What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[busybody..]

WASHINGTON POST FACT CHECK: OBAMA LIED ABOUT TAXES. “Obama’s claim of having passed the ‘biggest middle-class tax cut in history’ is ridiculous.”

The press has become noticeably less deferential of late. I wonder why?

 

[koalabear]

WASHINGTON POST FACT CHECK: OBAMA LIED ABOUT TAXES. “Obama’s claim of having passed the ‘biggest middle-class tax cut in history’ is ridiculous.”

The press has become noticeably less deferential of late. I wonder why?

Joe knew first.

 

[mercury14]

Taxes are lower under Obama than they were under Bush. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts then gave us a payroll tax cut and $280 billion in breaks via the stimulus.

Conservatives disagree, however they can't use numbers to back their position. They just point to increased pre-tax medicare withholding on those making $250k/yr or more and the tanning bed tax and spin it like Obama raised taxes on all of us.

Therefore the conservative position only holds water in a fantasy land where we're all rich and golden brown.

 

[koalabear]

Taxes are lower under Obama than they were under Bush. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts then gave us a payroll tax cut and $280 billion in breaks via the stimulus.

Conservatives disagree, however they can't use numbers to back their position.

MORON

 

[unregistered]

 

[busybody..]

Taxes are lower under Obama than they were under Bush. Obama extended the Bush tax cuts then gave us a payroll tax cut and $280 billion in breaks via the stimulus.

Conservatives disagree, however they can't use numbers to back their position. They just point to increased pre-tax medicare withholding on those making $250k/yr or more and the tanning bed tax and spin it like Obama raised taxes on all of us.

Therefore the conservative position only holds water in a fantasy land where we're all rich and golden brown.

asshole

your own WAPO says you are an ASSHOLE

WASHINGTON POST FACT CHECK: OBAMA LIED ABOUT TAXES. “Obama’s claim of having passed the ‘biggest middle-class tax cut in history’ is ridiculous.”

The press has become noticeably less deferential of late. I wonder why?

 

[koalabear]

He may have a metastasizing brain tumor.

A boil on his ass huh.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

He may have a metastasizing brain tumor.

C'mon, don't let these libs steer you away from your cock/anus humor. Brain tumors? Fucking sell out.

 

[busybody..]

The NIGGER lied

The NIGGER on LIT, (juan of many) POON

Continues to LIE on behalf of HEAD NIGGER

LYNCH EM BOTH!​

Obama’s whopper of a claim on tax cuts
By Glenn Kessler

(JASON REED/REUTERS)
“We said working folks deserved a break, so within one month of me taking office, we signed into law the biggest middle-class tax cut in history, putting more money into your pockets.”

— President Obama, Sept. 5, 2011



The president’s Labor Day speech in Detroit featured an assertion that contained a number of warning signs that it might be an errant fact: “biggest middle-class tax cut in history.”

First of all, anytime a politician claims he or she has done something historic, watch your pockets. That’s usually a dubious claim.

Then, “biggest” can mean all sorts of things. If we are talking about dollars, then are they inflation-adjusted or measured against the overall economy? Raw dollar figures are essentially meaningless without that context.

Finally, the “middle-class” modifier. What’s the definition of “middle-class”? There are many ways one could slice and dice that classification.

Clearly the president wants to demonstrate he’s a tax-cutter. And certainly White House officials have been frustrated that the $116 billion Making Work Pay tax cut was largely unnoticed by Americans.

We decided to put the president’s claim to the test.



The Facts
We took an informal survey in our office and asked people what they thought the president’s statement meant. Everyone agreed he was claiming the biggest tax cut in terms of dollars.

Imagine our surprise when the White House responded that he wasn’t talking about dollars at all.

“The point the president was making that is there is not a tax cut that has been enjoyed by such a broad section of the population,” an administration official said, pointing to a report that said that 95 percent of working families received some kind of tax cut under the Making Work Pay provision in his stimulus bill.

Huh?

In other words, this isn’t about the size of the tax cut, but about the fact that every working family, except those making more than $190,000, received as much as $800 in tax cuts.

That strikes us as very odd way to claim “the biggest,” but maybe that’s because Obama can’t make that claim. We ran the numbers every which way, but the fairest over time is to look at the tax cut as a percentage of national income (Gross Domestic Product minus depreciation.)

John F. Kennedy seems to win the prize for biggest tax cut, at least in the last half century. By the same measure, the income tax provisions of George W. Bush tax cuts are more than twice as large as Obama’s tax cut over the same three-year time span. (Yes, a large portion of Bush’s tax cut went to the wealthy, but it also benefited the working poor. We still don’t know what Obama means by “middle class,” since his definition also seems to include the working poor.)

