This whole "uncertainty" thing is such a load.

[veganlush]

The rich want to know what their tax rates are going to be, so they know whether to sit on the sidelines or invest in jobs , right?

But doesn't that work both ways I mean, if we let them go back to the Clinton rates, wouldn't they really have certainty then, as opposed to extending them for a year or two? If they went back to a time when the country was prosperous and the budget was balanced? How much "certainty" do they get from a two year extension? A return to Clinton era rates would bring REAL certainty and I don't buy it for a second that they would just take their ball and go home rather than participate in the largest economy in the world.

[ZombieHorde]

1. Recommended. nt

[somone]

2. Uncertainty can be hugely profitable - they call it "risk" on Wall Street

It's all bullshit, and they know it

[BzaDem]

3. You are correct that the "uncertainty" thing is a bogus excuse. n/t

[BadgerKid]

6. Not if your bets are already placed in the market. n/t

[the redcoat]

4. It's just a matter of repeating it enough

to get people to believe it.

America is stupid enough that if they hear "tax cuts end uncertainty" enough times, even without real data, they'll believe it. No surprise there.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. The whole notion that tax cuts for the rich translate into jobs

is total bullshit.

First, if the rich want to squirrel away some money where the IRS can't get it, they can always reinvest it in their businesses and claim the tax deduction.

Second, jobs don't just appear because the rich have a few more millions lying around. They already do. Jobs appear when there is work to be done. There is work to be done when demand increases. Demand increases when the common people have something to spend. Common people have something to spend when they get either paychecks or unemployment checks.

Extending unemployment benefits will increase employment. Extending tax cuts for the rich will do nothing but make the rich richer while slowing down the economy and pushing up the deficit for no good reason.

[veganlush]

7. exactly. and the past ten years

proved it. Demand, not supply, is what's lacking.

[Igel]

12. There is no "the rich."

Jobs do not simply appear with increased demand. Increased demand always doesn't equal increased net revenue that can be turned into pay for a new worker.

Unemployment increases demand, but unequally across the economy and typically not where politicians want us to believe that it increases demand. This is thin reed on which to rest one's argument; there are better ones for extending unemployment.

Most economic growth comes not from reinvesting in an existing business but in creating new start-ups. Most growth between recessions comes from start-ups founded during the waning months of the first recession. There's been a notable dearth of start-ups. People blame lack of bank loans, but that's not most of it: Banks have reported lower rates of applications.

Start-ups are risky. The risk means that the rate of return on successful ones need to be even higher. If the state of the economy, tax rate, health-care and energy costs, and regulatory burden including effects on energy costs are unknowable you can't begin to calculate what a possible rate of return is going to be. Since the risk is usually in the first couple of years, it's not unreasonable to provide some temporary certainty. However, I think the tax-rate uncertainty, while "in the mix," is only part of the story and not necessarily the largest part.

Unemployment and low-wage employment increase demand, but not where the politicians want us to infer that the demand is increased. You don't find the unemployed busy buying new houses, new basic or luxury appliances, demanding new services. You find the unemployed buying food, basic clothing, continuing to pay for shelter, utilities, and transportation and buying the cheapest imported manufactured goods they can. With a high unemployment rate and uncertainty, the people who take in the unemployed's payments tend not to buy new houses, new appliances, etc., beyond what they reasonably believe they need and their buying becomes increasingly "low-scale," whatever their actual income. Saying that unemployment payments translates into new cars, driers, houses, tourism, etc., etc. doesn't follow, either logically or statistically however much we may want to make that leap of faith. There are better arguments for extending unemployment, even if they are often no more convincing than the arguments against extending unemployment.

[spanone]

8. another bullshit talking point...like 'tax cuts for the rich create jobs' utter bullshit

we should be swimming in jobs

[Jackpine Radical]

9. In

Fucken
Deed!

[WingDinger]

10. What is more uncertain than gridlock?

[kentuck]

11. K & R

Good point!