Trickle-down economics? I think you took a wrong turn, the ’80s were a few exits ago.

(Or is that a “right” turn? )

>you do realize that 80% of the future jobs in this country will be created by small businesses, right?

Sure, I’ll buy that. But how many of those businesses would see an increase in taxes? Probably not many, and many would see a decrease in taxes.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_small-business_bunk.html

>again, I ask; how many jobs are poor people responsible for creating?

Plenty. Everyone in the country purchases goods and services, and that is the reason why jobs exist. They do not exist simply because the people at the top have money. That is broken logic.

every time minimum wage is raised, unemployment goes up. it should not come as a surprise, you force companies to pay more for labor, and companies will respond by buying less labor.

and why is it that back during the 90s, 5% unemployment was stellar, it was considered full employment.

……..but for some reason 6% today is the end of the world?

also, bush’s tax cuts put enough money into everyone’s pockets to spark investments, artificially inflating the housing and stock markets….now that the housing market bubble has burst, injuring the stock market, it’s his fault?

sounds more like people were willing to join the bandwagon, until too many greedy people toppled it over.

….then they all complain it wasn’t big enough.

you do realize that 80% of the future jobs in this country will be created by small businesses, right?

you do realize that most small businesses are taxed on the owner’s personal 1040, right?

therefore, yes, rich people (as obama defines them) pay their employees directly out of their pocket.

the rest of them buy stuff that is made by other rich people’s employees, creating a whole industry of jobs.

again, I ask; how many jobs are poor people responsible for creating?

Idiot.

What do you mean by “create jobs?” Do you mean employ other people? If so, see below.

>if the rich are taxed to the point they cannot/will not create jobs, it does not help the poor who want/need those jobs.

What does this mean? Are you implying that rich people pay their employees out of their own pockets? A corporation’s ability to employ people is dependent on the company’s success, not the income of the members of its upper management.

how are those jobs paid for?

if the rich are taxed to the point they cannot/will not create jobs, it does not help the poor who want/need those jobs.

therefore, tax cuts for the rich create more jobs.

tax cuts (in Obama’s mind) equal “refundable tax credits”. this is political shorthand for “refunding taxes paid by taxpayers, and writing checks to non-tax-payers”.

if people get paid for barely working (and not/barely paying taxes), they have the incentive to continue to not work…or start working less.

therefore tax cuts for the poor create more poor.

it comes down to a simple question, do you want to tax the people that create jobs, or the people that have jobs? if you want to tax those who create jobs, that’s fine….just don’t complain when they stop creating those jobs.

A tax “break”, on the other hand, is a reduction in taxes only for those in lower earning brackets. These people pay less than normal, while others pay the same, or more to compensate.

McCain favors tax cuts, Obama favors tax breaks, with a sharp increase in tax for those outside of his bracket.

Whichever you prefer, that’s your choice.

Please explain this apparently cut-and-dry causal relationship, because it looks to me like bogus conservative rhetoric.

oh and on foreign trips.

tax cuts for the rich create more jobs.
tax cuts for the poor create more poor.

Fell in love with Tina Fey as a brilliant writer and actress in Mean Girls, SNL, and 30 Rock, and then she has to go and do a spot-on scathing impersonation of the political candidate to whom I can most relate.

Arrgghhhhhh!

anyway, I thought it was funny.

1) As has been pointed out, this should not be a pie chart.
2) She just won three Emmys for the primetime comedy show she created, writes for, and stars in. She also starred in a successful movie just six months ago. I don’t think she’s particularly cash-strapped, nor will she ever be in the future.
3) I can’t imagine they’re paying her much to make once-a-week appearances on “SNL”.
4) She already stated that, no matter who wins, she won’t continue to portray Palin after the election.

If we were able to rate a graph as a zero, I wouldn’t think twice about doing so for this one.