Incidentally, the report that the administration official cited as “outside validation” for the 95 percent statistic just mentioned it as an aside. We checked with one of the co-authors, and he said the source for the figure was a White House fact sheet.

We’re not that impressed by the 95 percent claim, in any case. Essentially, all this means is that the top 5 percent of taxpayers did not receive the tax cut. Some economists might argue the cut-off limited the effectiveness of the provision as economic stimulus.




The Pinocchio Test

Obama’s claim of having passed the “biggest middle-class tax cut in history” is ridiculous. He might have been on more solid ground if he had claimed the “broadest” tax cut, but that doesn’t sound very historic.

We went back and forth over whether this was a three or four Pinocchio violation, until we found evidence that Obama knew he was saying a whopper. Here’s how he put it in his 2010 State of the Union speech: “We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families.” That phrasing, at least, would not have been so misleading.

Four Pinnocchios

 

[RightField]

De' fish was thhhiiisssss bbbbbiiiggggg!

 

[RightField]

I saaavvvveedddd diiiissss maaannnyyy jjjjoooobbbbs!

 

[richard_daily]

Notice how all the wingnuts avoid talking about the fact that taxes for just about everyone are lower under Obama than under Bush

 

[RightField]

Notice how all the wingnuts avoid talking about the fact that taxes for just about everyone are lower under Obama than under Bush

I'll talk about them.

It's an interesting approach that Obama has for lowering taxes. Taxes are low now because people are making so much less than they made before and therefore have lower tax bills. I saw one report that said that there are 40% fewer people making $1M+. While that might sound good to some of you class-warriors, those were the people who were paying the bulk of the taxes and the fact that the economy is so weak and those high-yield jobs are getting destroyed means that there's billions less to fund the social net. On the other side of it, there is billions of dollars less in created wealth that could be used for investments and job creation also. Instead of demonizing high earners and destroying them, lets figure out a way to make more of them, it's good for all of us (based on generating real wealth, not cronyism like Obama's approach - like solar businesses supported by big campaign donors).

It's not just the rich who are paying less in taxes though, wages are lower all across the board. I did an analysis recently of census data and found that the % of people in the lower income levels has swelled by millions and the number of people who are were in higher income catagories (middle and up) are decreasing by millions.

The opposite happened during the Bush years, the dems complained about the "shrinking" middle class until the census guys agreed with them, but pointed out that the reason was that so many more people were making so much more money (fewer people in lower and middle brackets and more in the higher brackets).

Of course, the another factor contributing to the lower tax yield is the 14 million who are unemployed and, as you would note, have had a significant reduction in what they have to pay in taxes in the glorious Obama economy. Is that how democrats "stimulate" the economy?

You talk about lower tax yields...some of the problem in our economy is due to the gimmics that this administration is using. They call payments in the form of "tax credits" a tax reduction. Let me go through it again.

• Year 1 person A makes $100 and pays $35 in taxes, person B makes $30 and pays 0 taxes....net to the government is $35.
  
• Year 2 after Obama gimmic taxes....person A makes $100 and pays $35 in taxes. Person B makes $30 but gets a $5 tax credit so the net to the goverment is $30. Obama calls this a reduction in taxes even though the guy paying the taxes is paying the same amount.
  
• I can understand if the person needs a boost, unemployment insurance or other help, but don't give him a check for $5 and tell me that taxes have been reduced.

Many of Obama's taxes are just temporary. Business and long term investment decisions (homes, cars, etc) aren't based on a 1 year tax holiday on payroll taxes. The real benefit comes from reducing marginal taxes, something that Obama is talking about reversing.

Rates haven't changed for 12 years ...any reductions in government revenue is coming from the democrat-caused problems in the economy and the social-engineering behavior modifying Obama tax gimmics.

 

[mercury14]

I'll talk about them.

It's an interesting approach that Obama has for lowering taxes. Taxes are low now because people are making so much less than they made before and therefore have lower tax bills. I saw one report that said that there are 40% fewer people making $1M+. While that might sound good to some of you class-warriors, those were the people who were paying the bulk of the taxes and the fact that the economy is so weak and those high-yield jobs are getting destroyed means that there's billions less to fund the social net. On the other side of it, there is billions of dollars less in created wealth that could be used for investments and job creation also.

It's not just the rich who are paying less in taxes though, wages are lower all across the board. I did an analysis recently of census data and found that the % of people in the lower income levels has swelled by millions and the number of people who are were in higher income catagories (middle and up) are decreasing by millions.

The opposite happened during the Bush years, the dems complained about the "shrinking" middle class until the census guys agreed with them, but pointed out that the reason was that so many more people were making so much more money (fewer people in lower and middle brackets and more in the higher brackets).

