Politifact undertook the task of fact checking Obama and Bob McDonnell. I probably should have live blogged the whole deal, but I prefer to read the speech and reactions. I cannot stand constant applause and ovations for various policies as politics regardless of which party is doing it. It drives me nuts. I also had class that ran into it.
I would like to point out to tea party people that:
Obama was right that 95 percent of working families have gotten a tax cut.
Perhaps the tea party is made up of people entirely from the higher tax brackets, but I doubt it.
Also, Dr promised me last night he would post his thoughts today, and he seemed upset. I have been eagerly awaiting his angry tirade about whatever bothered him so much. So we have that to look forward to.
Personally, I enjoyed Obama calling Republicans out for making everything require 60 votes and Democrats for being pushovers.
Enjoy Dr’s tirade.
Adam Feser
30 Comments
login
Polls
Loading ...Recent Comments
- internal hemorrhoids treatments on Egypt Reactions
- like this on John Thune and Sotomayor
- jquery mobile tutorial on College Football/Nebraska-KSU Challenge
- discount learn css3 pdf on Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now aka ACORN
- site link on Rep. Weiner on Justice Thomas and the Appearance of Bias
- rate us online on House Officially Disapproves of Wilson’s Outburst
- rate us on Will Rogers Said It Best
- t1 circuit info on Good God Glenn
- reality show casting on Teacher takes Student the wood shed…
- insurnace companies on Vermont Legalizes Gay Marriage
Most Commented Posts
- Miss me yet (130)
- Arizona's Racist Law (119)
- Confessions of a Tea Party Casualty (83)
- Smoking Ban Thoughts and Poll (80)
- Tom Tancredo Wants Literacy Tests (76)
- The Apparent Trap/Hawaiian Health Care (62)
- Sarah Palin: Persecuted Jew? (57)
- Healthcare (53)
- Cash for Clunkers: What a joke! (50)
- Tom Coburn Has Pelosi's Back and a Point (49)
Blogroll
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Aug | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
| 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 |
| 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 |
| 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | |
Please specifically identify the tax cut that 95% of people received.
To start Mr. Feser, the Communist Tom Daschle did the same things several years ago and it was ok then and now its not….
I am pissed, Obama lied throughout that whole speech…
Communist? Give me a break. Daschle has more corporate ties than I care to admit.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/28/barack-obama/tax-cut-95-percent-stimulus-made-it-so/
”The key word in his statement is “working.” Obama’s claim is based on a tax cut intended to offset payroll taxes. Under the stimulus bill, single workers got $400, and working couples got $800. The Internal Revenue Service issued new guidelines to reduce withholdings for income tax, so many workers saw a small increase in their checks in April 2009.”
This is really not a tax cut. While your paychecks are larger, your tax return will be much smaller…my tax return was proof of that…don’t believe that these are tax cuts. The extra $7.00 I got in my check bought two gallons of milk. Big whop. Why couldn’t he give the ‘tax cut’ all at once if he is trying to ’stimulate’ the economy. For this…Obama and his cronies get an F
So you and everyone can complain about the socialist stealing your money when you in fact got more money. You and everyone else that bitches about losing their money due to Obama get a huge F.
Adam, what you arent understanding that “small increase” we got was what we normally get back in the form of a refund when you file your income taxes. I would rather have it all at once rather than $6 a week.
This was not a tax cut. It was a ‘I will give you you refund early” type of thing. I did not get any more money than I would have in a normal year….Are you getting the argument I am making…..
And if you think $7 a week is going to stimulate the economy, you have another thing coming.
Lets see…under the Bush tax cuts what was I able to get…lets see….oh I remember…a down payment for a car (brand new) oh and a trip with my wife. What did I buy with Obama’s ‘tax cut,’ I guess I don’t know, it slipped my mind…b/c it wasn’t significant enough.
Either way, Bush or Obama, they were giving away money they didn’t have to give away. It was nice with Bush to have one payment rather than the drawn out few bucks thing Obama did. Either way I’d rather see it go to paying down our national debt, but if I had to choose I’d take a check for $400 or $800 over the way they did it.
Your argument is that you get slightly more than you did under Bush. How is that him raising your taxes and stealing your money?
Bush’s biggest problem was that so much of the tax cut went to those that didn’t need it. Trickle down economics does not work.
Trickle economics does work if the government operates properly. It creates jobs and economic growth. It doesn’t work when you need to tax the rich in order to produce massive tax revenues to fund welfare programs.
It is believed by many, including me, that Reagan’s trickle economics approach created the awesome economy we had during the Clinton years, though Democrats would like to believe that those good years were created by Clinton himself and had nothing to do with the 12 years of Republican administrations before him.
What a laugh–Reaganomics (voodoo economics) may have worked short term but NOT in the long-term. Tax cuts have left us with crippling deficits and a massive national debt. You’re the one crying about the deficit all the time–well, that’s what the tax cuts created. And there has been no evidence that the tax cuts in fact stimulated the economy that much. In fact, Bill Clinton’s 1993 economic plan, which raised some taxes, helped stimulate a massive increase in economic activity throughout the 1990s. So you can just keep quiet about Reagan–Clinton’s plan had a whole lot more to do with the awesome economic surplus than Reagan did. And Bush II’s style of Reaganomics destroyed all of it.
