Gingrich's attack on the "Obama administration's job-killing policies" falls flat
In a Washington Examiner column, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-GA) claimed that President Obama and Congress "don't seem to realize that adopting bad policies kills jobs" and that "[w]e now have proof that the Obama administration's job-killing policies are hurting America." But to support his assertions, Gingrich made false and misleading claims about the Obama administration's and Congress' policies and failed to mention that the steep rise in unemployment began well before Obama even took office.
Gingrich blames Obama administration policies for recent job losses
Gingrich accuses Obama of "adopting bad policies [that] kill jobs." In a November 13 Washington Examiner column, Gingrich blamed Obama and Congress for the high unemployment rate, claiming, "We now have proof that the Obama administration's job-killing policies are hurting America." Gingrich cited job loss statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), writing that if one were to "consult a more objective source -- like the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government's official job counter ... you'll find that 3.2 million Americans have lost their jobs since February when the stimulus act was signed." Gingrich also predicted that the problem will get worse because of health care reform legislation, claiming, "Democratic economic policies aren't simply ineffective, they are affirmatively job killing. And they're about to get worse." From his Examiner column:
In the face of the worst jobless rate in 26 years, the Obama administration and congressional Democrats don't seem to realize that adopting bad policies kills jobs.
What's most remarkable about this is that the president should know better. We now have proof that the Obama administration's job-killing policies are hurting America.
[...]
So much for promises. By the White House's own standards of success, its economic recovery policies have been an abject failure. That doesn't mean they don't keep touting the stimulus as a success, of course, aided by that most meaningless of economic metrics, "jobs created or saved."
As recently as the end of October, Vice President Biden claimed that the stimulus act "saved or created" one million jobs.
But consult a more objective source -- like the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the government's official job counter -- and you'll find that 3.2 million Americans have lost their jobs since February when the stimulus act was signed.
But Gingrich's argument is undermined by the fact that job losses stem from 2007 recession, and data suggest losses are slowing
The recession that began in 2007 -- not Obama's policies -- continues to drive job losses. Contrary to Gringrich's assertion that job losses this year resulted from Obama administration policies such as the stimulus, BLS data show that the trend of increasing unemployment resulting from the recession that began in December 2007 took root long before Obama was elected or inaugurated. From BLS seasonally adjusted unemployment data through October:

Unemployment data suggest job losses are slowing. Gingrich wrote that BLS found "that 3.2 million Americans have lost their jobs since February when the stimulus act was signed." But Gingrich ignores that job losses have generally slowed since January. From BLS seasonally adjusted payroll employment data through October:

Gingrich falsely claims House health care surcharge applies to all filers "who make more than $500,000 a year"
From Gingrich's column:
Democratic economic policies aren't simply ineffective, they are affirmatively job killing. And they're about to get worse.
The health care bill Speaker Nancy Pelosi bribed, cajoled and threatened through the House last weekend imposes a 5.4 percent income tax "surcharge" on any tax filer who makes more than $500,000 a year.
In fact, only single filers who make more than $500,000 a year would be subject to surcharge
Single filers who make $500,000 or more and married couples or families who make $1 million or more would be subject to surcharge. Contrary to Gingrich's claim, the House's health care legislation imposes a surcharge only on individuals making more than $500,000 a year. Couples and families are imposed a surcharge if their income is more than $1 million a year, which accounts only for the top 0.3 percent of households in the United States.

















they must be watching replays of Pinocchio thinking if they lie there johnson rods will grow instead of there nosies.
they sure as hack know how to lie with out a blink.
It still amazes me that when the left can't think of anything to say they just call names...
Furthermore, the stimulus has been credited with averting a full-blown depression. Isn't that a good thing?
In fact, here in Ohio, it was announced that tens of thousands of jobs were added/saved thanks to the stimulus. Isn't that a good thing?
Right stimulus credited with preventing a full-blown recession, ONLY if your a left of left democrat...
Of course that's what they said in Ohio, well until people started checking... Hmmm lets count a "raise" as a job saved and other interesting "new-math" counting tricks.
Oh yeah I know it's just the right wing-nuts listening to fox... Well why don't you go find one of the 10.2% unemployed or 17.5 percent underemployed and ask them what they think? The cute little graph MM shows DO NOT account for those that have fallen out of the counts after one-year.. duh! what would it be then mid-twenties?
