Much of those so called tax cuts were actual expense items funded out of the budget, ie, first time home credits, energy credits
Obama tax cuts
Total: $237 billion
• $116 billion: New tax credit of $400 per worker and $800 per couple in 2009 and 2010. Phase out begins at $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint filers.[29]
• $70 billion: Alternative minimum tax: a one year increase in AMT floor to $70,950 for joint filers for 2009.[29]
• $15 billion: Expansion of child tax credit: A $1,000 credit to more families (even those that do not make enough money to pay income taxes).
• $14 billion: Expanded college credit to provide a $2,500 expanded tax credit for college tuition and related expenses for 2009 and 2010. The credit is phased out for couples making more than $160,000.
• $6.6 billion: Homebuyer credit: $8,000 refundable credit for all homes bought between 1/1/2009 and 12/1/2009 and repayment provision repealed for homes purchased in 2009 and held more than three years. This only applies to first-time homebuyers.[41]
• $4.7 billion: Excluding from taxation the first $2,400 a person receives in unemployment compensation benefits in 2009.
• $4.7 billion: Expanded earned income tax credit to increase the earned income tax credit — which provides money to low income workers — for families with at least three children.
• $4.3 billion: Home energy credit to provide an expanded credit to homeowners who make their homes more energy-efficient in 2009 and 2010. Homeowners could recoup 30 percent of the cost up to $1,500 of numerous projects, such as installing energy-efficient windows, doors, furnaces and air conditioners.
• $1.7 billion: for deduction of sales tax from car purchases, not interest payments phased out for incomes above $250,000.
Did they put more of what people earn, back in their pocket? I would like you to answer this.
But I do agree with you they blew it on how they spent the money but I disagree with you that it was too small.
Based on what, gut feeling, so called street smarts, common sense?
What did the Reagan stimulus cost the govt?
3.8% of GDP. However the Reagan recession was manufactured by Paul Volker, as a means of reducing inflation expectations. Reagan did not inherit the worst financial crisis since 1929. There was not a 25% loss in household net worth, credit contraction (even though mortgages were expensive, people still were able to take them because their wages were being impacted upward due to the same inflation you site), mortgage meltdown, banking collapse, corporate bankruptcies whose assets were more than 10% of GDP, total shutdown of the commercial paper credit market, insolvency of the worlds largest insurance company, insolvency of Fannie and Freddie, 2 of the 3 largest U.S. auto manufactures collapse, a housing crisis that has left millions of homes vacant and millions of homeowners underwater on their mortgage, massive bank failures, more than 600,000 job losses per month, etc....
But hey, there was 10.8% unemployment and inflation of 11% in the 1980's. :shock: WOW. You might want to use your head for something other than hanging a hat.
Obama's fed his base and did nothing for the economy.
Obama and his administration underestimated the size and magnitude of this financial crisis, much in the same way as you continue to do.
There you go again, charts and graphs. Do you ever get out into the real world talking to real people and seeing how real people live? Charts and graphs don't show human behavior
Charts and graphs? I used a basic macro model to illustrate why the stimulus package was too small. How on earth does talking to people and seeing how real people live give me insight into the adequacy of the ARRA? Please explain this.....
Actual unemployment is much higher than the reported as discouraged workers, contract workers and closed small businesses aren't counted. Obama relies in the ignorance of supporters to spread misinformation
You're resorting to semantics. The Obama administration made no reference to the U-6 unemployment rate, so it is irrelevant to consider given my previous statement.
Different time and different world. No global economy then, war manufacturing, low GDP, low personal income, low cost of govt.
None the less, the federal debt as a % of GDP skyrocketed to 144%. That was the greatest generation, they paid their debts with blood and hard work. It was your generation, the pass the buck generation, that has created this disaster.
What you show is that you are book smart but lack street sense as well as an understandin of human behavior.
How have i displayed any of that given we are discussing the macro economy, fiscal stimulus, business cycle behavior, and political economy? What specifically have i said that shows i do not understand human behavior? You continue to make these accusations on a consistent basis, yet are never able to exhibit exactly what lead you to this conclusion. In reality, this is really just a defense mechanism you've created when you cannot keep up with the discussion. How do you prove street smarts on an internet discussion about U.S. job creation?:roll:
Your posts come right out of the textbook that ignores logic and common sense as well as personal behavior.
Ok then prove it. What exactly is fallacious and lacks common sense? You seem to want to discuss me and what you perceive me to know rather than the topic at hand. I make a statement, and you call me into question without even acknowledging that very statement.
The key is to turn the private sector loose not promote waste, fraud, abuse, and reward terrible behavior.
The private sector has more liquidity, capital, and short term assets than they have ever had! EVER! In fact, there has never been this sort of short term assets and cash on corporate balance sheets during any time in history. They are sitting on
$1.93 trillion in cash and short term assets!
Today, these companies are sitting on US$1.93 trillion in cash and other liquid assets, rather than using this money in rebuilding its battered economy.
The federal govt is ineffecient and has administrative costs that are way too high for the benefits received. I am amazed that someone as smart as you cannot see it.
I agree. But when nobody is willing to spend money, it is the role of government to step in and provide a necessary jolt to prevent a depression. Did the great depression teach you anything?
Regarding your chart, who measures household networth?
The Federal Reserve Bank and the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
How about people who aren't measured?
Exactly who was not measured?
What is the sample group?
LOL! They simply relate the money supply, savings, equity, debt, and put it all together. For more information, look
here. Remember, the Fed controls all financial accounts in the United States. All banks have an account at the Fed, and the Fed is responsible for making all banking transactions.
Where does personal responsibility lie in your world?
How is this relevant to the discussion? I was not making any judgement calls.
Household debt is mostly a personal responsibility issue and the way out to liberals is to reward that behavior. You see today people get paid for two years not to work. Today people get rewarded for spending too much money by getting bailed out. Today people get ER services even though they have the opportunity to get healthcare. That didn't happen throughout history and the answer today seems to be doubling down.
This is a red herring argument (a fallacy Mr. Logic), and in no way addresses my last point. People are so indebted, they will spend little of their tax proceeds from a tax cut, which is why it is a suboptimal was to stimulate the economy. Does this model human behavior correctly? If you were in debt nearly 90%, and got some money back from a tax cut, would you go out and buy a new car, or pay down your debt? How about actually answering one my my many points instead of hitting the reply button before you make it past 5 sentences....
