The bald faced lying socialist clown cut more taxes at this point than Bush [Archive] - SEC Sports Forum | SEC Basketball | SEC Football

PDA

View Full Version : The bald faced lying socialist clown cut more taxes at this point than Bush



Dawg in Dallas
09-12-2011, 02:40 PM
Sure to be dismissed: (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/11/obama-tax-cutter-he-has-slashed-more-than-bush-did-in-first-term.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28T he+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)


The one thing most voters know about President Obama is that he wants to raise taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations. Republicans have blocked him at every turn, but he continues to talk about changing public policy so that billionaires pay more.

Obama has invested so much time demonizing the Bush-era tax cuts for the rich that he has obscured the true narrative of his presidency. Class-war rhetoric aside, Obama is one of the most prolific tax cutters in recent history, with a record that puts him squarely alongside that of George W. Bush.

Crunching the numbers at the liberal think tank the Center for American Progress, analyst Michael Linden found that if one compares the cost of tax cuts in just the first four years of Bush’s term (2001–04) to the first four years of Obama's (2009–12), Obama’s tax cuts are bigger. The value of the Bush tax cuts were about $475 billion in those first four years, or about 1.1 percent of GDP. Obama’s total about $1 trillion, or 1.6 percent of GDP.

Obama has cut taxes to lower levels than Bush did, says Linden. This is because, of course, Obama thus far has extended all of the Bush tax cuts and then cut taxes on top of that. His original stimulus bill in 2009 had $290 billion in Making Work Pay tax cuts. His speech Thursday night before Congress advocated for another $175 billion in payroll tax cuts, which come on top of $110 billion from last December’s budget deal. Speeded-up expensing for business adds another $10 billion or so.

All in all, Obama is responsible for many billions in tax cuts, yet the popular perception is that he has raised taxes.

“It drives me crazy,” says Michael Ettlinger, vice president for economic policy at the Center for American Progress. “People have this bizarre notion he’s raised taxes when he’s a big tax cutter.” Ettlinger says the White House is guilty of “political malpractice” by getting caught up in a discussion about extending the Bush tax cuts when rhetorically it could have focused on extending the Obama tax cuts in the Recovery Act that were expiring at the same time.

Unlike the Bush tax cuts, which were served up in a single wallop on April 15, the Obama tax cuts are what economist Jared Bernstein calls “slow drip.” Paychecks fluctuate enough that workers didn’t really notice the boost in take-home pay of roughly $1,000 over the year. In three months, if Congress does nothing to extend the payroll tax cut, every paycheck will shrink, a message Obama will be taking to the voters as he presses for passage of the American Jobs Act.

Obama may finally have beaten Republicans at their own game. A party that prides itself on advocating for tax cuts will have a hard time lining up against the extension of the payroll tax and other business sweeteners larded into the jobs bill. Obama’s embrace of tax cuts seems to fly in the face of Democratic orthodoxy, but liberal economists say the president’s approach has been much more strategic and is about trying to get money into the pockets of the middle class to boost the economy.

“It doesn’t come from the same place as Bush or Reagan, whose economic philosophy is no tax is a good tax, and that particularly targeted tax cuts for wealthy individuals and corporations brought good things,” says Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

Obama doesn’t get credit for the tax cuts he has put in place, in part because he hasn’t cut income taxes broadly, as Bush and Reagan did. There’s also what economist Bernstein calls the Republican noise machine. Bernstein was at the White House working for Vice President Biden until earlier this year, and he points out how the Republicans are always complaining about the high corporate tax rate, which was in place well before Obama took office. “It has nothing to do with President Obama, but people associate it with him,” says Bernstein.

The political branding of Obama as just another tax-and-spend liberal has been effective, despite facts that tell a different story. The GOP portrays the health-care reform legislation as a job-killing bill that raises taxes. Repealing the Affordable Care Act is a centerpiece of every Republican’s campaign rhetoric. The legislation does raise taxes but not until 2018, and then on taxpayers who earn more than $250,000. There will also be a tax on so-called Cadillac care, or insurance plans that cost $25,000 or more. “Republicans act as if it started yesterday and hit everybody,” says Bernstein.

Maybe that’s the rub. Obama may be a bigger tax cutter than Bush for the moment, but looking ahead 10 years, as the Center for American Progress did, if you take all of Obama’s specific proposals and add them up, his total net tax cuts come to about $2.2 trillion, less than the $2.3 trillion cost over 10 years of the Bush tax cuts. Based on Obama’s Thursday night speech and positions he has taken before, the president sees tax cutting as a temporary tool to get the economy going again, not as an economic philosophy.

aufan59
09-12-2011, 03:20 PM
So in other words, Obama supporters should stop complaining about Bush tax cuts?