Non-biased studies have shown that thousands of jost were created saved here in Ohio. You say it's counting tricks. I'll believe the studies.
Read sciencebuff's economic lesson below. You might actually learn something.
You apparently haven't been paying attention. But I would love to hear your version of how government spending caused the housing bubble. I could use a good laugh.
From around 2001 to 2005 the Fed had interest rates at near 1% - lower than the rate of price inflation. This means you couldn't afford not to get a mortgage. The Fed by itself doesn't set interest rates, it prints the money to get banks to lower the rate to the Fed Funds Rate Target, which in turn means banks either have to lower their rates or their standards. When combined with new regulations forcing banks to loan money as opposed to the previous regulations preventing them, home loans skyrocketed and pushed up housing prices, allocating capital away from other areas of the economy. The bubble encouraged companies to expend their capital, producing more goods, at the expense of future production. Eventually, there were simply not enough physical dollars and capital to keep the increasing prices going, and we went into a recession. Now we need to re-build our savings and capital and pay off debt (debt decreases during a contraction and increases during an expansion, and similarly with savings and capital investment), unfortunately when government spends money, it exacerbates the problem by discouraging savings and investment in favor of spending money.
No. Not the same economists.
And after they got the more up-to-date numbers about how terribly diastrous that last quarter of the Bush presidency was, they knew that unemployment would be higher than they predicted.
I learned this last January. I have seen this printed elsewhere many times since.
How come you don't know this fact?
Republicans are paying attention to job loss's?
What happened, did you sleep through the WORST jobs creations president EVER?
8 YEARS of Republican President Bush resulted in the creation of ONLY 3 million jobs, the WORST since the government began keeping recordsBush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record...!
In November 2008, the country lost OVER 500,000 jobs and December 2008 marked the FIRST time in the 70-year history of the report, in which the economy lost more than 500,000 jobs in CONSECUTIVE MONTHS! In 2008, Republican Bush LOST over 2.6 million jobs!Worst year for jobs since '45...
And to put the cherry on the sundae, the unemployment rate ROSE from 4.9 in January 2008 to 7.6% in January 2009!
Yeah it's as bad as Ronald Reagan.
Amazing the greatest president in my lifetime immediately followed the worst...
Hmmm... gives me HOPE, and maybe some CHANGE...
You should google what Saint Ronnie's fearmongering about Medicare for starters. Then google Iran Contra. Forget about that one?
Dude, Reagan blamed every liberal alive, especially Carter, for the problems our country was going through at the time. Stop your incessant lies.
I don't know if I would call Obama the greatest president already. But, G-Dub was the worst, I'll give you that.
It happened twice in my lifetime - Clinton followed Bush 41 and Obama followed Bush 43.
How many people have lost their medical insurance because their jobs have been eliminated in the name of cheap labor?
That job killing policy of going in search of the cheapest labor on the planet is pure Republican profit over people, market fundamentalism. That middle class killing policy of destroying public institutions is pure Republican slash and burn policy.
Whatever dude. Come back when reality's back. You wonder why everyone doesn't vote dem, and you won't know the answer until you realize that every corporation and every business isn't Goldman-Sachs and AIG, and every CEO and owner is Ken Lay and Bernie Madoff.
Also, the Post Office isn't out there to make a profit, they are out there to provide a public service. So you really don't have a point.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think that government can solve every problem or that every business is evil, that's the simpleton view that Tommy would have you believe. It's just that the private sector isn't doing anything but shedding jobs right now and government is the only institution that can put people to work.
Job growth ALWAYS lags economic recovery. It's like the analogy of reversing course in an ocean liner. It takes some time and as you begin you continue to move farther from your eventual goal. That movement away becomes less as your position improves, just like with job recovery.
Obama is the cause of everything wrong with this country. Oops, that's right, there is nothing wrong with the country because we live in the greatest country in the history of countries. USA!! USA!!
While obama may not be the cause of everthing wrong in this country, he certainly has done his best to wreck what he can in his first year.
By compromising away single payer healthcare to the wingers before we even started the reform fight? By encouraging kids to stay in school and work hard? By signing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act?
I could agree that the stimulus has failed in its stated goal in as much as it didn't go far enough. I could agree that his economic advisers are the problem, not the solution. I could agree with you if you weren't so out to lunch.