Of course, the other factor contributing to the lower tax yield is the 14 million who are unemployed and, as you would note, have had a significant reduction in what they have to pay in taxes in the glorious Obama economy. Is that how democrats "stimulate" the economy?

You talk about lower tax yields...some of the problem in our economy is due to the gimmics that this administration is using. They call payments in the form of "tax credits" a tax reduction. Let me go through it again.

• Year 1 person A makes $100 and pays $35 in taxes, person B makes $30 and pays 0 taxes....net to the government is $35.
  
• Year 2 after Obama gimmic taxes....person A makes $100 and pays $35 in taxes. Person B makes $30 but gets a $5 tax credit so the net to the goverment is $30. Obama calls this a reduction in taxes even though the guy paying the taxes is paying the same amount.
  
• I can understand if the person needs a boost, unemployment insurance or other help, but don't give him a check for $5 and tell me that taxes have been reduced.

Many of Obama's taxes are just temporary. Business and long term investment decisions (homes, cars, etc) aren't based on a 1 year tax holiday on payroll taxes. The real benefit comes from reducing marginal taxes, something that Obama is talking about reversing.

Rates haven't changed for 12 years ...any reductions in government revenue is coming from the democrat-caused problems in the economy and the social-engineering behavior modifying Obama tax gimmics.

What a willfully stupid post.

Taxes are less under Obama because RATES are lower. Doesn't matter what the unemployment rate is or what per capita income is, the fact is that Obama instituted a payroll tax that cuts taxes on anyone getting a pay stub.

The payroll tax cut is a 2-year cut and Obama wants to extend it for 2 more years. Dismissing tax cuts as meaningless because they're temporary means you also have to dismiss the Bush tax cuts for the same reason, hypocrite.

 

[koalabear]

What a willfully stupid post.

Taxes are less under Obama because RATES are lower. Doesn't matter what the unemployment rate is or what per capita income is, the fact is that Obama instituted a payroll tax that cuts taxes on anyone getting a pay stub.

The payroll tax cut is a 2-year cut and Obama wants to extend it for 2 more years. Dismissing tax cuts as meaningless because they're temporary means you also have to dismiss the Bush tax cuts for the same reason, hypocrite.

You were against the Bush tax cuts, MORON.

 

[RightField]

One Reason Why Keynesian Stimuli Aren't Working: They Aren't Keynesian
Nick Gillespie | September 7, 2011

In The Washington Times, businessman Mike Whalen (who's associated the free-market think tank NCPA) writes up an interesting take on why various federal stimulus program have tanked like the Titanic (while causing few ripples on the way down).

His points are worth thinking about.

According to the Keynesians, the remedy for today’s economic problem is for the federal government, as the single biggest actor, to “prime the pump.” As government money starts to ripple through the economy, consumers and businesses will be encouraged and cautiously respond with limited increases of their own. Vroom! The economic engine steadily revs up in billions of responsive steps until happy days are here again. This pump-priming reaction is termed the “multiplier effect.”

There are many reasons to doubt that the multiplier exists at all and if it does, it certainly isn't at the levels the Obama administration has claimed. As Reason's economics columnist Veronique de Rugy has pointed out, the administration claimed that one dollar of government spending would create as much as four dollars in economic activity while other economists were coming in with multipliers of between 0.8 and 1.2, meaning that each dollar of government spending might yield just 80 cents to $1.20 in activity. Even if accurate, that buck-twenty is nothing to write home about, especially given the fact that government spending has to be pulled out of some other part of the economy via current or future taxes or borrowing. Which casts huge doubt on the possibility of any stimulus to work.

But Whalen isn't simply dumping on Keynesianism, he's bent on pointing out that even its latter-day adherents are straying far from their master's theory. And in this, he's surely correct. As Allen Meltzer has argued, Keynes was against the very sort of large structural deficits that characterize contemporary federal budgets and policy, believing instead that deficits should be "temporary and self-liquidating." And Keynes believed that any sort of counter-cyclical spending by government should be directed toward increasing private investment, not simply spending current and future tax dollars on public works projects.

Or, to put it another way: If the federal government had a strong track record of responsible spending, it would mean one thing if it went into hock for a short period of time to goose the economy (again, whether this would work is open to question). It means something totally different when a government that spent all of the 21st century piling on debt and new, long-term entitlement programs responds to an economic downturn first by creating yet another gargantuan entitlement (Obamacare) and taking on even more debt in the here-and-now. This cuts in a Milton Friedmanesque, monetarist direction too. If the Federal Reserve had not been keeping money artificially cheap for the past couple of decades and it worked to lower interest rates and increase the availability of money in a given moment, that would mean one thing. Promising to keep rates low for the next couple of years - after years of loose money and statements that all those bubbles weren't bubbles at all - doesn't mean the same thing.