Dawg in Dallas
09-12-2011, 03:22 PM
Only those that aren't "fairly disinterested." :)

Really Big Bama Fan
09-12-2011, 04:35 PM
Sure to be dismissed: (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/11/obama-tax-cutter-he-has-slashed-more-than-bush-did-in-first-term.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28T he+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)

We have been told many times that tax cuts are bad (http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=74501&p=1344605&viewfull=1#post1344605) for the economy. Perhaps the Obama tax cuts are the reason that the economy is floundering?


Is there good evidence the tax cuts persuaded more people to join the work force (because they would be able to keep more of their income)? Not really. The labor-force participation rate fell in the years after 2001 and has never again approached its record in the year 2000.

Is there evidence that the tax cuts led to a lot of entrepreneurship and innovation? Again, no. The rate at which start-up businesses created jobs fell during the past decade.

The theory for why tax cuts should create growth and jobs is a strong one. When people are allowed to keep more of each dollar they earn, they are likely to work longer and harder. The uncertainty is the magnitude of this effect. With everything else that’s happening in a $15 trillion economy, how large of an effect on growth do tax cuts have?

Dawg in Dallas
09-12-2011, 04:43 PM
We have been told many times that tax cuts are bad (http://www.secfanatics.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=74501&p=1344605&viewfull=1#post1344605) for the economy. Perhaps the Obama tax cuts are the reason that the economy is floundering?

No you haven't been told that. What you have been told is that they aren't the cure all conservatives make it seem to be. However, the point of the thread is that Obama has been consistently mislabeled (though you have been fairly spot on in your analysis of his foreign policy).

Just check out the second thread under similar threads below.

Really Big Bama Fan
09-12-2011, 04:49 PM
No you haven't been told that. What you have been told is that they aren't the cure all conservatives make it seem to be. However, the point of the thread is that Obama has been consistently mislabeled (though you have been fairly spot on in your analysis of his foreign policy).

Just check out the second thread under similar threads below.

So the Bush tax cuts were a failure, but the tax cuts proposed by Obama will help to save our economy? I am skeptical.

Dawg in Dallas
09-12-2011, 04:54 PM
So the Bush tax cuts were a failure, but the tax cuts proposed by Obama will help to save our economy? I am skeptical.

I am not claiming that. As I have said in two other threads, I do not hold out much hope that his new proposals will have much on an affect (IOW, I agree with you), though I did see Zandi from Moody's thinks it will add nearly 2% to GDP and nearly 2 million jobs.

My point is a very simple one - when you hear a conservative label Obama as a socialist, consider his tax cut record.

Really Big Bama Fan
09-12-2011, 05:10 PM
I am not claiming that. As I have said in two other threads, I do not hold out much hope that his new proposals will have much on an affect (IOW, I agree with you), though I did see Zandi from Moody's thinks it will add nearly 2% to GDP and nearly 2 million jobs.

My point is a very simple one - when you hear a conservative label Obama as a socialist, consider his tax cut record.

Modification of taxation is only part of his effort. He is a socialist because of his bent towards a centrally planned and governmentally managed economy. That includes intervention in the marketplace, support for favored industries, and redistribution of wealth and benefits to favored groups.

Dawg in Dallas
09-12-2011, 05:14 PM
You may think he has socialist tendencies, but his record does not show that - even his healthcare reform efforts are far from socialist.

However, if "support for favored industries" is a litmus test, then nearly every president since at least LBJ would be a socialist - including Reagan.

Really Big Bama Fan
09-12-2011, 05:25 PM
You may think he has socialist tendencies, but his record does not show that - even his healthcare reform efforts are far from socialist.

However, if "support for favored industries" is a litmus test, then nearly every president since at least LBJ would be a socialist - including Reagan.

Since Truman's effort to nationalize the American steel industry almost succeeded, I would go back at least to Harry S Truman, and considering the New Deal involvement in the free market, probably back to FDR.

OffThePorch
09-12-2011, 05:27 PM
did wants it both ways for Obama... he can do no wrong...

Dawg in Dallas
09-12-2011, 05:41 PM
OTP, with a comment unrelated to the topic...

OffThePorch
09-12-2011, 05:43 PM
OTP, with a comment unrelated to the topic...

No.. i mean you're not getting all over Obama for tax cuts... instead holding it up.. then in another thread you'll go on about how bad tax cuts are.. Obama could **** & tell you its chocolate & you'd go for extra....

Dawg in Dallas
09-12-2011, 05:45 PM
OTP, do you have a comment related to the thread topic, or are you content just to attack me? Just curious,So I know whether to check back on this thread when I see that you are the responder.