WHY? because the Obama administration just keeps right on spending, even worse than bush.
All these small businesses are taxed to-death. don't believe it, try starting your own business.
Wanna tell me where I'm mistaken?
Second while he may not have raised business taxes he has spent over three times what bush spent. the "economist" say that can't do anything but lead to higher taxes, read the stupid "health care reformless bills". tax and spend... tax more spend more...
It's a regressive tax, but it's not a tax on people's earnings in any case, so Obama didn't violate his promise, despite what the rightwingers want us to believe.
a measly "look it up"
All government spending must lead to taxes eventually, either through inflation (printing the money), direct taxes, or taking out loans (which increase interest rates and reduces money available for private use, plus we now need to pay taxes in interest - payments of interest on the debt make up 1/10th of our federal budget).
It has been clearly indicated Congress (and Obama) wants to let the tax cuts expire, further repressing private investment. Instead of cutting taxes and encouraging private growth, we are increasing taxes soon and spending money on things Americans don't necessarily want. Government spending does not produce wealth, only private spending can - the definition of voluntary exchange.
When taxes were highest in this country everybody, not just the rich, did better.
You market fundamentalists are a joke. Markets could not exist, let alone flourish, without government spending on the courts, schools, roads, banks and on and on. You have no idea what it takes to live in a functional society. It takes government investment in the future of its citizens.
Why are rich investors leaving California and New York? Probably because of the massive marginal tax rate the states have. I would like to see what evidence you are pointing to, all of the research I have ever looked at suggests that when government takes less money from people, people invest or spend more money... That seems like common sense. The more money you have, the more you can invest.
You claim markets could not exist? You realize there was a time when roads and schools were privately owned? Perhaps you cannot even remember the time a couple years ago when most banks were privately owned. Many roads are, in fact, privately owned, and in New England they tend to be the roads without pot holes. Otherwise there are tollways, almost entirely independent from taxpayer money. Government does have a legitimate purpose: to protect liberty, the Constitution, and private property through the courts.
Go take your strawman argument and shove it.
You don't know what you're talking about WRT taxes.
Look at how the Republicans tore down the work of the only good Republican, Teddy Roosevelt's, upper tax rates; how they tore down anti-trust regulations and deregulated the banks from 1920 to 1929 instigating the Great Depression throwing masses of
Americans into abject poverty while a handful industrialists kept all the gold. Then look at how FDR's New Deal consisting of public investment, a strong social safety net and higher taxes on the rat bastards who caused the s**t to fly expanded the middle class at rates unseen in the history of the world.
Look also at the way the Reagan/Bush tax cuts and deregulations have funneled the nation's wealth all the way to the top where it sits today, doesn't get invested or spent on creating jobs like diamonds says, it just amasses there in greater concentration than it did in the 20's.
Then he tries to sing the praises of private roads and private schools, as if it is acceptable in the land of opportunity, to deny one's access to the things we all share and absolutely need in order to partake of our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, simply because one can't afford it.
He needs to get that retrograde libertarian nonsense outta here and realize that no country has ever sustained long term prosperity based on that every man for himself, pay to play, philosophy. People like him are destroying our common future.
Take a look at India and China vs. Taiwan and Hong Kong. Tell me who is richer. The only reason China has a middle class at all (and only within the last decade) is after the deregulation of private enterprise, meanwhile India has massively increased their trade with other countries.
No one has the right to another's property. If you cannot afford it, that does not mean you get to steal it with violent force from another person, because that would deny them of their rights.
You're gonna try to hold up China as a model for the U.S to emulate? That's crazy talk but not unexpected from a right wing authoritarian. Not only are workers in China basically a slave class, you're talking about a country that exports toys with lead paint to our country. You can't even eat the food in China without gambling with your life. That's what deregulation leads to and it is not acceptable. We have standards here, dude. Come on.
"No one has the right to another's property. If you cannot afford it, that does not mean you get to steal it with violent force from another person, because that would deny them of their rights."
Straw man again, this time with a dramatic flair for effect. Threat of violence? You have become unglued.
I was talking about public schools and roads, things like that, you know, infrastructure? Our commons? The institutions, services and utilities that we need to build a better future for all. To deny a kid, for example, a quality education because his dad's job got sent to China and he can't afford it anymore is heinously unjust. It's not the kind of country we live in. We care about each other in America.
