Tax limbo....how low.....will it go

[Fallakin Kuvari]

What don't you fucking understand?

$787bn in government spending is not tax cuts. It provides government mandated welfare for the majority of Americans, yes... but that is such a small part of the bill that its sickening. America is going to have to pay for this shit sandwich and the first (Bush) shit sandwich at a later date, which will almost undoubtedly require tax hikes all around.

Also, $1.75 trillion deficit is sickening... if things get worse maybe I will shoot myself through the mouth, I'll be sure to record it for you asshole.

[Harlowe]

$787bn stimulus is gonna have to be paid for somehow, at a later date... It'll more than likely be tax hikes.

Hmmmm.... I don't remember you saying "Bush's tax cuts are going to have to be paid for at a later date and that'll take a tax hike so he's really raising taxes!".

Anyways, did you miss the part about Obama raising taxes on the top 2%? Unlike the Bush tax cuts which created a structural deficit that would never be reversed, the Obama Budget will eventually lead back to surplus; just like Clinton's did.

QFE.

I think people like Rush Limbaugh & Jindahl have given neo-cons rabies. They've been hysterical looking for things to attack while being absolutely irrational and foaming at the mouth. It's nice to see sane Republicans actually insinuate that Rush's wishes are idiotic.

[Lurker]

Ha! We've arrived back here!

Instead of spending pages of Fallakin making stupid statements, can we skip to the part where Ddrak pops in and shuts Fallakin up by saying the exact same thing I am? Yes we can.

[Kulaf]

So is your response that this is the tax cut he campaigned on?

Yes. Between the recovery package and his budget, Obama is implementing the tax cuts and increases he campaigned on.

Well it's not actually. He is 20% under his campaign promise for both single and married couples for his Making Work Pay tax credit even though he stated several times that he would likely need to phase in some of his spending initiatives if the economy was worse than anticipated; he is pressing forward with every facet of his spending increases from what I can see and using the 20% tax credit reduction to pay for it.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Ha! We've arrived back here!

Instead of spending pages of Fallakin making stupid statements, can we skip to the part where Ddrak pops in and shuts Fallakin up by saying the exact same thing I am? Yes we can.

I'm sorry, I forgot. Its your time now, I'll go stand in the motherfucking corner.

[Lurker]

He is 20% under his campaign promise for both single and married couples for his Making Work Pay tax credit

True, he campaigned on a 500/1000 reduction and delivered 400/800. That hardly justifies your "Umm......what happened? Where are the huge tax cuts for working class Americans?" comment. And your "notice that 150k number" comment is a total mystery.

he stated several times that he would likely need to phase in some of his spending initiatives if the economy was worse than anticipated; he is pressing forward with every facet of his spending increases from what I can see and using the 20% tax credit reduction to pay for it.

Obama consistently said that there were certain things that could not be delayed even with the worsening economic situation. In fact, some things needed to be accelerated. Health care reform was one of those things.

I'll go stand in the motherfucking corner.

QFE

[Fallakin Kuvari]

@Harlowe: Jindal.

[Kulaf]

He is 20% under his campaign promise for both single and married couples for his Making Work Pay tax credit

True, he campaigned on a 500/1000 reduction and delivered 400/800. That hardly justifies your "Umm......what happened? Where are the huge tax cuts for working class Americans?" comment. And your "notice that 150k number" comment is a total mystery.

Well the Making Work Pay credit is only one facet of what he said he would deliver. I have seen no mention of the universal mortgage credit, college credit nor the child care credit. The 150k number is totally relavent for the reasons I originally cited. Per the article Harlowe originally linked with my emphasis added:

***CLARIFICATION *** The Obama campaign tells First Read that this is how Obama's plan breaks down: People making less than $250,000 will not see their taxes increase, and people making less than $200,000 will receive some type of tax cut. And all of this is essentially reflected in the Tax Policy Center stats below.

*** UPDATE *** An Obama aide points out to First Read that the $150,000 figure Biden was citing was simply an example of what someone making that amount would get under Obama's tax plan. Indeed, Biden's $150,000 remark came after he referred to someone making $1.4 million.

