Should Obama have cut taxes?

[Luna Tick]

It's a fact. Obama cut taxes. My dad scoffed at that when I told him, but it's a fact, and you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The verifiable fact is Obama cut taxes in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. I quote:


$116 billion: New payroll tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phaseout begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.

That wasn't the only tax cut in the bill. There were also incentives and cuts for businesses. You can read about the rest here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

and here:

http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/barack-obamas-2009-economic-stimulus-plan/

Despite these facts, my dad is still bitching about Obama raising taxes, when, in fact, Obama did just the opposite. He did his cuts differently than GW Bush did. Bush did them as rebate checks, which made them more obvious. Obama did them by taking less out of people's paychecks. Most people didn't even notice. In some states, their taxes went up overall because states and cities raised taxes to make up for shortfalls. They did where I live. However, Obama is not responsible for state and local tax hikes. If you don't like those, complain to your local politicians. Where I live they created a 2.5% restaurant tax, which doesn't seem fair because it singles out restaurant owners. However, that's on the Mayor of Omaha and the city council, not on Obama.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts!

If you respond to this thread, you should admit that Obama lowered taxes. That's a fact that's just as verifiable as the GW Bush tax rebates. In my opinion, Obama's big mistake was that he didn't make a big deal out of it. He should have never shut up about having lowered taxes. He should have referred to his stimulus as his "tax cut stimulus plan."

And vote in the poll. The only possible answers are yes (he should have lowered taxes) or no (he should not have).

I can 100 percent guarantee you if a Republican had been President and had done this exact same tax cut stimulus, my dad and other Republicans would be praising him and using it as evidence that the Republican Party is the party of tax cuts.

[fj1200]

You're kidding yourself if you think they were actually stimulative.

And why are you comparing them to the Bush rebate cuts, which were not stimulative either BTW, and were insisted on by Dems in Congress. Methinks you're also ignoring the HC reform tax hikes.

[red states rule]

It's a fact. Obama cut taxes. My dad scoffed at that when I told him, but it's a fact, and you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The verifiable fact is Obama cut taxes in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. I quote:



That wasn't the only tax cut in the bill. There were also incentives and cuts for businesses. You can read about the rest here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009

and here:

http://www.consumerismcommentary.com/barack-obamas-2009-economic-stimulus-plan/

Despite these facts, my dad is still bitching about Obama raising taxes, when, in fact, Obama did just the opposite. He did his cuts differently than GW Bush did. Bush did them as rebate checks, which made them more obvious. Obama did them by taking less out of people's paychecks. Most people didn't even notice. In some states, their taxes went up overall because states and cities raised taxes to make up for shortfalls. They did where I live. However, Obama is not responsible for state and local tax hikes. If you don't like those, complain to your local politicians. Where I live they created a 2.5% restaurant tax, which doesn't seem fair because it singles out restaurant owners. However, that's on the Mayor of Omaha and the city council, not on Obama.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts!

If you respond to this thread, you should admit that Obama lowered taxes. That's a fact that's just as verifiable as the GW Bush tax rebates. In my opinion, Obama's big mistake was that he didn't make a big deal out of it. He should have never shut up about having lowered taxes. He should have referred to his stimulus as his "tax cut stimulus plan."

And vote in the poll. The only possible answers are yes (he should have lowered taxes) or no (he should not have).

I can 100 percent guarantee you if a Republican had been President and had done this exact same tax cut stimulus, my dad and other Republicans would be praising him and using it as evidence that the Republican Party is the party of tax cuts.

Please show me what tax rates were cut

There were no tax CUTS only temporary tax credits

All Obama did was to keep tax rates where they have been for the 10 years

Again, no tax cuts

[logroller]

You're kidding yourself if you think they were actually stimulative.
And why are you comparing them to the Bush rebate cuts, which were not stimulative either BTW, and were insisted on by Dems in Congress. Methinks you're also ignoring the HC reform tax hikes.

how is more money not stimulative unless everyone stuck the xtra dough in the cookie jar?


