Originally Posted by Direckshun
You're looking at it the wrong way.
We've essentially got to the point we're at now, fiscally, because we've given immense tax relief to the wealthy (as well as everybody else, but the wealthy reap the biggest benefits) and we have a ton of federal spending that a shit ton of jobs rely on, such as teachers and the military complex.
The "Grand Bargain," should we actually achieve one, is going to cut down jobs in one way or another, because it's going to eat into these realities.
So the goal is to cut down the deficit in ways that will harm the GDP the least, and unemployment the least. That's what the CBO is recommending.
And, well... 200,000 jobs by making sure the wealthy get far less tax relief than they've been enjoying, either by repealing Bush's tax cuts or by cutting down on deductions hardcore, is very do-able when you consider all other options. We added 171,000 jobs to the economy in October alone.
The CBO doesn't recommend. They do analysis based on the assumptions they're instructed to use.
Remember when the CBO said that Obamacare would reduce the deficit? And then later, using different assumptions, they said that it increased the deficit? Good times.
“[Cruz] might not be the most fun to have a drink at the bar with, but America needs a designated driver.” - Mica Mosbacher, wife of the late Robert Mosbacher, Secretary of Commerce