What grade would you give O for his first term?

[WakeandBake]

To call a good number of those things tax cuts is absurd. AMT adjustment is not a tax cut, is the annual stopgap that occurs every year. EITC, child care credits, and housing credits are not tax cuts when the recipient was not otherwise paying taxes anyway, they are handouts. Same with foregoing "taxing" of increased unemployment benefits. Including interest earned on retention money that has to be returned to government contractors anway as a tax cut is patently absurd; and the bank credit repeal is a tax increase, not a cut.

So what do you call them? Where was the 288 billion spent then?

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

I do not know where it went, that is what I am asking. They aren't tax cuts, they are handouts, and what do we have to show for them? And more importantly as I originally mentioned, what do we have to show for the other 2/3s? I looked through RJ's link for my county and only a miniscule percentage was spent on any sort of infrastructure. I thought we were spending on shovel-ready projects. 485 has been shovel-ready for 30 years and is still not complete. Most was dumped into the piss-poor public school system which, shockingly, is still piss-poor.

 

[RJKarl]

Guys, it's really time to realize 2&2 is no less a troll than keeper.

Nothing you can say, no amount of legitimate sources or anything that is published that challenges what he has been told to think will ever matter.

 

[WakeandBake]

I do not know where it went, that is what I am asking. They aren't tax cuts, they are handouts, and what do we have to show for them? And more importantly as I originally mentioned, what do we have to show for the other 2/3s? I looked through RJ's link for my county and only a miniscule percentage was spent on any sort of infrastructure. I thought we were spending on shovel-ready projects. 485 has been shovel-ready for 30 years and is still not complete. Most was dumped into the piss-poor public school system which, shockingly, is still piss-poor.

In this case, the list you deemed "not tax cuts," who got the handout?

What do "we" have to show for any tax cut that has ever been passed? I think that is a terrific question, 2and2.

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

I do not know where it went, that is what I am asking. They aren't tax cuts, they are handouts, and what do we have to show for them? And more importantly as I originally mentioned, what do we have to show for the other 2/3s? I looked through RJ's link for my county and only a miniscule percentage was spent on any sort of infrastructure. I thought we were spending on shovel-ready projects. 485 has been shovel-ready for 30 years and is still not complete. Most was dumped into the piss-poor public school system which, shockingly, is still piss-poor.

We're more or less the best performing advanced economy right now. That's pretty good.

 

[Billy Mitchell]

The $70B for the AMT is not a tax cut, per Politifact. The rest they say is legit, meaning 28% of the stimulus were tax cuts.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/10/jon-stewart/stewart-claims-stimulus-bill-one-third-tax-cuts/

Is Stewart right that tax cuts account for a third of the stimulus plan?

The stimulus bill, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, is meant to create jobs and boost the economy. It cost $787 billion, including $499 billion to fund new roads, hire teachers and generally keep people employed, and about $288 billion in tax breaks to individuals and businesses. Among other things, the mix of tax cuts includes a refundable credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for married couples; a temporary increase of the earned income tax credit for disadvantaged families; and an extension of a program that allows businesses to recover the costs of capital expenditures faster than usual.

Simple math shows that Stewart is in the ballpark with his claim: $288 billion is a little more than 36 percent of the bill's overall cost. So, tax cuts -- at least the way they've been defined by the Obama administration -- make up for slightly more than one-third of the bill.

But calculating the cost of the true tax cuts in the stimulus is a bit more complicated. In July 2009, we checked Obama's claim that, at the time, the stimulus had delivered $43 billion in tax breaks. According to the Treasury Department, about $8 billion of that figure came from extending a fix to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Originally, the AMT was targeted at very wealthy people, but over the years it spread to include some middle-income taxpayers as well. Congress passes yearly fixes to prevent those middle income taxpayers from having to pay the AMT.

All told, the AMT fix in the stimulus will cost about $70 billion over 10 years, according to a bill summary published by the Senate Finance Committee. But many tax experts say the AMT fix should not be considered a tax cut. They say that, by extending the AMT fix every year, the government is basically maintaining the status quo.

Back in July, we spoke with a number of tax experts about the issue who all agreed that including the fix as part of the stimulus "tax cuts" is a stretch.

Dan Mitchell, a senior fellow at the free-market Cato Institute, explained it this way:

"AMT is something those people never expect to pay," he said. "It's kind of like saying that, if I didn't rob you on the way home from work today, I gave you money."

The Tax Policy Center, a joint venture between the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, gave the AMT extension a D-minus in its Tax Stimulus Report Card because "the provision would provide virtually no economic stimulus. Because the patch is perennially extended, it would have no effect on behavior in 2009. Almost 80 percent of the benefits would go to the richest 20 percent of households, who would be least likely to spend the additional funds and stimulate demand."

So, our tax experts are skeptical that the $70 billion AMT fix should be included in the stimulus bill's tax relief. That would bring down the cost of the tax cuts to about $218 billion. That means about 28 percent of the bill could be described as tax cuts, a little less than the one-third cited by Stewart.