Per the Tax Policy Center, here is how Obama's tax plan breaks down for individuals:
$0-$18,891 = $567 tax cut
$18,982-$37,595 = $892 tax cut
$37,596-$66,354 = $1,118 tax cut
$66,355-$111,645 = $1,264 tax cut
$111,646-$160,972 = $2,135 tax cut
$160,973-$226,918 = $2,796 tax cut
$226,919-$603,402 = $121 tax increase
$603,403-$2.87 million = $93,709 tax increase
$2.87 million-plus = $542,882 tax increase

200k was the number floated......150k, like Biden said, was the number delivered. Simple as that.

he stated several times that he would likely need to phase in some of his spending initiatives if the economy was worse than anticipated; he is pressing forward with every facet of his spending increases from what I can see and using the 20% tax credit reduction to pay for it.

Obama consistently said that there were certain things that could not be delayed even with the worsening economic situation. In fact, some things needed to be accelerated. Health care reform was one of those things.

Why? If there is a temporary need based on this economy then create a temporary solution until the need passes. Then once we are back on firm footing start talking about a permanent solution to the "perceived" problem.

And exactly what programs are being delayed?

[Lurker]

I have seen no mention of the universal mortgage credit, college credit nor the child care credit.

With the exception of the mortgage credit which is moving on a seperate track, those items are in his budget.

The 150k number is totally relavent for the reasons I originally cited.

No, it isn't. You originally posted this thread because you thought Obama was moving the goalpost for who got a tax cut. He wasn't and he hasn't.

You are now taking one part of his tax plan -the Making Work Pay component- and making a false leap that nobody making over 150k a year gets tax relief. Obama said that people making over 250k would see their taxes go up, and that (as you underlined and bolded) people making less than $200,000 will receive some type of tax cut. That's exactly what's happening. There's more in the budget and the tax plan than that one component.

[Partha]

First place, unless someone changed the rules on us, Obama doesn't get to make laws by fiat, so you might ask someone in the Congress what happened with that 500/1000 to make it 400/800.

Second place, I lurve me some wingnuts who are bitching because less than 40 days in, Obama's already gotten the largest single non-budget bill ever passed and implemented several of his campaign promises with the budget as written being able to implement a large portion of the others. Republicans? After eight years of pissing away everything, the best they've got is to make up stuff about rail links to Vegas and mouse protection money while all their "Stars of the Future" look like drooling imbeciles on the TeeVee.

[Klast Brell]

So he's cutting taxes now while raising them later... awesome.

Ummm.... no.

Obama is cutting taxes for most people and allowing the tax cuts for the top 2% to expire next year. Thats a cut for most and an increase for the top 2%.

This isn't rocket science although I understand it might appear so to you.

Must be rocket science for you, then. $787bn stimulus is gonna have to be paid for somehow, at a later date... It'll more than likely be tax hikes. Way to be completely daft.

So, about that emoticon... please?

Just like we will have to pay for the trillions of debt the Bush administration racked up. Pot, meet kettle.

[Klast Brell]

I am in favor of an emoticon of you shooting yourself in the mouth though.

Do we have one for shooting yourself in the foot?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

So he's cutting taxes now while raising them later... awesome.

Ummm.... no.

Obama is cutting taxes for most people and allowing the tax cuts for the top 2% to expire next year. Thats a cut for most and an increase for the top 2%.

This isn't rocket science although I understand it might appear so to you.

Must be rocket science for you, then. $787bn stimulus is gonna have to be paid for somehow, at a later date... It'll more than likely be tax hikes. Way to be completely daft.

So, about that emoticon... please?

Just like we will have to pay for the trillions of debt the Bush administration racked up. Pot, meet kettle.

What don't you fucking understand?

$787bn in government spending is not tax cuts. It provides government mandated welfare for the majority of Americans, yes... but that is such a small part of the bill that its sickening. America is going to have to pay for this shit sandwich and the first (Bush) shit sandwich at a later date, which will almost undoubtedly require tax hikes all around.

Also, $1.75 trillion deficit is sickening... if things get worse maybe I will shoot myself through the mouth, I'll be sure to record it for you asshole.

Fuck me, its like people around here can't read or comprehend anything.

[Lurker]

Fuck me, its like people around here can't read or comprehend anything.

You sure can't.

We're talking about the Bush tax cuts going back to 2001.

And I know! I know! You are talking about stimulus not tax cuts blah blah blah. It's.the.same.thing.dumbshit. If there's no revenue surplus then tax cuts are just another form of Government spending.

The Bush tax cuts, every one of them, were billed as necessary to provide economic stimulus at the time. Unfortunately, the Bush tax cuts were not targetted to the middle class and amounted in massive debt with little stimulus and nothing whatever to show for any of it.

You really are dumb as a stone. Weren't you going to go stand in the corner?

[Fallakin Kuvari]

Fuck me, its like people around here can't read or comprehend anything.