SkyAntoine
09-12-2011, 05:56 PM
The Great Tax-cutter Obama is paying for his tax cuts...by taxing higher earners. *cough* redistribution of *cough* wealth *cough*

Dawg in Dallas
09-12-2011, 06:11 PM
The Great Tax-cutter Obama is paying for his tax cuts...by taxing higher earners. *cough* redistribution of *cough* wealth *cough*

What taxes have been raised on high income earners? Would he like to, yes he would. Has he - not to my knowledge.

OffThePorch
09-12-2011, 06:49 PM
Sorry did... just that all this debt & wanting more just pisses me off... i love my kids.

dnmuga93
09-12-2011, 07:48 PM
Modification of taxation is only part of his effort. He is a socialist because of his bent towards a centrally planned and governmentally managed economy. That includes intervention in the marketplace, support for favored industries, and redistribution of wealth and benefits to favored groups.

To nitpick a bit, he isn't a socialist. He's an economic fascist.

Socialists want to own the means of production and centrally plan/governmentally manage the economy. Fascists just want the latter.

SkyAntoine
09-12-2011, 09:07 PM
What taxes have been raised on high income earners? Would he like to, yes he would. Has he - not to my knowledge.

That's the announcement I heard today on XM. That he would propose increases on everyone earning over $200k and couples earning over $250. If so, the bill is DOA.

Dawg in Dallas
09-12-2011, 10:36 PM
So he hasn't raised taxes on high earners.

Is wealth disparity growing in this country? If so, do you think it might be because laws favor those who already have money?

Bama_Man
09-13-2011, 12:41 AM
So he hasn't raised taxes on high earners.

Is wealth disparity growing in this country? If so, do you think it might be because laws favor those who already have money?

No one wants to admit that.
The gap between the wealthy and the not has been growing significantly in the recent past, and no one seems to realize how big an issue it really is.

Really Big Bama Fan
09-13-2011, 08:41 AM
To nitpick a bit, he isn't a socialist. He's an economic fascist.

Socialists want to own the means of production and centrally plan/governmentally manage the economy. Fascists just want the latter.

Neither do the Communist Chinese control the means of production, but they do have a centrally planned and governmentally managed economy. Are the Red Chinese actually Fascist?

Whatever Obama may be--I don't like it.

SkyAntoine
09-13-2011, 12:37 PM
So he hasn't raised taxes on high earners.
Not, yet. Although if this bill gets shot down, he'll still come back with something to tax the top 5%. I expect all-out class warfare stoked by our President.


Is wealth disparity growing in this country? If so, do you think it might be because laws favor those who already have money?
Those with the drive to earn money are going to do so regardless of laws unless they reach a tipping point to disincentivize. You may say that won't happen to individuals regardless of brackets, but look at what it does to industry that runs to pro-development countries. I'm not saying 40%, 50% or whatever is that point, but there is a point where people will get tired of taking one step forward and two steps back.
(Note: I'm 150 pages from completing "Atlas Shrugged". To say I'm an anti-looter is an understatement.)

The gap will always be there when there is a crutch for generations to have food and money provided by someone else. Wealth is about ability and ambition; not fairness. Lots of able-minded competent people are content to not be millionaires. I could make a lot more money, but may lose my family and everything that matters to me in the process. Should it be public policy to even things out? Or, personal freedom to chose their financial destiny?

Bama_Man
09-14-2011, 12:12 AM
Wealth is about ability and ambition

Wealth is about far more than that. If it was simply as easy as being ambitious with ability, more people would be wealthy.

Its a combination of those two, along with luck, timing, class background, connections, etc...

USC90
09-14-2011, 07:19 AM
I haven't been following this thread, but I'll add my two cents.

The problem with the Bush tax cuts were two fold: (1) the sales pitch included the notion that they would pay for themselves which was completely false, and (2) they were enacted during an expansion which needlessly added to the national debt.

Obama's tax cuts are garden variety stimulus. It's defensible to run deficits during a recession. I wouldn't label Obama a tax cutter because of it.

On another point raised in this thread, the increasing wealth gap is real. Here's a chart for you:

http://dailydish.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83451c45669e201543565cb0b970c-550wi

Personally, I'm not sure that the wealth gap tells us much all on its own. If the cost of living has remained stable or dropped and average Americans enjoy a good quality of life, then who cares if the rich get richer? In the midst of a recession, it's hard to say that "average Americans enjoy a good quality of life", but I'm looking at long term trends and I think it's true that I'd rather be in the 50th percentile today as opposed to 30 years ago.

Also, I think Bush's economic policies were flawed, but the chart also shows that he didn't create the wealth gap. It's been widening ever since the post war boom. In fact, it appears that Clinton's term in office saw the greatest increase in the gap.