BEA links GDP and Receipts/Expense
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis
I'll give Credit where Credit's deserved. Speaking about Politicians, I'll give 70% to the Republicans, 25% to Obama, and 5% to the few Democrats going along with this. Speaking in General, I'd give the majority of the credit to the voters, a large chunk of that being the Tea Party, who made this the only politically viable option for Obama.
The only Credit Obama really gets is realizing that putting his foot in the ground going into the new year was going to hurt him politically and the country financially, that there was no way he was going to be able to raise the "rich's" taxes come January, and thus that this was the only viable option for him politically.
As someone else said, I'm only going to give him so much credit when it's obvious that if the election results hadn't turned out how they had he'd have not even considered this. He's compromising because he HAS to, not because he necessarily wants to, which isn't exactly as noble of a notion.
As for whether or not this is a tax cut or a tax extension, its a matter of semantics. People arguing whose right is a bit ridiculous because its based solely off of your own personal view.
My thought? I'd laugh if anyone tried to tell me with certainty that its a "tax cut" and that I am being hypocritical for not giving him huge credit for "cutting tax's". The tax's would need to be gone, NOW for this to be a cut in my eyes. Otherwise, its simply an extension.
Say you've been making $1000 a week for the past few years, but next month you're set to have your salary decreased to $800 a week. If I go ahead and say "Scratch that, you're going to keep making $1000 until [x] date" that's not a raise, that's an extension of what's current. If however I waited until next month, when your salary decreased, and then after that point came to you and said "Do you know what, we're going to make your sallery $1000 until [x] date" then that'd be a raise to me because you're ACTUALLY raising something.
For this to be a "tax cut" we'd have to suggest that somehow the "new" tax rates were 100% guaranteed. But they weren't, for this very reason...because an extension, or even further cuts, could happen. Its historically ignorant to assume that taxes are going to be a certain way "X" years out by default when historically tax's are routinely changed or attempted to be changed.
The only thing one can deal with is the reality of today, and the reality of today is the same now as will be the reality of tomorrow...that, to me, is an extension.
To others, for whatever reason, they think that counting money you NEVER were guaranteed and NEVER actually had is somehow reasonable, responsable, and legitimate. To them, this seems like a Tax Cut. And that makes sense, based on their view of reality....I just think their view of reality is extremely warped, based singularly off their desire and absolute need to paint this as some kind of victory for Obama.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.