Whalen again:


I think John Maynard Keynes would be horrified at the slavish adherence to this simplistic strategy by so many policymakers and economic thinkers, as his theory was much more complex. This thinking might be correct under circumstances other than those in which we find ourselves. If the ratio of our national debt to gross domestic product was low - say 25 percent - and the federal government had run surpluses before the downturn, this college freshman-level Keynesian analysis would have great weight. Put another way, if Uncle Sam were a rock-solid financial entity with low debt to value and he had judiciously used debt for capital improvements that were accretive in value, as the biggest dog on the porch, a stimulus might work.

But with a national debt of more than $14 trillion and unfunded, future “off the books” debt of Social Security and Medicare combined at $104 trillion in present value, according to the Dallas Federal Reserve, Uncle Sam ain’t the man he used to be. This in turn makes American businesses that are sitting on a pile of cash focus on deleveraging. The American consumer is doing the same. In fact, from where I sit, it appears as though everyone except Uncle Sam is working like mad to strengthen his balance sheets. The legitimate fear across the country is that Washington’s refusal to join our common-sense parade will result in higher taxes, more regulations, more inflation and Japanese-style stagflation. In other words, Washington’s attempts at stimulus through spending are having the opposite effect. Businesses and consumers stay hunkered down.

If the federal government announced a real road map to fiscal soundness, the impact would be truly stimulating. If American businesses and consumers saw that Washington was really cutting, not just reducing future increases, there would be tremendous relief and an increase in confidence across the country. Job creators would sing “hallelujah”; they would get off their wallets, start hiring, and then you’d see that Keynesian multiplier kick in.

Except, of course, that it wouldn't be Keynesian at all. Which I don't think anyone would care about.

 

[RightField]

What a willfully stupid post.

Taxes are less under Obama because RATES are lower. Doesn't matter what the unemployment rate is or what per capita income is, the fact is that Obama instituted a payroll tax that cuts taxes on anyone getting a pay stub.

The payroll tax cut is a 2-year cut and Obama wants to extend it for 2 more years. Dismissing tax cuts as meaningless because they're temporary means you also have to dismiss the Bush tax cuts for the same reason, hypocrite.

A temporary holiday on payroll taxes is not a rate change no matter how much you "spin" it. Still shilling for gimmics eh? Hasn't work yet, has it? Are you going to tell me next how Obamacare is going to fix the economy in the future?

 

[mercury14]

One Reason Why Keynesian Stimuli Aren't Working: They Aren't Keynesian
Nick Gillespie | September 7, 2011

So now you're flip-flopping to say that Obama's policies are both too Keynsian and not Keysian enough? You're not helping yourself here.

 

[mercury14]

Still shilling for gimmics eh? Hasn't work yet, has it?

I just pointed out that under your very own logic the Bush tax cuts are just as gimmicky. You couldn't possibly be more of a hypocrite.

 

[RightField]

I just pointed out that under your very own logic the Bush tax cuts are just as gimmicky. You couldn't possibly be more of a hypocrite.

Here's a difference...

Bush tax cuts worked. Obama's gimmics didn't.

It's due to the difference in the approach...Bush reduced marginal income tax rates, Obama played temporary gimmics that provide(d) no benefit.

 

[RightField]

So now you're flip-flopping to say that Obama's policies are both too Keynsian and not Keysian enough? You're not helping yourself here.

Since you don't seem to be able to grasp elementary differences, here's a simplified statement for you:

Obama's economic approaches are horrible for the country and are destroying our economy. Any Republican will be a welcomed change and based on the Republican approach, will provide much better results.

 

[eyer]

Any Republican will be a welcomed change and based on the Republican approach, will provide much better results.

Sounds like a new Ben & Jerry's flavor:

Flat-Out Partisan Bullcrap

 

[mercury14]

Here's a difference...

Bush tax cuts worked. Obama's gimmics didn't.

It's due to the difference in the approach...Bush reduced marginal income tax rates, Obama played temporary gimmics that provide(d) no benefit.

No, you said the Bush tax cuts are gimmicks. Because any tax cut that's temporary is a gimmich.

And no, by your logic these tactics are judged by whether or not there was a recession or a recovery. The Bush tax cuts wholly failed to prevent the recession and according to you there's no recovery. All of these things happened despite the Bush tax cut policy.

Therefore, using your very own ten-cent logic, the Bush Tax cuts failed.

 

[garbage can]

Sounds like a new Ben & Jerry's flavor:

Flat-Out Partisan Bullcrap

Of course it's partisan..... WTF...Does that mean you're in Obama's camp?