The rightwingers (which unfortunately are the dog that wags the tail of the Republican Party) continue to insist returning the tax rates for the richest among us back to what they were under Clinton (not more than double that they were under Eisenhower) will hurt the economy because it's the wealthy that create jobs.
But the facts show that actually more jobs were created under the tax rates for the wealthiest in the Clinton years than during the tax breaks for the rich under Bush/Cheney. In fact when taxes on corporations and the wealthiest were highest is when the economy was doing best and more jobs were created. When tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest increased under Reagan there was a recession, and when he increased the rates there was a recovery. Thus has it always been. Raise revenues by taxing the rich and the government, both federal and state, won't cut jobs so those jobholders can spend the little money they make on consuming goods and services that creates more demand and therefore the need for more workers etc.
Whereas cut taxes for the richest and for corporations just means a few of the wealthiest among us get to store up more funds for their progeny and take more expensive vacations in their private jets which keeps a handful of luxury jobs going while everyone else is out of work because regular folks don't have the cash to buy anything other than necessities.
Corporations and the wealthy are sitting on enough money right now that they could actually clear up the debt themselves and still be making profits and be richer than the rest of us. When I was coming up Republicans, even Reagan, were reasonable about the need for revenue during recessions to help create a recovery. But the rightwingers now controlling not just the Republican Party but a lot of the media and certainly very successful at framing the discussion about the economy can't be reasonable because their wealthy backers, like the Koch brothers, aren't, and the theorists and propagandists they pay for disallow it.
So their politicians take a stand against any raising of revenue from corporations or the wealthy, and put the burden on the working class including the loss of jobs that puts them in the unemployed and impoverished class. It's a win-win situation for them. The rich get richer, including their corporations, and the loss of working class jobs, even the higher paying ones, damages the economy which they hope will lead to Obama's defeat (Mitch McConnel made that clear from the moment Obama was elected), and make government look bad, which plays to their supposed anti-government message.
But like the Supreme Court ruling defending ultra-violent videos where Scalia writes that you can't really censor depictions of violence because that's protected by the First Amendment, but, he writes that you can censor sex, because somehow people taking pleasure in their own or one another's bodies is more damaging to kids than video games where women are graphically violently literally ripped apart with all the ensuing blood and etc.
[See Jon Stewart's take on this here, but you have to watch his bit to the end to get the full impact. and be prepared for violent imagery.]
Like that ruling, or Michelle Bachman's insistence that she was correct in stating that The Founding Fathers worked to and succeeded at eliminating slavery, even though the only Founding Father she could cite was the son of a Founding Father who was a little boy when the nation was founded, the right is incredibly good at defending their lies no matter how much evidence reality provides that they are wrong.
It's like Bush Junior being unable to answer the question when asked if he'd made any mistakes. They can't afford to allow themselves to acknowledge for a second that they're lying because then the whole house of cards collapses and their attempts to get and maintain power are fatally threatened.
[PS: Another late night post so not my most articulate, but I'm sure you get the point as it's been a common one on this blog.]