Heritage foundation says area to lose 208 million if Kaptur and other Dems implement budget

The Heritage Foundation says Marcy Kaptur's support of the budget could cost the 9th district 208 Million dollars and 2000 jobs.

District and Rep: OH 9 Marcy Kaptur (D)
Pop, 2006: 624,654
Non-Farm Emp, 2006: 292,873
Avg Tax Increase Per Taxpayer, 2012: $1,645
Loss in Jobs, 2012: 2,001
Loss to Local Economy (Millions), 2012 : $208 million

An analysis of the House Budget Resolution for FY 2009 (H.CON.RES.312) reveals that the U.S. economy will suffer huge losses in gross domestic product (GDP), job creation and personal income if implemented. Analysts at the Center for Data Analysis estimated the economic costs of the budget resolution by looking at the combined effects of provisions contained within the legislation along with the effects of allowing the Bush Tax Cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire. The House’s budget could cause a loss of more than $100 billion in GDP in 2012 and could also reduce job creation by over 1 million jobs that year. Furthermore, as a result of the House budget, every taxpayer can expect to pay, on average, more than $2,000 in taxes in 2012, while also losing an average of $1,767 in personal income.


No votes yet

I will talk about it at work and everywhere I go !
Tax cuts create jobs ! It is happening in Ireland too , and everywhere that taxes are kept low

I remember when Marcy criticized James Trafficant for brokering deals before going to jail to get Youngstown some much needed Federal money. She said he basically sold his soul to get the deals done.

Well with the costs of the new arena, the local job economy, and the ammount of foreclosures I think Ms. Kaptur should think about leasing out her soul for the good of the area.



This is just another example of how Ms. Kaptur *always* works for the best interest of her district. I don't know why any of us should be suprosed at this. Leasing her soul would be a good start!

Yeah, Bush's tax cuts have been GREAT so far, eh?

Tax cuts create jobs

No, tax cuts just mean that SOME people pay less taxes. Far more jobs were created under Clinton's presidency, and rich people were paying MORE taxes.

Since there are NO news jobs without people offering to sell their labor, it's just as accurate to say that labor creates jobs.

Wow Heritage Foundation - there is a nice balanced organization for you; no agenda there.

From http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientprofile.php?recipientID=153:

Among other Heritage efforts have been the publications "Beware of the Union Label," "The Case for Plant Closures," "Upsetting the Balance of U.S. Labor Law: The Striker Replacement Bill" and "In Praise of Corporate Radiers: Junking Three Fallacies About Hostile Takeovers."

If you go to this tax estimator: http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-software/ty07/msn/tax-estimator.jhtml

and use 200,000.00 income and then 35,000.00 income with the minimum of 2% charitable donations you can see that the tax burden for the 200,000.00 income is 49,450 or roughly 25% while the 35,000.00 income is taxed at about 10%. (I used 55 years old, no dependents, no taxes paid).

The problem is in the deductible expenses, imo. The basic tax structure is much more fair than the bottom line is after the deductions.

As for this report - hey, we can't afford to lose another 2,000 jobs.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.