tax cuts for 95% of americans? when? where?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I guess I'm just really frustrated when the right takes such heat for not following through on their tax promises (though bush2 did make cuts!) yet when one of the KEY issues for obama was to cut taxes for 95% of americans (and I've seen that quoted in these forums a bunch, ahem, billv, ahem ) and he is clearly not going to anytime soon- that it just slides under the radar and no one says anything.

The Republicans claim to be the party of responsible budgeting. Bush2 inherits a surplus and implements a tax cut. I thought that was fine, until he engaged in two major wars and created new agencies in DC.

Obama inherits a trillion dollar deficit and you still want tax cuts, RIGHT NOW?

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Obama inherits a trillion dollar deficit and you still want tax cuts, RIGHT NOW?

He did promise them. And he did know the situation when he made that promise.

Or are you saying that as a US Senator he wasn't aware of the situation on which he based his promise?

Cue "it's all Bushes fault!" which seems to have become the rallying cry of the new administration whenever they encounter a problem.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[BDashe 0]

Well, it would have been nice for him to not advertise for years that he was going to slash taxes. Obviously I voted for the other guy because i knew that was horsesh*t from the start.

I am not the biggest fan of the way the war(s) have been handled, though they arent NEARLY as costly as the Obama spending, even over 6 years time- and much of that comes back to the US economy. I certainly dont agree with signing up for new credit cards from other countries to pay my other credit card debt off, especially to the tune of a trillion dollars... RIGHT NOW?!

Back to my original point though- where is the backlash for this guy? He is losing credibility by the second and no one seems to care because everyone is blinded by his celebrity.

this is an op-ed, but sort of what I am saying:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/27/navarrette.obama.economics/index.html

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Well, it would have been nice for him to not advertise for years that he was going to slash taxes. Obviously I voted for the other guy because i knew that was horsesh*t from the start.

Cut the bullshit - you were never voting for him. Are we really going have to hear this kind of whining for the next 4 or 8 years? Somehow it seems even more annoying then Democrats whining about the SC or Jeb stealing the 2000 election. Ultimately this does come down to "your guy lost. Deal with it."

Your man made the same promises. So how was it not horseshit from him? And do you want someone that is going to stick to his plan without reviewing the current situation. That sort of stubborn head in the ground syndrome describes the second term with Bush.

More reality - the TARP bailout came late in the election cycle. The deficit ballooned at the very end. It was less than half that during the summer.

Meanwhile both candidates campaigned on which of the expiring taxcuts they were going to renew. Which actually means that instead of tax cuts, this would only maintain what we've come to view as the status quo.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Obama inherits a trillion dollar deficit and you still want tax cuts, RIGHT NOW?

Abso-fuckin-lutely. You don't raise taxes during a recession.

When times are good I'm all for raising taxes to zero out our national debt. But for some reason a lot of educated people don't realize the Democrats raise taxes to spend it. They don't care anymore about balanced budgets or the national debt than the Republicans do. Or at the very least the Obama Administration nor the current Congress don't.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[billvon 2,998]

>tax cuts for 95% of americans? when?

Beginning of April:

===========================
Obama: Stimulus tax cuts will be felt by April 1
Updated 2/22/2009 12:35 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) — The notoriously slow Congress passed the $787 billion economic stimulus package in a matter of weeks. President Obama signed it into law less than one month into his presidency.

So, just how soon will Americans start reaping the benefits of tax cuts in it?

By April 1, according to the president.

"Never before in our history has a tax cut taken effect faster or gone to so many hardworking Americans," Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address.

He said the Treasury Department has begun directing employers to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from people's paychecks in accordance with the new law, and that in six weeks, a typical family will start taking home at least $65 more every month.

Obama says his signature "Making Work Pay" tax break will affect 95% of working families.

The $400 credit for individuals is to be doled out through the rest of the year. Couples are slated to get up to $800. Most workers are to see about a $13 per week increase in their take-home pay. In 2010, the credit would be about $7.70 a week, if it is spread over the entire year.
============================

(I can hear all the GOPers saying "SHIT! SHIT! He's really doing it! SHIT!")