Please show me what tax rates were cut

There were no tax CUTS only temporary tax credits

All Obama did was to keep tax rates where they have been for the 10 years

Again, no tax cuts

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/28/barack-obama/tax-cut-95-percent-stimulus-made-it-so/

I read around the net, and tax credits are considered as tax cuts- its just a cut after calculating tax owed. You may argue definition, but colloquially, its a fair statement. Admittedly, some of those "cuts" were similar to bush era credits in amount, but they were cut directly from payroll taxes as opposed to refund check. But damn red-- give a dog a bone will ya? Just because you think somebody is headed in the wrong direction doesn't mean you need to kick them everytime they look the right way!

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/holb110125_cmyk20110124105721.jpg

[fj1200]

how is more money not stimulative unless everyone stuck the xtra dough in the cookie jar?

That money was raised by going to the debt markets which kept the dollars from being spent/invested by the private market. Unless you're of the mind that government spends dollars more efficiently than private citizens. Rebates such as this, see the at least two Bush rebates as evidence, did nothing to stimulate the economy it was a straight-to-the-debt expenditure.


I read around the net, and tax credits are considered as tax cuts- its just a cut after calculating tax owed. You may argue definition, but colloquially, its a fair statement. Admittedly, some of those "cuts" were similar to bush era credits in amount, but they were cut directly from payroll taxes as opposed to refund check. But damn red-- give a dog a bone will ya? Just because you think somebody is headed in the wrong direction doesn't mean you need to kick them everytime they look the right way!

It is a semantic argument but they were not a tax RATE cut which would have actually provided some needed stimulus. My scan of the list saw many cuts that were the typical yearly tax fixes that get passed by Congress anyway, see the yet-again AMT extension.

[fj1200]

You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts!

Are you coming back to defend your fact cherry-picking?

:tapswatch:

[logroller]

The "entitled to your own opinion" line was from a senator ( i don't remember his name) that Obama quoted in his book The Audacity of Hope. It's a good line, but often such sourcing can infer bias as much as it is meant to deflect it. ie ipso facto

Can u explain how $ to the worker isn't stimulative. I can understand it may not foster investment, but then wouldn't it increase the spending in consumer markets, thus having a stimulating effect on the economy, no?

[Kathianne]

The "entitled to your own opinion" line was from a senator ( i don't remember his name) that Obama quoted in his book The Audacity of Hope. It's a good line, but often such sourcing can infer bias as much as it is meant to deflect it. ie ipso facto

Can u explain how $ to the worker isn't stimulative. I can understand it may not foster investment, but then wouldn't it increase the spending in consumer markets, thus having a stimulating effect on the economy, no?

Any money given to those making less than $40k will find its way into spending, there's just not much, if any savings possible. This is the same logic however that led Pelosi to proclaim that unemployment compensation was the greatest stimulus to the economy. Nonsense.

If there wasn't 'unemployment', certainly no extensions, prices would have fallen in the past couple years, instead we are now dealing with very troublesome inflation in food, clothing, and gasoline.

The programs are creating bubbles in the economy, yet hurting most those they are claiming to have been put in place for.

[fj1200]

Can u explain how $ to the worker isn't stimulative. I can understand it may not foster investment, but then wouldn't it increase the spending in consumer markets, thus having a stimulating effect on the economy, no?

Try this little exercise, take $1 from your right pocket and move it to your left pocket. Feel any stimulus? Fiscal stimulus anyway. :laugh: Or move 90 cents over deducting for government efficiency throwing the dime away. Or move it to a lower income income pocket and look for the net stimulus.

[logroller]

Try this little exercise, take $1 from your right pocket and move it to your left pocket. Feel any stimulus? Fiscal stimulus anyway. :laugh: Or move 90 cents over deducting for government efficiency throwing the dime away. Or move it to a lower income income pocket and look for the net stimulus.

