Skip to content


© Dan Wasserman

It’s not bribery, it’s a public-private partnership!



  1. Jeff wrote:

    I believe their actual argument is that the tax cuts will pay back in jobs and economic growth. However, I don’t really understand how that would translate to managing the deficit. Can someone explain that?

    Monday, December 6, 2010 at 6:10 am | Permalink
  2. jonah wrote:

    I believe their argument is that tax cuts will create new jobs which if sustainable will in turn create revenue in terms of taxes. In addition it should also decrease federal expenses related to jobless aid, medicaid etc. I don’t disagree that creating jobs will reduce the deficit over time (however long that may be). However whether tax cuts for the rich will do that is arguable.

    Monday, December 6, 2010 at 9:06 am | Permalink
  3. Iron Knee wrote:

    Yeah, Bush instituted these tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and we lost jobs after that.

    Monday, December 6, 2010 at 3:05 pm | Permalink
  4. Bert wrote:

    How many jobs need to be created to overcome the deficit spending we’re seeing? Has anyone run the numbers? Either the jobs pay incredibly well, in which case they aren’t helping solve the unemployment problem, or there must be an awful lot of low-wage jobs.

    Monday, December 6, 2010 at 5:42 pm | Permalink
  5. Jeff wrote:

    So, if these jobs being created are supposed to be helping us fill in the deficit through taxes, how is that supposed to work when the tax rate is cut to the lowest in decades? Even if these are “well-paying” jobs, that just means that those who receive them will pay fewer taxes thanks to the cuts. It still doesn’t make sense to me. Is it supposed to?

    Tuesday, December 7, 2010 at 5:48 am | Permalink