Moore falsely claimed Obama "won't ... cut taxes"; but he already has
SUMMARY: On Fox News, Stephen Moore said of the Obama administration's plans for dealing with the economic situation: "The one thing this administration won't do is cut taxes." In fact, the recovery act included $288 billion in tax relief.
During a July 7 appearance on Fox News' On the Record, Wall Street Journal senior economics writer Stephen Moore said of the Obama administration's plans for dealing with the economic situation: "The one thing this administration won't do is cut taxes." In fact, the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act included $288 billion in tax relief, including the Making Work Pay tax credit, an annual credit of $400 per individual or $800 for families.
In addition, the recovery act included a temporary increase in the earned income tax credit, a temporary increase in the refundable portion of the child tax credit, an increase in the first-time homebuyer tax credit, and tax incentives for businesses.
Furthermore, the Fiscal Year 2010 budget Obama submitted to Congress includes several tax cuts for individuals and businesses.
From the July 7 edition of Fox News' On the Record with Greta Van Susteren:
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN (host): Now, you may not like what you are about to hear. One of President Obama's economic advisers, Laura Tyson, says the budget deficit will probably be wider than we expected, and that the $787 billion stimulus bill was a bit too small, and we should be planning on a contingency basis for a second round of stimulus.
Oh, no. A second round of stimulus? Senior economics writer for the Wall Street Journal's editorial page Steve Moore joins us.
Steve, a second round? Yikes. Your thoughts?
MOORE: Well, Greta, I predicted this was gonna happen. You know, the first stimulus hasn't worked very well. We have nine-and-a-half percent unemployment.
Now, it's true we've only spent about 70 billion of that $800 billion package. But, you know, it's almost like you've got a python that swallowed a pig, and the pig is halfway through the body of the python, and now you're going to, you know, jam another pig through its mouth.
This isn't going to work. I think our fiscal situation today, Greta, is a total catastrophe. We are going to end up borrowing $2 trillion this year because the economy is doing worse than we thought. That is by far the biggest record in history.
And you have to ask your question -- the question, Greta, when do you stop all this spending and start a new strategy? The one thing this administration won't do is cut taxes, which is something that's worked before. It worked for George Bush in 2003, and it worked, of course, for Ronald Reagan in 1981.
VAN SUSTEREN: You know, you sort of think that maybe Vice President Biden and Laura Tyson have gone a little bit rogue.
We can all see where this economy is headed...more taxation on the people who still have jobs and more breaks for the entitlement class who voted him in! Please don't try to use ginned up numbers and lame examples of so-called tax-cuts(actually entitlements to the dead-beats who don't want to work hard) as proof that the Obama adm. is dealing with the economic mess... Let's see, backpedaling on campaign promises, anyone want to say how much he's run up debt in the short time in office, and we now have gov't stake in insurance, auto industry, wall street/banks, and vying for a part of healthcare industry....bang-up job guys, way to go!!!!
I guess you completely missed the fabrication by Mr. Club for Growth Moore that Obama won't cut taxes. He did.
You just happen to not like the tax cuts because it apparently gives tax cuts to EVERYONE when you would rather that goes to the wealthiest (those that work HARD, right?) and big biz. Because that worked wonderfully under Bush W.
1. Saying Obama "hasn't" or "won't" cut taxes is false, he has enacted tax cuts for certain tiers of taxpayers.
2. Obama will not preside over a NET tax cut, so if you want to talk about Obama's tax policies, you need to use that qualifier.
And we're all happy again!
That is, according to Lord Dex, a tax CUT is only valid when it is cut for ALL taxpayers ...
I also didn't say anything was wrong with a targeted tax cut, and I agreed with MMfA that Moore was technically wrong.
You claim the mean old democrats wouldn't let Bush re-structure the housing market. BS again. Who was running Congress when he wanted to do that? Yes, REPUBLICANS. And, they had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. So tell us again why Bush didn't enact those changes? The democrats would have had no chance to stop them, and yet, he didn't do it.
Please explain how this is the Democrats fault. Herr dubyah had a majority and the Democrats couldn't block anything. Please provide facts, data, and links to your claims. Thanks
Meanwhile.....