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

(I can hear all the GOPers saying "SHIT! SHIT! He's really doing it! SHIT!")

Nah, the canned response is $13 a week doesn't count.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Obama inherits a trillion dollar deficit and you still want tax cuts, RIGHT NOW?

Abso-fuckin-lutely. You don't raise taxes during a recession.

the corollary to that is you don't lower taxes in the boom, you raise them. At the very least, you don't run massive deficits in the good times. You can then afford tax cuts in the recession.

[BDashe 0]

Bill- I'm referring to his actual tax plan that he had outlined, not a $7 bump every week. That's a whopping 0.7 of a single percent credit for someone making 50K a year. Though admittedly- it is a step in the right direction, however what is your take on his statements in the article i posted in the original post?

kelp- I know mccain wouldn't have taken this crazy approach to the current situation, maybe taxes wouldnt have been cut instantly but we'd have more in our pockets and less going back to china down the road. i disagree with a lot of his social policies, but to me- he was the lesser of 2 evils. At least he was in national politics and seen all sides of these things from the inside since '82, he may be the maverick but at least he isn't the lunatic. Not that it matters now anyway... just have to weather the storm that is about to hit.

So there I was...

Making friends and playing nice since 1983

[downwardspiral 0]

Agreed!

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>tax cuts for 95% of americans? when?

Beginning of April:

===========================
Obama: Stimulus tax cuts will be felt by April 1
Updated 2/22/2009 12:35 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) — The notoriously slow Congress passed the $787 billion economic stimulus package in a matter of weeks. President Obama signed it into law less than one month into his presidency.

So, just how soon will Americans start reaping the benefits of tax cuts in it?

By April 1, according to the president.

"Never before in our history has a tax cut taken effect faster or gone to so many hardworking Americans," Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address.

He said the Treasury Department has begun directing employers to reduce the amount of taxes withheld from people's paychecks in accordance with the new law, and that in six weeks, a typical family will start taking home at least $65 more every month.

Obama says his signature "Making Work Pay" tax break will affect 95% of working families.

The $400 credit for individuals is to be doled out through the rest of the year. Couples are slated to get up to $800. Most workers are to see about a $13 per week increase in their take-home pay. In 2010, the credit would be about $7.70 a week, if it is spread over the entire year.
============================

(I can hear all the GOPers saying "SHIT! SHIT! He's really doing it! SHIT!")

Quote

no i say liar liar liar. This figure(as far as I can tell) is off the tax rate after the bush cuts expire. therefore they will see an increase in income tax then get a decrease and that leaves you in about the same area that you already were.

[billvon 2,998]

>no i say liar liar liar. This figure(as far as I can tell) is off the tax rate
>after the bush cuts expire.

No, they are cuts due to the tax cuts contained in the bailout package.

The original question was "when will Obama's tax cuts for 95% of americans occur?" Answer - beginning of April.

[billvon 2,998]

>it is a step in the right direction

For now, yes.

>however what is your take on his statements in the article i posted in the
>original post?

I agree with most of his statements. We DO have to make some very tough budgetary choices. One of those will likely be tax cuts now (driving up the deficit but helping the economy) followed by tax increases (to bring the deficit back down once the economy recovers.) Another will be cuts to programs that are everyone's favorites, like the military.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

>no i say liar liar liar. This figure(as far as I can tell) is off the tax rate
>after the bush cuts expire.

No, they are cuts due to the tax cuts contained in the bailout package.

The original question was "when will Obama's tax cuts for 95% of americans occur?" Answer - beginning of April.

Quote

a tax cut means i would pay less, since the bush cuts expired and then the obama cuts start i am paying the same. so not i did not get a tax cut, i got some lip service, double talk, a little slight of hand, and something large shoved up my ass, but i did not get a tax cut

.

[billvon 2,998]

>a tax cut means i would pay less, since the bush cuts expired and then
>the obama cuts start i am paying the same. so not i did not get a tax cut
> . . . i did not get a tax cut

Right. It's not the beginning of April yet.

> i got some lip service, double talk, a little slight of hand, and
>something large shoved up my ass . . .