 

[RJKarl]

10,000th project was in 2010:

"Biden Says 10,000 Stimulus Projects Aiding Transport
John D. Boyd | Mar 18, 2010 6:46PM GMT
The Journal of Commerce Online - News Story
Washington | States | Trucking | Government + Regulation | United States
With $9.57 billion already spent, Spring construction season begins
The stimulus law is currently supporting 10,000 active transportation construction projects, and will further ramp up this spring, said Vice President Joseph Biden.
He made the remarks in North Carolina, where officials said the Sanford Bypass project that is now breaking ground will redirect commercial trucks around the heart of that town to relieve congestion and maintenance problems.
Most projects under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act are road and bridge repairs funded through the Federal Highway Administration. The FHWA said 2,200 of its stimulus projects have already been completed, 8,000 are under way and federal funding has been obligated for more of them.
Other projects under the Department of Transportation are to address airport or transit needs, plus special accounts for rail system grants and mixed-modal surface transportation funding for projects that have special national or regional significance.
In all, DOT has $48.1 billion to spend from the Recovery Act, and says that as of March 5 it had paid out $9.57 billion to states for work already done. Yet federal officials emphasize that job-generating materials ordering, engineering and construction actually get under way much earlier, when the money is obligated or set aside for specific projects.
Biden said that on top of the 10,000 projects now in construction, “this spring Recovery Act projects will pick up the pace across the country, providing even more jobs improving America’s roads, highways and bridges.”
Some transportation stimulus projects are outside DOT’s purview. The Coast Guard is helping rebuild parts of several railroad bridges over waterways, to eliminate some obstructions they pose to barging and other navigation below. Customs funding to build new border surface facilities, Commerce Department infrastructure grants for logistics parks and Environmental Protection Agency programs to retrofit or replace old locomotives and tugs are also in the Recovery Act."

 

[Milhouse]

my fault w&b. I misread, and thought you were making excuses.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

The $70B for the AMT is not a tax cut, per Politifact. The rest they say is legit, meaning 28% of the stimulus were tax cuts.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/feb/10/jon-stewart/stewart-claims-stimulus-bill-one-third-tax-cuts/

No, that article says the rest of the programs "could" be tax cuts, but the only one they looked at was the AMT. Again, how can giving someone a credit that results in them getting cash be a tax cut if the person getting paid was not going to pay any taxes to begin with? What exactly is being cut? Under that logic, all welfare, Medicaid, and unemployment benefits are "tax cuts".

 

[WakeandBake]

"could be described as tax cuts"

that is an affirmative statement, they are tax cuts. good lord

 

[RJKarl]

GUYS, LISTEN!!!! If St. Ronald Reagan came down and told 2&2, "Son, those are tax cuts." 2&2 would come up with an excuse to say they aren't.

 

[DeacHawk]

they're listed as tax incentives on the wiki summary. god forbid they were grouped with everything.

fact, a good portion of the stimulus was tax cuts/incentives/etc.

my opinon, that money would have been better used for more infrastructure. since 6 month shovel ready makes you prioritize projects likely in the pipeline already, that money could have went to more long term stuff where the architecture and engineering design work would have put it past the "shovel ready' timeline. of course then the money isn't spent as quickly and everyone opposed jumps the gun saying it didn't work, it was a failure, rabble rabble rabble

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

GUYS, LISTEN!!!! If St. Ronald Reagan came down and told 2&2, "Son, those are tax cuts." 2&2 would come up with an excuse to say they aren't.

Why do I give a crap about what a washed-up actor tells me about taxes? I can look at the things myself and determine whether or not they are tax cuts. If he wanted to give me some advice on riding El Alamein or beating down Commies, I would probably listen.

 

[Billy Mitchell]

GUYS, LISTEN!!!! If St. Ronald Reagan came down and told 2&2, "Son, those are tax cuts." 2&2 would come up with an excuse to say they aren't.

I know hyperbole is your thing, but 2&2 isn't completely wrong about some of these. Other than the AMT I have a tough time qualifying this as a "tax cut":

$11 billion: Government contractors: Repeal a law that takes effect in 2012, requiring government agencies to withhold three percent of payments to contractors to help ensure they pay their tax bills. Repealing the law would cost $11 billion over 10 years, in part because the government could not earn interest by holding the money throughout the year.

While the law was passed, it never actually went into effect. Calling repeal of a law that never actually was enforced as a tax cut is a stretch.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41924.pdf

On May 17, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-222), which included Section 511: “Imposition of Withholding on Certain Payments Made by Government Entities” (the JCT option). This section required 3% withholding on payments for goods and services to contractors made by all branches of the federal government and its agencies and all units of state and local governments, including counties and parishes. Local governments with less than $100 million of annual expenditures were excluded from the withholding requirement. The section also imposed information reporting requirements on payments that are subject to withholding. This section was a revenue offset and was scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2011.

Substantial opposition developed to this withholding provision. Critics argued that the public and private compliance costs were unacceptable, existing IRS enforcement tools were adequate, and privacy would be reduced. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) delayed the implementation of the withholding provision until January 1, 2012. On May 5, 2011, the IRS issued regulations that further delayed the implementation of the withholding provision until January 1, 2013.

In the 112th Congress, four bills to repeal the Section 511 withholding provision were introduced: S. 89, S. 164, S. 1726, and H.R. 674. In addition, S.Amdt. 405 to S. 782, Economic Development Revitalization Act of 2011, would have repealed the withholding provision. The IRS attempted to address concerns about compliance costs by proposing a $10,000 threshold on government purchases from contractors and increasing the number of exemptions.

On September 12, 2011, President Obama proposed the American Jobs Act of 2011, which included a section that would delay implementation of the withholding provision until after December 31, 2013. On September 13, 2011, at the request of President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced S. 1549, American Jobs Act of 2011.

On November 21, President Obama signed H.R. 674 (P.L. 112-56), 3% Withholding Repeal and Job Creation Act of 2011, which repealed the 3% withholding provisions and provided tax credits for businesses hiring unemployed veterans. The $11 billion cost of the repeal was paid for by $13 billion from a change in the definition of income for determining eligibility for exchange subsidies, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

 

[ProfessorDeac]

D. When an organization is completely dysfunctional, you can't give its leader an average or above-average grade. I'm with Milhouse on the stonewalling issue. A person with better people skills and personality wouldn't have allowed party acrimony to reach this level. The recent pieces about Obama's failure to connect with his own donors is a pretty clear indicator that he just doesn't have the ability to reach people and make them feel included. I think he's also being hurt by his lack of political experience, but I'm not sure any amount of experience would make him more of a people-person. I'm not saying I could have done it. I'm not a people-person, either. But I'll never run for president. We need the president to be someone who can bring everyone together. It's a special skill. Presidents have been hated by the other party since Washington stepped down, but the government has rarely, if ever, reached this level of dysfunction, and it's really, really dangerous. I like most of Obama's policies, but that doesn't matter if he can't get anything done.

 

[Deadbolt]

D. When an organization is completely dysfunctional, you can't give its leader an average or above-average grade. I'm with Milhouse on the stonewalling issue. A person with better people skills and personality wouldn't have allowed party acrimony to reach this level. The recent pieces about Obama's failure to connect with his own donors is a pretty clear indicator that he just doesn't have the ability to reach people and make them feel included. I think he's also being hurt by his lack of political experience, but I'm not sure any amount of experience would make him more of a people-person. I'm not saying I could have done it. I'm not a people-person, either. But I'll never run for president. We need the president to be someone who can bring everyone together. It's a special skill. Presidents have been hated by the other party since Washington stepped down, but the government has rarely, if ever, reached this level of dysfunction, and it's really, really dangerous. I like most of Obama's policies, but that doesn't matter if he can't get anything done.

Then we're screwed, because both these guys have shitty personalities.

 

[ProfessorDeac]

Then we're screwed, because both these guys have shitty personalities.

Yep.

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

D. When an organization is completely dysfunctional, you can't give its leader an average or above-average grade. I'm with Milhouse on the stonewalling issue. A person with better people skills and personality wouldn't have allowed party acrimony to reach this level. The recent pieces about Obama's failure to connect with his own donors is a pretty clear indicator that he just doesn't have the ability to reach people and make them feel included. I think he's also being hurt by his lack of political experience, but I'm not sure any amount of experience would make him more of a people-person. I'm not saying I could have done it. I'm not a people-person, either. But I'll never run for president. We need the president to be someone who can bring everyone together. It's a special skill. Presidents have been hated by the other party since Washington stepped down, but the government has rarely, if ever, reached this level of dysfunction, and it's really, really dangerous. I like most of Obama's policies, but that doesn't matter if he can't get anything done.

Perhaps not.

http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/latest-conference/2012-fall-jensen

 

[ProfessorDeac]

Perhaps not.

http://www.brookings.edu/about/projects/bpea/latest-conference/2012-fall-jensen

That's talking about public political discourse, not effectiveness of government. I'm not surprised that "today’s level of polarization in public (i.e. non-Congress) political discourse" has been worse than it is now. The article mentions Reconstruction as an example. I think that's pretty obvious. More pertinent to government functioning, I think, is this: "the authors find that Congress itself has polarized considerably to historically extraordinary levels in recent years." So public discourse is very polarized, and Congress is absurdly polarized. That seems pretty accurate to me.

 

[TuffaloDeac10]

I think it makes perfect sense that Congressional rancor is at thirty-year highs at the end of a thirty year Great (economic) Moderation. Don't see why anyone would come to the conclusion that Obama caused it or that anything other than economic expansion would end it.