You really have a distorted view as to the role of the Federal Govt. in a free enterprise, capitalistic economy. It isn't the role of the govt. to create jobs, guarantee salaries, and expand. That is the role of the private sector which Obama doesn't understand nor do his supporters.
You also have a distorted view of the Obama tax cuts. How are they helping you today? Looks to me like you aren't employed because you have no idea. Those were rebate checks, not ongoing tax cuts. Once they were spent they were gone. No withholding cuts at all which would have meant more take home pay on EACH paycheck.
First off, I do work in state government. Before that I spent 16 yrs on active duty serving for and defending the very government you denounce. So, let's not make this personal and stick with the issues at hand.
Second, the Obama tax cuts in the stimulus were not tax credits, i.e., stimulus checks, ala the Bush stimulus. They were direct tax reductions to our income tax which reduced our tax witholdings and did put more money in everyone's paycheck. From the
NYTimes:
...the stimulus bill had cut taxes for 95 percent of working families by changing withholding rates...
In a troubling sign for Democrats as they head into the midterm elections, their signature tax cut of the past two years, which decreased income taxes by up to $400 a year for individuals and $800 for married couples, has gone largely unnoticed.
In a New York Times/CBS News Poll last month, fewer than one in 10 respondents knew that the Obama administration had lowered taxes for most Americans. Half of those polled said they thought that their taxes had stayed the same, a third thought that their taxes had gone up, and about a tenth said they did not know. As Thom Tillis, a Republican state representative, put it as the dinner wound down here, “This was the tax cut that fell in the woods — nobody heard it.”
Actually, the tax cut was, by design, hard to notice. Faced with evidence that people were more likely to save than spend the tax rebate checks they received during the Bush administration, the Obama administration decided to take a different tack: it arranged for less tax money to be withheld from people’s paychecks.
So why didin't people notice the slight increase in their take-home pay? "It's the economy, stuipd!"
There are plenty of explanations as to why many taxpayers did not feel richer when the cuts kicked in, giving typical families an extra $65 a month. Some people were making less money to begin with, as businesses cut back. Others saw their take-home pay shrink as the amounts deducted for health insurance rose.
And taxpayers in more than 30 states saw their state taxes rise, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
Just so you know, $400 divided by 52 weeks (assuming many wage earners are paid on a weekly basis) = $7.69/wk
That's just over the cost of a Big Mac combo meal, enough to buy lunch. Not complaining, just trying to illustrate a point.
You seem to have a problem with people keeping more of what they earn. It is THEIR money first.
Right on time with that same, tired line. I stated earlier I have no problem with high wage earners keeping more of their money. My argument has never been about that. It's been, "Did the Bush tax cuts work as promised for lower wage earners or did they not?"
Conclusion based on the evidence: No, they did not.
Your position is very obvious: If you make tons of money, you should be able to keep more of it. How that tax disparity affects those at the bottom is of no consequence. For some, it doesn't matter that the promise of a "helping hand from above (higher wage earners, i.e., business owners/investors)" didn't truly aid those at the bottom. Sure, tax cuts for the working poor/middle-class did provide some additional money in our paychecks, but that does little when the cost of living increases yet our wages have either remained flat or that many people haven't seen a pay raise in years! Therefore, the only way many of us have seen an increase in our networth has been through tax cuts.
So, while I'm appreciative that the working poor/middle-class were considered in tax cut proposals, what disappoints me to the extreme is our Republican/Conservative government has continued to propetuate that lie that tax cuts that benefit the wealthiest among us is far more effective for the overall economy and the nation and yet each time this tactic has been tried the result has been the rich have gotten richer and the poor have gotten poorer. It would be one thing if the middle-class had expanded as well as the upper income brackets because atleast then we'd be able to see the evidence that people from the bottom have migrated economically to the middle or the top, but that's not what has happened over the last 10-20 years. Unfortunately, folks who believe as you do will never admit that trickle-down economics just have not worked as outlined.
And with that, I'm out....