People like diamonds also like to talk about how high taxes discourage individuals from working harder to make money. That s**t is crazy. If someone is thrown off by that, they most likely are making excuses for being lazy. Nothing is going to get between a person who is bent on making a fortune and their money. We've had high taxes in the past and rich people still got rich. The only difference was that everybody else did well too because government could properly fund the institutions and programs, like public education and public assistance, that enabled people to prosper and also alleviate the suffering of the impoverished.
God, sometimes I just can't stand these conservative zealots.
Furthermore, when rich investors profit, they, oh, invest in more companies and profit-making ventures, further helping more people. Things like cheaper computers, cheaper ways to manufacture food, better entertainment, and numerous things I could only imagine. Does government do that? No, government is the only entity that gets more money when it fails. Public schooling not working out? Pump in more money! Medicare not working out? Pump in more money! When a private school or insurance company fails, however, those limited resources that they were using up are freed and made available to the next person to use more efficiently. What part of this process do you hate so much again?
Just because the income gap is wider does not mean society is poorer, instead, goods are cheaper. The rich have become richer, and the poor have become richer, even if incomes stay the same. You are not seeing that which is not seen, or cannot be measured: The benefits that are provided to society when there are no taxes. All you see are the benefits that taxes provide, with no regard to what they would do had they been in private hands: Lowering costs of products, spurring growth, or employing people, things that government cannot do as efficiently because there is no method of profit to determine if you are satisfying human wants or not.
Profits are fine, but you can't tell me one man is 350 times more productive than anybody else or that these perverse Wall St compensations are morally justified.
What you are missing is people are getting crushed by a race to the bottom of the wage barrel. We are being ground up by an economic machine that regards people as commodities to be bought and sold as cheaply as cheaply as possible. The rest of your post is just supply side bulls**t. It isn't working for people.
I don't follow your other points, 98% reference makes no sense at all, if you are trying to blame job losses on obama then you probably have no grasp of economics or gramma for that matter.
http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/subs/sublinks.html
Wonder just how many of those "democratic profits" utilize off-shore labor???
BTW take a look at the eco-UNfriendly NetJets, yup lets make jets available to the rich so they can be like al gore dumping carbon into the air while telling me I can't burn my wood-burning stove. HA
Clinton quadrupled Bush's job-creation numbers.
Are you against the redistribution of wealth upward over the past 8 years where now the top 1% has 90% of the nation's wealth? There was this little thing called the Great Depression the last time the wealth disparity was this large.
And here's a simple little econ lesson for ya, Tommy. When the middle and lower classes don't have any money, they don't buy anything. And in our consumer-driven economy, when no one buys anything, the whole shebang grinds to a halt.
If you have no responsibility, you deserve nothing from me or anyone else. When you discover a little, then we will see what we can to.
That's because it was. Ranting and whining. But it's what you do best. So predictable.
I noticed you didn't answer my question. I'll try again:
Are you against the redistribution of wealth upward over the past 8 years where now the top 1% has 90% of the nation's wealth?
Jesus disagrees with you and I'll take his morality over yours any day.
Jesus disagrees with you and I'll take his morality over yours any day.
Jesus held the wealthy in very low regard and considered it sinful to possess such perverse fortunes while so many around them were deprived.
You wouldn't call someone who mugs someone for half of what they have on them a "giver" would you, even if they turned around and donated what they stole from charity? Of course not. They are a taker (or just a thief).
Generally the wealthy people were the tax men and whoever shared his collections, so it isn't surprising. Otherwise, it wasn't so much holding the rich in low regard as it was the poor who gave everything in high regard. Modern day however, most people become wealthy by producing things in exchange for other things in the most efficient manner.
And go back read about Jesus some more.
And go back read about Jesus some more.
Meanwhile, you seem to be perfectly cool with redistributing wealth upward, to the ""worthy" the "elect," the person who produces nothing, the person who makes money off of money; as if the people who mop floors, flip burgers, babysit, clean hotel rooms, wait tables, load trucks, sell audio equipment, serve coffee etc. are not worthy of having their futures invested in with a strong social safety net. That's the very definition of elitist snob. Well done.
the rich you like would not be rich if it was not for the ones you call lazy and non needing.
pffft. Whatever. I'm the guy on the losing end of the class warfare, my concerns are very real. Just like every working person in this country, I've had more and more asked of me, delivered it and been rewarded less and less for my work. Don't bother telling me that I can just go out and find a better job, it's not that easy in the real world, Tommy. Not today in this job market here in KY it isn't. There are so few jobs to be had, that employers can pay as low a wage as they want and still have droves of prospective employees from which to chose.