This Administration will constantly strive to promote an ownership society in America. We want more people owning their own home. It is in our national interest that more people own their own home. After all, if you own your own home, you have a vital stake in the future of our country.”
- President George W. Bush, December 16, 2003
“The Accomplishments
Increasing Homeownership
* The US homeownership rate reached a record 69.2 percent in the second quarter of 2004. The number of homeowners in the United States reached 73.4 million, the most ever. And for the first time, the majority of minority Americans own their own homes.
* The President set a goal to increase the number of minority homeowners by 5.5 million families by the end of the decade. Through his homeownership challenge, the President called on the private sector to help in this effort. More than two dozen companies and organizations have made commitments to increase minority homeownership - including pledges to provide more than $1.1 trillion in mortgage purchases for minority homebuyers this decade.
* President Bush signed the $200 million-per-year American Dream Downpayment Act which will help approximately 40,000 families each year with their downpayment and closing costs.
* The Administration proposed the Zero-Downpayment Initiative to allow the Federal Housing Administration to insure mortgages for first-time homebuyers without a downpayment. Projections indicate this could generate over 150,000 new homeowners in the first year alone.
* President Bush proposed a new Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit to increase the supply of affordable homes.
* The President has proposed to more than double funding for the Self-Help Homeownership Opportunity Program (SHOP), where government and non-profit organizations work closely together to increase homeownership opportunities.
* The President proposed $2.7 billion in USDA home loan guarantees to support rural homeownership and $1.1 billion in direct loans for low-income borrowers unable to secure a mortgage through a conventional lender. These loans are expected to provide 42,800 homeownership opportunities to rural families across America.”
Source(s):
“President George W. Bush - Record of Achievement - Chapter 7 - Expanding Home Ownership”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ infocus/ achievement/ chap7.html
http://books.google.com/books?id=GjLxlOJuKsgC&printsec=frontcover
So raise 'em. Raise taxes on me. I don't care, I make such crap wages, thanks to the union busting right wing, I won't miss the tiny amount anyway. But especially raise them on the chowder heads who think they're special enough to warrant incomes 500 times greater than the rest of working America. Soak their petulant, irresponsible hides. And all you jackasses who squeal tax and spend this and that can go jump off a cliff. Just like Hoover, we did the tax cut thing and it didn't work... again. Do cons ever learn anything?
Use your personal cell phone.
Quit smoking (it's bad for you anyway).
the Cap and Trade bill
In exchange for the free credits, companies are not suppose to pass on the cost.
Don't employ them.
I'm just a regular working stiff. George Bush's tax cuts didn't help me, and Obama's tax cuts didn't help me. Real Healthcare reform might help me, but I'm not holding my breath.
Right now, I'd just like someone to tie the economy to a tree so it doesn't roll off the cliff... and I don't think either party knows how to do that.
How low will he go? How low will he go?
My bet is by the time it's over it will be around $75k...any takers?
You have proof that we like to confuse tax credits with actual rate reductions. Where would the long term pleasure come from?
Anything made up by Neal Boortz (as the Fair Tax was) I can't take seriously, and nobody else should either.
The Fair Tax plan by Boortz would cut a check to low-income (or no income) people for all essential goods purchased.
It's not even close to being fair.
Gala, I t hink you get an automatic credit when you file your taxes for 2009 of $400 or $800, so you are not paying it later, but your right, no change in tax rates yet, but there is no hurry for that right now.
I'm all in favor of soaking the rich. It's true that the top 1% of the wealth controls 98% of the media, which is why you hear so many talking heads complaining about this idea, but theoretically we the people still control the government. The head of GM made $25 million between 2006 and 2008. Based on GM's performance and ultimate bankruptcy, do you really believe he -earned- it, or even needed it?
As far as our current tax code, 'income' was originally intended to mean dividends paid on stock owned, and returns on investments, including capital gains. It was not meant to be a wage tax, but paying for wars ultimately made that necessary. Since the rich become rich on the backs of the poor, it is only right that they pay for the privilege they enjoy.
You say there are no loopholes or exemptions? Then how do you determine who gets a 'prebate' each month? Is it randomly determined, or are the criteria that need to be met? Because as soon as you have conditions that must be met to qualify for a prebate, all of my arguments about loopholes, exceptions, and complicated enforcement plaguing the IRS apply to your sales tax.
