When did Obama's solution for everything become tax cuts?

[woolldog]

Why does he want to starve the federal government of revenue so badly? Why do all his proposals include tax cuts of some sort? He ends up reinforcing the BS republican supply side approach. Are dems buying that now? Clinton raised taxes in a recession.

I understand republicans wanting tax cuts. They believe the federal government is too big and want to shrink it and starve it of revenue. But why is Obama doing it? Some sort of compulsion to get republicans to like him?

http://m.cnbc.com/id/44270321

[dkf]

1. It's the only tool in his toolbox that can pass.

The Repubs have confiscated the rest.

[Hawkowl]

22. So, if he only had a gun...

He'd simply shoot us all?

[Demit]

2. I don't think you can discount that maybe it's something he believed in all along.

Maybe the Change he was Hoping for was to change our minds—his Democratic base.

[Lasher]

35. That's what I think.

[Richardo]

3. Your premise is incorrect.

Tax breaks and credits are a component of the proposal, but not the only lever in use - there are plenty of investment/spending aspects as well. From the very article you link to:

Obama Jobs Plan to Target Schools, Tax Breaks
Reuters | August 25, 2011 | 08:59 AM EDT

President Obama is finalizing a jobs package that could include a program to refurbish school buildings nationwide and tax breaks to encourage firms to hire workers.

But economists and advisers familiar with his strategy say Obama will argue next month that the financial crisis was worse than anyone thought at the time and say more stimulus is needed to make any real dent in the unemployment rate.

The president is widely expected to repeat his calls for an extension of a payroll tax cut, push for patent reform and bilateral free trade deals, and suggest an infrastructure bank to upgrade the country's roads, airports and other facilities.

Retrofitting schools with energy efficient technology would allow the government to directly hire for labor-intensive work and also give a boost to the clean energy sector that Obama has said could be an important U.S. economic motor.

Other measures being considered, according to economists who have advised the White House, include tax credits for firms hiring more workers, funds for local governments to hire teachers, and retraining help for the long-term unemployed. Steps to boost the ailing housing market are also under review.

Jared Bernstein, a former economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, said spending measures from the jobs package must be able to take hold before deficit cuts kick in.

Keeping with the car analogy, Bernstein said extending the payroll tax cut "doesn't press any harder on the accelerator but doesn't take your foot off accelerator."

Alice Rivlin, a former Clinton economic official and Federal Reserve vice chairwoman, said new policies would have to be designed in a way that ensures money is spent quickly and people are hired directly for them to be effective.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phleshdef]

4. Tax cuts are not automatically bad or good.

The tax cuts he is proposing seem to be directly related to hiring. Something like, "you hire someone unemployed, we'll give you a tax credit for it". The only way the credit is given is if someone is hired. Whoever gets hired in this hypothetical situation will pay payroll taxes, something that person wasn't doing when he or she was unemployed. They will also have money to spend because they now have a job, which is quite helpful when you consider that high unemployment is why people aren't spending enough money to grow the economy.

How is this any different than just taking the money given as a hiring tax credit and using it to hire someone directly? In both cases, you are spending tax dollars (tax credits ARE spending) and using it to give someone employment.

The Republican approach with tax cuts is to just give people tax cuts with no incentive and have faith they will use it to hire more people, which of course never actually happens. Thats quite different than using an incentive based approach that is directly tied to hiring in order for one to qualify for the benefit.

[Skink]

5. He didn't rally get the kind of small donations Dean got.

As such there was a lot of payback for him to do.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Howard Dean never ran in a presidential GE nor win more than one primary,

so the comparison is absurd....but of course, I'm not surprised! :eyes:

[ladjf]

6. If tax cuts are his idea on fixing the economic situation, I believ

that he is wrong. nt

[Richardo]

11. They're not.

[treestar]

7. Since Congress got taken over by Republicans

[mazzarro]

9. Whichever way one looks at it, the rethugs control everything already

When both houses were under the Democrats, congress somehow was still controlled by the rethugs - they set the context of every debate.
Then one of the two houses fell under the direct control of rethugs (the House of Representatives)and all of congress became more controlled by the rethugs.
In addition, the Supreme Court has been for a long, long time controlled by the rethugs.
Then the Presidency is just as well controlled by the rethugs regardless of the party of the occupant.
When is anything going to be controlled by any other party? What is the use of this headaches if no other party other than the rethugs can control even the slimmest slice of government in this country?

[treestar]

18. Yes, that is the way it is

They want to obstruct and not go forward. Fighting them involves getting even more Democrats in Congress than a majority.

[Harmony Blue]

16. Obama's triangulation strategy is what led to Republicans

taking over Congress.

[treestar]

19. Lazy

Just blaming Obama because the voters put in a republican congress.

[Cali_Democrat]

29. Republicans control one half of Congress and they are able to get their agenda through

So what if the Dems give up the White House and the Senate and win the House, will the Dems finally be able to get their agenda through?

[Sheepshank]

8. your narrative seems to go in a different direction to your link.......

President Obama is finalizing a jobs package that could include a program to refurbish school buildings nationwide and tax breaks to encourage firms to hire workers.
<...>
The president is widely expected to repeat his calls for an extension of a payroll tax cut, push for patent reform and bilateral free trade deals, and suggest an infrastructure bank to upgrade the country's roads, airports and other facilities. Retrofitting schools with energy efficient technology would allow the government to directly hire for labor-intensive work and also give a boost to the clean energy sector that Obama has said could be an important U.S. economic motor.