The number of people living below the poverty line grew every year of the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, the national debt tripled, the trade deficit quadrupled, and families’ personal savings declined. Reagan tax policies actually increased taxes for the middle class. Reagan’s legacy was that people were taught to hate the poor.
Also, Reagan policies created the recession in the early 1990’s–could say that Clinton fixed that. Clinton reduced the deficit and created 22 million new jobs. That’s what created the awesome, awesome economy.
So how did trickle economics work again? Oh, for the rich. That’s right.
Well said, Skye.
Regan’s tax cuts were to fix the failure of a peanut farmer. Thanks for nothing Jimmy Carter.
His tax cuts did what? Triple the debt?
What Obama did was change withholding not the tax brackets or rates. This is not a tax cut. You all make the flaw of presuming this is the government’s money to give to you. It is mine and the government simply takes more or less based upon who seems to be in office.
The test for whether rate cuts stimulate the economy and add to the government resources is not measured by the debt or deficit. Rather, it is measured based upon the revenue thoses sources provide and if, during the long run, those revenues increase. As a rule, they do increase as tax rates decline in accross the board reductions. Targeted rate cuts and cute efforts like those proposed do little. This is evidenced historically as well.
Debt has a second contributing factor, namely spending, that impact the budget outcomes. This, as we can all see, is the driving force in all debt issues. Particularly with Obama. 1.6 trillion dollar deficit in his budget today. Are you Effing kidding me?
The revenue side of the equation worked every time its been tried. It would work again but its not likely that this congress will follow the country’s best interests on this. Finally, don’t try to hang Bush on me as you respond to this. Bush and the republicans screwed the pooch all during his second term with respect to spending. As a consevative, I would give Bush and the congress an F in their budget management from ‘05 to ‘08.
By the way, all economic activity is “trickle” in nature. Up, down, sideways. Makes no difference. You are simply ignorant if you believe anything differently.
Supply-side economics and top bracket cuts are hardly the proven boon to the economy you argue.
Liberals like to look to the government to take money from the rich and then “create” jobs or “spread the wealth around”. The United States of America is intended for free enterprise, which requires private business to do well. If you tax the crap out of the rich, you make them lose incentive to create businesses or loan money for that purpose. If the government takes their money and “creates” jobs, you push toward socialism. We need private business created by private cash. The government needs to look at how to encourage such growth without interfering in it.
By the way Skye, yell about Reagan all day long if you want to. You would do well to remember that Reagan’s spending prevented the Cold War from turning into a nuke war. I’ll forgive him for his spending.
Bush’s spending was crazy and he could have spent far less and found ways to balance a lot of it through cuts in other areas (you know the scalpel Obama promised, but can’t seem to find). Bush was bashed by Democrats, and for good reason, for insane spending. The problem is that the Democrats haven’t corrected anything, they’ve only made it worse. I can’t believe how ready liberals are to continue bashing Bush’s spending, when Obama is setting records. Time to shut up about Bush and turn your focus on the guy who promised change and has only continued on the same path at a higher speed.
Clinton increased taxes on the top bracket, and things went pretty well.
And if you use the argument that that was due to Clinton, then the growth under Reagan’s tenure was due to Johnson.
Oh the Reagan (ketchup is a vegetable) myth lives on. His spending did not prevent a nuclear war. Communism falling apart had more to do with the fact that both sides agreed to stop nuclear build-ups and the fact that the Soviet Union failed internally–due to the Western way of life and permissiveness which helped to subvert the Soviet system. Also, Gorbachev deserves a lot of credit because he was willing to make reforms and refused to use the military to force eastern European countries to stay part of the system.
Obama’s spending was to prevent a depression. I’ll forgive him for his spending–things would be a lot worse right now without it.
I read an article yesterday saying that Bush did, and Obama has so far failed to address the actual causes of the financial crisis and that a new, bigger crisis is coming if they don’t actually make real changes. So that means that all of the insane spending done by both presidents hasn’t really accomplished anything in the long term, just larger and more dangerous debt.
I wish you would either put a link or provide a citation. For all I know it came from the Heritage Foundation or Glenn Beck.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/31/watchdog-bailouts-created-risk/
Yes, it was on Fox News…you know the evil wing of the Republican Party. However, it was not an opinion piece. Scary stuff, should be taken seriously.
It didn’t read that way to me. It seemed to say that the spending kept many institutions from failing, but reform is needed to keep it from reoccurring.
I didn’t think you’d be the guy to put a pro-financial reform link up. Nicely done.
Our ideas about financial reform may differ. I actually think that the best thing in the long-term would have been to let them fail. It would have been painful in the short-term, but we would have survived and we wouldn’t have added to our already huge deficit, which is dangerous to all of us. The best reform would be to reduce government involvement in the financial district. The best way to encourage sound practices would be to make banks know that the government isn’t always going to be there to get them out of a jam. Americans weren’t always so willing to borrow above what they were able to pay back.
My main point in posting that was in that it shows that all of the money spent hasn’t really fixed anything, which is what Bush and Obama had promised.
If there is reform it will have done its job.
I would have liked to see something where the money was used to help people pay off their debts, which would have helped banks and the people.
I would agree with that last part. It would have been more effective to see people pay their loans and accounts rather than a bailout in the form we had. The banks need their money back, not a hand out to loan more. I think Bush and Obama missed the mark on that point. When Bush did the stimulus thing he encouraged people to go shopping, he should have encouraged people to pay bills.
Exceptionally helpful write-up.