As for regressive, if I am making $20,000 a year, and you are making $100,000 a year, then I end up paying $4600 in taxes, since it is likely that every penny I make will be spent just to stay alive. If you can get along on, say, $50,000 a year, you will pay $11,500 of that in taxes, leaving you with $50,000 to spend outside the country in places where they have no national sales tax. Of course, you could also invest it, knowing that the money it saves you will not be taxed at all.
So, the poor will be burdened with 23% tax rates, and the rich will buy as little as they can in America and spend the rest overseas in more tax friendly countries. Explain how this will help our economy at all?
Putting that aside, though, arguing for frugality is not a refutation of a national sales tax's regressive nature.
Since all other federal taxes are eliminated, people from around the world with money to invest and Americans who have money invested over seas will bring that money to our economy without fear of being penalized by our government. They will use their investments to do what they do. Create wealth. The creation of wealth is the barometer of a growing.
The problem is that we should have spent at least half the money now. Making government buildings more energy efficient would've been a great thing. It's quick and easy to start, and it's an investment.
Obamas Stimulus Bill wasn't perfect, the Democrats Stimulus Bill was OK, the Republicans Stimulus Bill was a catastrophy. The result? An OK but slow Stimulus Bill.
What do you propose the Government spend 393.5 billion dollars on that would stimulate the economy? What can government do to encourage job growth? What is the role of government in creating wealth? How can the government use $787 billion to get out of this recession? Individuals create wealth. Individuals stimulate the economy. Government taxes and confiscates wealth. Government is a burden on the economy.
Ayn Rand was a simpleton. Anyone who thinks making love in a pile of coal is sexy deserves blacklung. (Yeah, I've read Atlas Shrugged, it was one of the (unintentionally) funniest books I've ever read.
I have a question, GalaHGL: Do you know enough about the study of philosophy to make such a sweeping statement and are you able to defend it?
Big surprise, a reich-wing teabagger citing a fictional book as a source of enlightenment. You = officially a joke.
Wall Street tends to be crooked poker played by the wealthy with money provided by the rest of us. When they all try to cash out at the same time, as happened during the collapse of the housing bubble, somebody's tender bits usually get caught in the wringer. This last time, it was the American taxpayer, wasn't it? You'll notice the executives at the huge banks that needed government bailout money didn't pawn everything they owned to save their businesses from their own bad decisions, they went to the government for a handout.
And you abruptly want to change the topic to Chrysler? All right. So, your Chrysler topic seems to be that people who held secured bonds were passed over in favor of regular stockholders, have I got that right?
It may be a simplistic explanation, but to me:
wages = money you work for
wealth = money working for you
You said government does not create wealth. I cited a clear example to prove that you were mistaken. If you'd like to talk about the value of the created wealth, that would be a completely separate discussion of course.
= something generally accepted as a medium of exchange, a measure of value, or a means of payment.
If I pay you $18.50 with the agreement that you will pay me back $20.00 in five years, our agreement has created money for me. $1.50 I didn't have before.
American currency hasn't been backed by anything more tangible than promises since 1971 when we went off the gold standard.
Calling me ignorant, claiming I am making statements because 'most liberals' do, and claiming to know what I 'obviously believe' show that you cannot construct an argument, or indeed discuss a fairly simple topic with the rationality necessary. Since you have failed to disprove my argument, producing nothing more than shrill conservative boilerplate, perhaps it is you who should go and do a bit of research.
Those of you who think the government moves fast are mistaken. Actually, the feds have done pretty good getting some of the money out there, but all this wok has to be bid on, even the shovel ready ones, by the contractors. That part of the puzzle is just getting somewhat completed. anyone want to pay less in taxes, green up and take the tax credits the stim bill is offering. I still maintain the biggest debt enabler was a was of choice in Iraq with no expectations of paying for it with tax revenue and it being kept off the budget books for 7 years.
Reagan did cut taxes in 1981, it's true, but he raised them every subsequent year of his eight year reign, so perhaps before these people get up and talk on TV about economics they should do a bit more homework.
...oh, that's right, nonexistent.