I've seen companies that pay well and provide benefits for their people get bought by Wall St punks for the sole purpose of gutting said company's wages, benefits, services and sucking as much short term profit from it as possible for personal gain. I've seen mom and pop shops get put out of business by the likes of Wal-Mart, who amassed such amazing purchasing power because they exploit their workers. So have you. I know you've seen it.
And by the way, those guys from Wall St., the Walton family, they're the same guys who benefit most from these absurdly low tax rates on the wealthy, they're the guys you call "earners." It's absolutely disgusting to defend rules that benefit this behavior, but that's what you do when you b**ch about taxes, rail against government regulation and label public investment, "redistribution of wealth." It's what you do, it's who you conservatives are. It's what happens when you allow the cold calculus of business profit to replace civics and ethics.
Get your disgusting ideology out of my country.
Dude is a mess.
Thankfully, even if they identify as Republican, more people in this country agree with liberal views of government activism and strong public institutions than agree with Tommy.
When you say non-earners you certainly comes across as if you are suggesting that since I pay more in taxes than I take out andn my neighbor takes more out than he pays in that he is a non-earner. May not be what you meant, but it certainly came across that way to me.
Are you against the redistribution of wealth upward over the past 8 years where now the top 1% has 90% of the nation's wealth?
Your question makes no sense, so it doesn't deserve an answer.
This is what makes no sense. It's like telling a cow that giving her back her own milk is "redistributing it upwards".
So says the person who can't or won't provide an answer. It makes sense. It really happened. Trust me. It happened. 90% of the wealth is now owned by the top 1%, the highest disparity since the robber baron days. That's not good for any economy.
Well, if you can't understand that wealth can and has been redistributed upward due to Bush's tax policies, then we can't have a debate. Good night.
If you have faith in the American people, as you have indicated in the past, then why do you feel the need to force more money out of them? Don't you think we are capable of giving and helping out our fellow citizens without the government demanding it?
If this is so, why haven't we seen this in the last 30 years, most of them under republican leadership?
I have no objection to my taxes helping any American who needs help.
And we have much lower taxes now on people than we did one or two generations ago, so your complaint that we need lower taxes now is nonsense.
What a tool.
"what is morally right about forcibly taking someone's money beyond what is necessary to fuel government's primary obligations and services.[?]."
Beyond the incessantly whiny, Norquist anti-tax framing it's a ridiculous question. How can you expect me accept the premise of your question when you already know we don't agree on the role of government?
"To tax them at some high, unending arbitrary rate that you deem correct to expand those services into just giving people someone else's money?"
Arbitrary? We have economists who are smarter than you or I to figure out that number.
But it's my money too and I feel very good about making my contribution for better roads, libraries, schools, medicare, medicaid, social security, unemployment and the like. You would have us believe that some bureaucrat is sticking up rich folks, taking their cash and going to the corner liquor store to give it to winos or something. That's so far removed from reality that I hurt myself laughing at it. We pay taxes so they can be invested in the services and institutions we all need to utilize to become a more perfect union.
Everybody else here already demolished your utopian vision of charity being effective enough to see us through these times, but I would add that, while charitable giving is noble, charities are under no obligation to serve equally. They are free to discriminate among who receives their benefits and who doesn't. Government has no such luxury.
"They", whoever "they" are, are not demonizing. It's you who are worshipping at the altar of wealth. Are you Joe the Plumber?
Baloney. Are you going to honestly sit there and tell me that people with money are not demonized here every single day, trashed as being greedy and heartless, look above as examples of that on this very thread. So if and when you can at least acknowledge that, perhaps we can continue. Otherwise there is no point.
If I took some license in saying "nobody", then that's fine. Some people may get carried away. The point remains that criticizing behavior is not the same as demonizing someone based on their class, and people who provide jobs are still accountable for what they do.
Is "the person who makes money off of money" supposed to apply to business in general? I didn't see that quote. But, like I said, some people may go overboard. That doesn't detract from my argument, it's just a distraction.
