. Yes, in Reagan's eight years revenue grew, but so did the population. He had a few years of revenue dip AND also had to raise taxes a few times before he showed growth, and this growth was also behind the curve of the trend before his tax cuts.
http://twitpic.com/2qqhrt/full


Please, remember this next time you hear this garbage. Please share these links.

It's up to us to point these things out. I sometimes wish we had a propaganda machine like FOX, but ... actually I'm glad we don't, plus those things work mostly because they can lie and make meaningless emotional (fear, patriotism, etc.) appeals.

[txaslftist]

21. Because it is an article of faith.

Like the notion that you can monetarize debt or stimulate the economy by printing money.

It's part of a religion called "Keynesianism".

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Trickle down economics

is NOT Keynseian in any way, shape or form. It is like trying to mix water and oil, just an FYI.

[txaslftist]

28. Trickle down economics IS Keynesian

if the money behind the trickle is money borrowed by the government and then paid to the tricklers. So if you cut the taxes on the super rich, all the while borrowing vast sums to support the government, you are transferring the sums borrowed indirectly to the rich, the notion being that they will stimulate the economy through investment.

Borrow to stimulate is at the root of Keynes economic theories, the only quibbling is whether it is the government stimulating through direct payments or the super rich investing.

[treestar]

23. They do, the media just doesn't make as much of it

[FormerDittoHead]

24. Last week, Bill Maher, Mark McKinnon said that the Bush tax cuts created 8 million jobs.

If you have the show, it's about 37 minutes in an Robert Reich segment, McKinnon flatly said that the Bush tax cuts created 8 million jobs.

Reich's reply wasn't "you're full of shit", however, he did mention that Clinton created 22 million, and the fact is that the 8 million jobs created under Bush were burger flippers and store greeters..

The problem is that, as with the OP, this kind of assertion isn't given the same credence as a bigfoot sighting.

PS: an interesting article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich-s-Blog/2010/0922/Who-should-get-the-tax-cut-The-rich-or-everyone-else

[Curmudgeoness]

25. They don't get away with it from me. I challenge it every time I hear it.

I challenge it in LTTE, I challenge it in conversations. The proof is in the pudding, and no one has a good response when you ask them why we have such high unemployment now with the lower taxes. The best they have is the "uncertainty" of the tax cuts staying in effect. That holds water about as well as a seive.

[Segami]

30. Because they subscribe to the ' Joseph Goebbels ' doctrine.

".....“If you tell a LIE big enough and KEEP REPEATING IT, people will eventually come to believe it..."


Joseph Goebbel, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda


.