Hey, whatever you're into! (not that there's anything wrong with that)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

kelp- I know mccain wouldn't have taken this crazy approach to the current situation, maybe taxes wouldnt have been cut instantly but we'd have more in our pockets and less going back to china down the road.

It's hard to predict what McCain would have done, since he admittedly knew little about the economy. He was obviously more of a foreign policy guy, unlike the last two guys.

We do know that he decried the Bush cuts, but last year pledged to renew them. So he could have done just about anything, though the magnitude of the current deficit certainly limits options.

[Capt.Slog 0]

It's cruel the way you use FACTS in threads like this.

It must be so frustrating for the Republicans.

No wonder 80% of Americans blame Republicans for the economic crisis (Gallup).

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

No wonder 80% of Americans blame Republicans for the economic crisis (Gallup).

I'm not surprised. How could one blame a real estate "investor" he sees in the mirrors? The one who knowingly signed up for a loan he knew he could afford? Of course it is always someone's else fault!

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[Capt.Slog 0]

Quote

Quote

No wonder 80% of Americans blame Republicans for the economic crisis (Gallup).

I'm not surprised. How could one blame a real estate "investor" he sees in the mirrors? The one who knowingly signed up for a loan he knew he could afford? Of course it is always someone's else fault!

I seriously doubt that 80% of Americans are real estate "investors".

There have been real estate investors for centuries without precipitating a financial crisis of this magnitude.

Unregulated derivatives traders, however, are a fairly recent phenomenon.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

I'm not surprised. How could one blame a real estate "investor" he sees in the mirrors? The one who knowingly signed up for a loan he knew he could afford? Of course it is always someone's else fault!

At one point, bankers gave loans based on facts.

Then, someone said, "Hey, let's relax those guidelines
so that more people can get loans, even though they
are not fiscally able to repay them."

It turns out that those programs were bad ideas.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

It is a way of avoiding personal accountability for actions.
"...but Mom... everyone was doing it."

You are all free to run for President yourself on the platform that you will raise taxes Some things you can change, others you never will.

Actually, McCain did. He stated that he was in favor
of taxing health benefits (currently not taxed), but
with a tax credit offset.
So, he did state that.
The tax credit would offset a large part of the tax increase.
So, he spoke the truth about his plans up front.

During the campaign, Obama criticized that plan as
a huge increase in taxes, while not mentioning the
offset. That was an obvious lie that was identified
by Factcheck.org. (All documented, but nobody wants
to discuss the facts.)

Now, Obama is supporting the McCain tax plan (which
will tax most Americans), but without the tax credit.
This plan is the plan that Obama criticized.

Why isn't anyone criticizing Obamas tax plan when it
is actually the one that Obama criticized?
I have no idea...

...someone swinging a thurible and leading the unquestioning
faithful sheep down the aisle. Wondering where the
kOOl-aid is for the O-sheep...

[billvon 2,998]

>It turns out that those programs were bad ideas.

Actually it turns out those programs were GOOD ideas. Overall they had a lower rate of default than loans made by banks who did not participate in such programs.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

>It turns out that those programs were bad ideas.

Actually it turns out those programs were GOOD ideas. Overall they had a lower rate of default than loans made by banks who did not participate in such programs.

Ummm... they were guaranteed loans.
When your co-signer is the govt...

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Unregulated derivatives traders, however, are a fairly recent phenomenon.

Sure, there are other people at fault too (and those aren't aliens from Jupiter either). However ultimately the starting point was the guy who signed up for the mortgage he knew he cannot afford. Then it went to the banks, then to the Wall Street or Fannie, and now the rest of us is paying for that.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

At one point, bankers gave loans based on facts.
Then, someone said, "Hey, let's relax those guidelines so that more people can get loans, even though they are not fiscally able to repay them."

But again, I know no bank which would give an 1M loan to someone who stated the income $2500/mo. So the people had to lie about their income to get it. Sure, banks did not do their due diligence here and were only relying on collateral value when issuing the loan, but nobody was actually _forced_ to get a loan, and nobody was forced at gunpoint to apply for a loan using false information.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *