Umm,that was Bush. I am talking about the $350 BILLION in tax cuts in Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Tax credits and reductions included:
1. American opportunity tax credit for students
2. Homebuyer's credit
3. Making work pay credit
4. New car sales tax deduction
5. AMT patch
6.
Qualified transportation fringe benefit increase
7.
Section 529 computer purchases
8. Child tax credit
9. Increase in the earned income tax
10. Exclusion of $2,400 of unemployment benefits from taxable income
No, we get a $400 tax credit on 2009 taxes which was implemented via withholding less from paychecks instead of receiving a check for a lump sum or simply claiming the credit when we file taxes. I'll give you that one. The above "tax credits" are specialized and exclusive. IE discriminatory.
Umm, it's been all over the news. Obama wants to provide small businesses with tax credits for hiring. Look it up.
I meant this part of your blurb (although I'd still like some documentation for the tax credits themselves):
2. He has further planned to lower taxes more for small businesses giving them tax breaks for hiring new workers. And the Republicans came out against it. Republicans against lower taxes. They will say NO to ANYTHING Obama proposes, even if they were in favor of it a week earlier.
That's called a strawman argument.
Reagan trickle-down economics. Give money to the rich and poor people can pick up the pennies they drop. Does anyone still believe this? Give money to poor people and they will spend it. That gets the economy going.
Yes, it does work. It's been proven throughout history, although the term trickle-down is nothing but a blatant misrepresentation. Trickle down is just one component. You lower taxes for everyone and everyone benefits. You give everyone more money to spend. Poor people don't buy houses, boats, airplanes or a lot of electronic equipment. Poor people don't start up businesses and hire people. Poor people don't spend a lot of money in Vegas. There is no trickle up component if you just give poor people tax breaks. Furthermore, poor people pay very little if any taxes to begin with. They spend money on basic needs type items which may very well help a small segment of the economy but does nothing to benefit the economy as a whole.
Interesting that you brought up George HW Bush and the term "voodoo economics". He's also the jackass that said "read my lips...no new taxes", then turned around and raised taxes anyway. As a result the economy floundered and everything the economy gained under Reagan via the tax cuts was lost.
What does this have to do with Obama being a "socialist?" The same could be said about EVERY modern president. Under Reagan, federal outlays grew at an average rate of 7.1% a year for eight years. Now that's a lot of expansion.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by federal outlays, but Reagan did spend a lot of money on defense and building our military back up, which was decimated by the policies of Jimmy Carter. He also took office during a period of high inflation again due in no small part to the policies of Jimmy Carter, which I would imagine would have an effect on that 7.1% figure. Then again I don't even know if that figure is accurate or not because once again you provided no documentation.
But make no mistake about it, Obama is a socialist through and through. Actually I'd say he's more of a communist wanting to control every aspect of every business and every facet of people's lives. Taking over banks, car companies and health care is just a start.
Actually they don't In fact, much of the bailout money has been paid back with interest. The US has little industry left, which is why we have to borrow money from China where our industry has gone. Would you really have let our auto industries die too? If there is a third world war, what industry would we have left to convert to war machinery?
Ha. Ford refused bailout money and they're doing very well now, much better than the government run GM and Chrysler. GM and
Chrysler would not have died w/o the bailouts. They may have had to file bankruptcy but that would have been for restructuring purposes. And the deficit in Obama's first year and the projected deficits in years to come are no laughing matter. Go ahead and blame Bush all you want for his deficits, but 2 wrongs don't make a right and the deficits under Bush are barely a fraction of what the Obama administration has done so far and is proposing in the future:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703906204575027181656362948.html
(excerpts)
Whether or not Americans choose to believe him, there's no denying the fiscal reality created by the rollout version of President Obama last year, as detailed in the Congressional Budget Office report released yesterday. For the second year in a row, fiscal 2010 will see a trillion-dollar deficit—an estimated $1.35 trillion, or 9.2% of GDP, which is down slightly from last year's post-World War II record of 9.9%.
As for the deficit, CBO shows that over the first three years of the Obama Presidency, 2009-2011, the federal government will borrow an estimated $3.7 trillion. That is more than the entire accumulated national debt for the first 225 years of U.S. history. By 2019, the interest payments on this debt will be larger than the budget for education, roads and all other nondefense discretionary spending.
Under half.
That's ridiculous. And constantly typing "jackass" is not useful.
What's ridiculous is that he took 160 flights on Air Force One and 193 flights on Marine One in his first year in office. He made 10 foreign trips to 21 countries and 46 domestic trips to 58 cities. I don't know exactly how that breaks down but he took his wife and/or his family on many such trips and many were just for dinner or "getting out of the White House".