You sure can't.

We're talking about the Bush tax cuts going back to 2001.

And I know! I know! You are talking about stimulus not tax cuts blah blah blah. It's.the.same.thing.dumbshit. If there's no revenue surplus then tax cuts are just another form of Government spending.

The Bush tax cuts, every one of them, were billed as necessary to provide economic stimulus at the time. Unfortunately, the Bush tax cuts were not targetted to the middle class and amounted in massive debt with little stimulus and nothing whatever to show for any of it.

You really are dumb as a stone. Weren't you going to go stand in the corner?

No shit, when theres a deficit theres going to be more taxes. Obama is going to have to raise taxes on everyone too, letting the tax cuts on the wealthy lapse won't suffice. Not to mention all the new government programs him and his congress want to start up, which will clearly mandate more taxation.

At least Bush made some headway on the chart before the burst of the real estate bubble (oh wait, the Iraq War wasn't on the books then either).



Really though, thats fucking sickening.

Also, go fuck yourself.

[Ddrak]

Kulaf made the excellent point a few years back when we were bitching about mandating a balanced budget that it's not feasible because deficit spending is the best way to get out of a recession/depression. Yes, you're forcing the payments off to the future but the theory is you're better able to pay for them when you're not in a recession than when you are. The real question is whether the amount of deficit spending is justified by the offset it makes to the economy in the recession and whether the long term pain is worth the short term relief. I don't see any of the debate on this thread even touching that point yet.

To give Fallakin credit, throwing Bush's deficit idiocy at him is a strawman argument because he hasn't really defended that either. I don't agree with the statement that "Bush was chipping away at it" because he presided over the fall off Clinton's perch and threw around unwarranted tax cuts that primarily targetted the top end of the income spectrum when the going was actually pretty good. While 2001-2003 were certainly down years (and going to be even without 9/11), 2003-2008 have no excuse for not being in surplus.

That graph would be much better normalized against GDP, total tax revenue or some other measure of the size of the economy. It unfairly emphasizes dollar value when it's not a stable baseline.

I think Obama's spending is cautiously warranted by the sheer depth and breadth of the economy's failings and the fact that the bottom isn't even known yet (the Dow's at 7000, can we get to 5000 anyone?). I think it needs to be analyzed carefully though, and that sort of spending *needs* backpressure at every corner to ensure it is actually justified.

1,000,000,000,000 is a pretty big number. No one should forget that. Just typing it is scary enough.

Dd

[Lurker]

To give Fallakin credit, throwing Bush's deficit idiocy at him is a strawman argument because he hasn't really defended that either.

This is a carryover from another thread. I'm making fun of Fallakin for being for tax cuts but against spending without realizing that they are the same thing; Government spending borrowed money to stimulate the economy. Well, the same thing except that spending provides much more stimulative bang for the buck.

The real question is whether the amount of deficit spending is justified by the offset it makes to the economy in the recession and whether the long term pain is worth the short term relief. I don't see any of the debate on this thread even touching that point yet.

This thread was an old one that Kulaf bumped in an attempt to slam Obama. We've certainly touched on the topic in other threads. The private sector can't and won't inject capital into the system and the Feds can't use the normal tools of interest rates reductions since they are already at zero. Direct injections of federal cash is the only option available, and with the projected drop off of GDP it's likely that one trillion won't be a big enough number... no matter how scary it is to type.

[Partha]

Kulaf made the excellent point a few years back when we were bitching about mandating a balanced budget that it's not feasible because deficit spending is the best way to get out of a recession/depression.

You have a link, maybe? Because all I've seen Kulaf doing since Obama took office is bitching about Obama following the course that you claim Kulaf said is correct.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

I'm hearing (granted its from wingnuts on Glenn Beck that scare the fuck outta me, yes I started listening to him... hes funny if you don't take everything he says as completely serious... dude has a ton of crazy conspiracy theories...) that we could see as low as 3000 on the DJIA. I think thats a very grim projection and hope it doesn't hit that low, highly doubt it will. 5000 even seems a bit grim to me, to be honest. 6000 is what I think will be the bottom.

I even knocked that "head way" that Bush made on that chart, since the cost of the war in Iraq/Afghanistan isn't included on there cause its on a separate (unseen) set of books.

I don't know if you guys have seen this chart, but it gives a good inclination of just how bad things could get.



How big the housing bubble got is just incredible. To me, someone had to have seen this coming. It's just insanity.

[Fallakin Kuvari]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29434104

Color me shocked, criticism from CNBC.