Also. You could do well to get carried away and go overboard once in a while your dang self. ;)
My example is by far the norm, yours is the exception.
"I don't give a crap about redistribution or fairness"
"I dont give a crap"
that i have to agree with you on 100% you truly do not give a crap.
For the record, I stated that YOU are greedy and heartless.
At some point I'll get disgusted at working 50-60 hours per week, employing a few (at much better than minimum wage) and sell the whole mess to some other poor sucker.
You people are absolutely pathetic, most probably pay no taxes and some probably get 3-4000 from "earned income credits". That's where you liberals take money from me and pay it to someone else just because they have a job... REAL SMART. pathetic...
Go bugger yourself.
Can't wait to nail you on your propaganda "catapulting."
BTW why is it liberals always say "the worst economy since the great depression"? instead of the more real "the worst economy since jimmy carter. Clearly jimmy is the worst president in the history of the US. Move over jimmy, president obama is taking aim at your title...
Only in your warped mind. At least Carter was a man of peace. You got something against peace?
as we the people dont take a thing from you as well heres a good one for you
Freedom cost something...... and whos the freeloader the ones who work hard and fail or the ones who just talk like there rich.
2002 – Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
2003 – Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 2004a – Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004
2004b – American Jobs Creation Act of 2004
2006 – Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (enacted in 2006
So Newt it is your conservative policies that plunged our economy into the worst spot since the Great Depression. Newt not too sharp on history.
The reason I want high taxes on the rich is because it works. It worked in the 1960s when we had the best economy in history with a 90% tax rate. It worked in the 1990s when Clinton's tax hike created 15 million more jobs than the next guy's tax cuts.
I don't give a crap about redistribution or fairness. I want government to do stuff that works, and that's the end of it. Jacking up rates sky-high on the rich works every time we do it. Don't like the unemployment rate or deficit now? Wait until the Bush tax cuts expire.
Exactly. Well done.
But for the nutjobs, they have to weigh a working economy against their hatred of welfare queens and freddie freeloaders gettin' somethin' for nuthin'.
If you and Steeve earned your own living and weren't dependent on a government having to steal others' money, or having it do "stuff", you would wise up and realize money doesn't grow on rich people's trees.
Resorting to unsubstantiated name calling means you've lost the debate.
If you're against redistribution of wealth, are you against the redistribution upward over the past 8 years that has resulted in the top 90% of the nation's wealth being owned by 1% of the people?
What an asinine post, from top to bottom.
What is fairness in taxation? Please Tommy, educate me.
And, I call your fairness and raise that you don't give a crap about:
Truth
History
Logic
Reasoning
Notice you didn't mention Bush's tax cuts. How'd that work out?
Reading is fundamental. I know. I learned it before I grew up. How about you?
I still want to know, in a train-wreck sorta way, how your mind works. What is, in your opinion, fairness in taxation?
It never matters if he's in the middle of a debate.
It's just another sign he's a paid troll - the rest of us just can't quit MMFA (h/t to Brokeback Mtn) at some arbitrary quittin' time.
Tommy used to use this argument too. What you both forget is that Kennedy lowered taxes slightly to something like 70% and closed all the loopholes the nation's elite used to evade taxes. Before Kennedy closed all those loopholes, the wealthy were paying something closer to a 30% effective tax rate. In essence, JFK, raised taxes on them by not allowing them to get away with skipping out on their taxes. So you seem to be the one who knows very little about economies and chronology for that matter, Reagan wasn't president during the 90's. and his tax cuts were done away with until W. came to town.
"What is the incentive for anyone to become rich" -- don't care, because in real life people work hard and become rich during times of high taxes. Real life is what shuts wingers up and finishes the debate. Logic and fairness arguments go on forever.
Now, if you're a worker who goes to work 6 days a week, makes a decent wage for those 6 days and you choose to work the 7th day, you get bumped up into the next higher tax bracket, and the extra amount of money that you make for working those extra hours doesn't pay you enough to make up for the loss of family time and rest.
But you still make more money working 6 days a week than you would just working 5.
It always pays to work more. Always. There's never a time when it doesn't pay to work more, even if you get bumped into a higher tax bracket.
It might not pay enough more for you to make that choice to work more, but it always pays more.
Since when is the fact that job losses are "slowing" considered a victory?
Pretty weak post by MM, IMHO.
#