I excluded the cookie jar in an earlier post; my pocket qualifies similarly.

i understand the premise of transactional cost effecting the net benefit of spending, public and private. The magnitude of such costs are argued to be lesser in the private sector, which tax credits/ cuts are intended to stimulate(though they still are still impacted by the trans. costs of revenue collection in the case of credits) The stimulating effect upon the economy is that which results from an increased spending thanks to more money to spend. Seems simple enough, but of course their is a trade-off between short-term stimulus (boom and bust) and long-term stimulus (investment); and in the case of direct credit, would be more dependant upon personal choice than gov't.

For example, If I spent my credit on kid's meals, the market for such goods would get a boost:thumb:, as would my rep points with the kids:2up: Long term though, the net economic gain from this spending would be minimal, the restaurant boomed with this increase of sales, but once the credit is gone, I quit buying in favor of "make your own burger night" (Every other Friday at my house) and the burger joint's sales slump, and the kiddy toy loses its stimulating effect on the kids faster than a bigmac grows mold.

Alternatively, if I chose to spend my credit paying down debt or increasing investment the stimulating effect would be less drastic, but long-term it results in a cumulatively more stimulating effect. I understand the rationale against credits for long term growth, but short-term; the effects can be economically positive; and in a recession, short term boosts are can be necessary.

The key here is personal choice, the right one. Gov't can mandate whatever it wants and throw money around to influence spending, but our culture has become dominated by consumerism and not capitalism. I believe media and advertising serve themselves well to stimulate consumerism, to the extent the pockets FJ used as example are likely our collective burning pockets!

[fj1200]

I excluded the cookie jar in an earlier post; my pocket qualifies similarly.

i understand the premise of transactional cost effecting the net benefit of spending, public and private. The magnitude of such costs are argued to be lesser in the private sector, which tax credits/ cuts are intended to stimulate(though they still are still impacted by the trans. costs of revenue collection in the case of credits) The stimulating effect upon the economy is that which results from an increased spending thanks to more money to spend. Seems simple enough, but of course their is a trade-off between short-term stimulus (boom and bust) and long-term stimulus (investment); and in the case of direct credit, would be more dependant upon personal choice than gov't.

For example, If I spent my credit on kid's meals, the market for such goods would get a boost:thumb:, as would my rep points with the kids:2up: Long term though, the net economic gain from this spending would be minimal, the restaurant boomed with this increase of sales, but once the credit is gone, I quit buying in favor of "make your own burger night" (Every other Friday at my house) and the burger joint's sales slump, and the kiddy toy loses its stimulating effect on the kids faster than a bigmac grows mold.

Alternatively, if I chose to spend my credit paying down debt or increasing investment the stimulating effect would be less drastic, but long-term it results in a cumulatively more stimulating effect. I understand the rationale against credits for long term growth, but short-term; the effects can be economically positive; and in a recession, short term boosts are can be necessary.

The key here is personal choice, the right one. Gov't can mandate whatever it wants and throw money around to influence spending, but our culture has become dominated by consumerism and not capitalism. I believe media and advertising serve themselves well to stimulate consumerism, to the extent the pockets FJ used as example are likely our collective burning pockets!

The issue you might be stumbling across is the debt financing the government does. In the recent downturn the only institution that might have been borrowing effectively was the USG. In theory they could select some projects that would give a boost to the economy until the normal cycle would start back up. I say "could" because that's the theory and I think their implementation has been an utter failure. The best stimulus is some good old fashioned tax cuts (extending the Bush tax cuts in this case) with a likely nice fat corporate tax rate cut; the latter more helpful now IMO. I saw a graph that showed the recent recovery far lagged behind other supply side stimulated recoveries or just plain no action recoveries. Telling because the BO medicine has been tax hikes (until he caved), with higher regulations (see HC, cap and trade), and some good old private sector vilification.