Other measures being considered, according to economists who have advised the White House, include tax credits for firms hiring more workers, funds for local governments to hire teachers, and retraining help for the long-term unemployed. Steps to boost the ailing housing market are also under review.

<....>

Republicans, who control the House of Representatives, are broadly opposed to any big new spending and have argued Obama's previous stimulus spending stretched budget deficits and added to the national debt without making a dent in employment.

So my question is WTF? Back to hating the Pres after your heartfelt post of how well you now understand the system Obama must work under? Janus.

[woolldog]

24. I tried.

I really did...for about a week. But I realized I was guilty of a false dichotomy. The GOP has been horrible and placed a lot of unnecessary obstacles. But he still sucks as a leader and a president, and his policies. Both are true.

Even if his policies have no chance of being adopted at least articulate good policy. I don't get this obsession with tax cuts and why he is so right leaning. This isn't what I voted for.

[Sheepshank]

26. So then you are back to your original meme....bottom line

your really didn't need to explain, it was pretty obvious.

How utterly helpful.................. to the Reps.

[woolldog]

31. Nothing posted here helps or hurts

Obama or Republicans. Don't kid yourself.

[Sheepshank]

37. Words have meaning...always have

GOP have been working hard for 2 years and will continue until election day, to interject negativity towards Obama in every possible way. Their clear goal here and throughout the blogosphere is to work toward undermining the Left's enthusiasm in this upcoming Presidential election. There is no discussion of problems and how to fix them. There is no constructive ideas and processes being utilized. The discussion is about out and out name calling, and degradation of anything and everything Obama.

The GOP absolutely know Dems will not vote for a Rep, so the next best think is to suppress the ability to vote and the enthusiasm to vote. It's done with words. Doesn't matter who they put up as their candidate. If the Dems don't vote or don't care to vote (since it doesn't matter who is in the White house because all policies are identical :sarcasm:) the Reps win.

Do you think you are doing anything to aid the Reps in promoting a state of apathy and hopelessness? Of course you are, and you know it. One termite does little damage...but thousands upon thousands....? It's a long term strategy, and you have bought it and are now continuing their strategy.

[uponit7771]

10. boring

[alc]

12. when he locked up the liberal vote for 2012

Now he can focus on moderates and independents, especially in battleground states.

[nemo137]

36. When did he do that?

I mean, really, have you been reading DU at all?

[MrTriumph]

13. He could have asked congress to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the rich in 2009, but he didn't.

And that's when we had a Democratic Senate & House. The economy would be much better off for it.

[Richardo]

15. Which would have kicked millions of people off of unemployment insurance too.

[Enrique]

17. no, he said in 2009

like, as soon as he took office. Like Nancy Pelosi wanted to do.

The GOP/Obama linking of the Bush tax cuts to the unemployment benefits happened in 2010.

[Richardo]

20. See your point - still, it was a bargaining chip, not a total giveaway.

[Dawgs]

38. +1. Congress could have let them go away for everyone.

No need for a vote.

The unemployed that received exteneded benefits are worse off for getting what they got.

Edit: Misread 2009 as 2010.

[ProSense]

14. Remember this:

"Debt Ceiling Deal Will Cost 1.8 Million Jobs In 2012...In particular, the immediate spending cuts and the 'failure to continue two key supports to the economy (the payroll tax holiday and emergency unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed)...'"

[bvar22]

25. Cutting Taxes and cutting Government Spending...

...is standard Conservative Republican DOGMA.
The "extension" of the nefarious Payroll Tax Holiday is an abomination to traditional Democratic Values.

Cutting Taxes and Cutting Social Programs during a Recession has NEVER helped the Working Class & The Poor.
It HAS only worked to put MORE money in the pockets of the already RICH.


If I had wanted Republican solutions,
I would have voted FOR the Republicans.



Who will STAND and FIGHT for THIS American Majority?

You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[woolldog]

32. +1

[Fearless]

27. When Republicans decided his agenda for him.

"Compromise"

:nuke:

[CakeGrrl]

28. Another bad guess and lame assumption.

Where are you getting your information?

The article you link to talks about a PAYROLL TAX CUT - not the Bush cuts for the richest Americans. He's said over and over again that he wants to put money back in the pockets of consumers.

And what's up with the stupid "He wants Republicans to like him" meme? When is that tired old concept going to be hung out to dry?

Of course, with sentiments like "Impeaching the president would be a win-win for Progressives", what kind of reasoning can we expect?




I know, I know...you have no idea what I'm talking about.

:rofl:

[woolldog]

33. I'm not in favor of ANY tax cuts.

Not that hard to understand.

[Blue_Tires]

30. I guess when any policy to the left of Ron Paul became COMMUNIST TOTALITARIANISM

in the eyes of the media and "moderate" dems...

[PurityOfEssence]

34. 1980

This country took an ugly turn to the right that year, and it's never recovered.

[Igel]

39. Clinton's term.didn't include so much as a single month of recession.

The recession ended before the 1992 elections. The anti-recession stimulus in Congress was enacted by Congress two years after the recession was over and the first $ was expended when job growth was already accelerating.

What's confusing is that for a lot of people "recession" = "slow job growth". After the recession ended, job growth was slow for a year, and was just picking up as the 1992 elections occurred. GDP and investment were up and leading indicators were good. Nobody wanted to hear that. (The job growth at the time was billed as dismal, although it wasn't much different from current job growth numbers, which a lot of people think is a point of pride for the President.)

Clinton's tax increase was passed as law when a post-recession recovery was already well under way, as job growth numbers were just eating into the unemployment figures; the tax increase collected its first money months later.