Congress stands up to Obama's Reaganesque economic policies

After kowtowing to the religious right and the Israeli right, Obama now kowtows to Reagan trickle down economics, but fortunately it looks like there are some prominent progressives in Congress who will try to make Obama act like a Democrat.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aBTL10m.08lQ&refer=us

Several lawmakers criticized a $140 billion proposal to give $500 to individuals and $1,000 to families by withholding less from their paychecks, saying it would do little to boost the economy. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a North Dakota Democrat, compared the idea with rebate checks sent last year by the Treasury Department, which he said were “largely a bust” in terms of boosting consumer demand.

“I’m very skeptical that’s going to make a difference,” Conrad told reporters in Washington. “For the average family, it’s going to add $20 a week -- I mean, how much lift is that going to give?”

...

Several lawmakers criticized plans to offer businesses a $3,000 tax credit to hire new workers.

“Why would you, if you got a couple thousand dollar jobs credit, go out and hire somebody to build a car nobody’s buying?” said Conrad.

“I’d rather spend the money on the infrastructure, on direct investment, on energy conversion” and other things that may create jobs more quickly, said Senator John Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat.

...

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, suggested the Obama plan had too many tax cuts.

“To me it still looks like more of this trickle-down,” Harkin said after the meeting. “If someone gives you a tax break you’re going to save that money, you’re going to salt that away -- you’re not going to be spending it.”

:popcorn:

He's scoffing at the notion of someone having an extra $20.00 per week. You can actually do quite a bit with an extra $20.00, but only someone who has been in the position of wishing they had an extra $20.00 would realize that. No tax cut for ordinary working people is too small to matter in my book.

Reagan was the champion of the right who wrote off the poor and argued for middle class tax breaks. Tax breaks don't fix the economy. To the extent we had economic gains during parts of the Reagan and Bush administration it was because of deficit spending, not tax cuts. Helping people in need fixes the economy. At the very least, spending fixes the economy, not tax cuts.

If you are unemployed, what do you need? The government to pay your mortgage for a month or two, or a real job that allows you to pay on an ongoing basis? Tax cuts reduce the money available for job creation.

He is saying that $20 a week is not enough.

Now that the election is over, we are free to criticize it (though some would like us to think otherwise).

The $3,000 might, in theory, speed along the hiring process. For example, if a company is sitting there looking at possibly adding a position they figure will add $40,000 in activity to the company, but will cost $41,000, they will hold off until the economic conditions are better. However, a $3,000 tax credit would push them over to make that hiring decision now.

I will admit it's a little convoluted and I'm not sure how much I buy into it.

Is that the business won't "see" the 3k tax credit until the end of the tax year.

A 3k credit isn't going to make me hire someone today that I can't afford because of a depressed economy and lack of consumer spending. That would be economic suicide. We need more money in the pockets of people so that the demand for goods and services increases and with that, the demand for more workers.

To be honest, I have no clue how they're going to accomplish that.

I will show you a Reaganesque tax cut and show me how Obama's is like it:

*Cut the top marginal tax rate from 35% to 25%.
*Cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20%
*Cut the capital gains tax rate from 15% to 10%

That's a Reaganesque tax cut. Obama's tax plan is not at all like a supply-side plan.

You are lying and are never held accountable for what you are saying.

you hit the nail on the head. particularly true about the blatant and disgusting lying. It's certainly possible to disagree that Obama is following the best path, but it's just laughable to insist that he's Reaganesque. As for the moronic "Obama is in the grips of the Israeli right", that certainly remains to be seen.

Senator Tom Harkin called it trickle down, so I'm not alone in describing Obama's plan this way.

Reagan shifted economic responsibility into the hands of corporations. Where does regulation figure into Obama's plans or is he going to pump billions into the hands of greedy corporations that know how to skirt the law? Reagan shifted countless jobs into the private sector, just as Obama wants to do (90% of jobs he said will be in the private sector). Just like Reagan, he apparently trusts the private sector more than the public sector. Obama's plans focus on the middle class, just as Reagan's did. Reagan led the drive to shift public policy away from the poor and needy to the middle class. So, my point is there are similarities. Of course, Obama unlike Reagan will invest in alternative energy and infrastructure rather than in WMDs, but his economic approach so far is solidly Republican.

Giving to businesses in the hope that this will eventually get to the people is the essence of the trickle down theory.

Hmmm. Deep thinker, there.

:banghead:

It would cover the doctor's office co-pays my wife has to pay every other week.

$20. extra a week is nothing. :eyes:

Yes, it is nothing. A job that pays a living wage is something, and tax cuts just waste money that could be used for job creation.

Bush tried that shit last year, and it was worthless. Only 12% of the total giveaway was used for new spending.

But doing tax cuts and spending on good investments is not a bad idea.

I think New York and New England in general are much higher then the rest of the country but I think we make more at our jobs so its all relative.

that does not say CVS brand in years. Its cheaper and the same stuff.

They have to spend those, so the money would be pumped right back into the economy.

But, really, it will be a flat check, not $20/week, so it would be sort of a shot in the arm into the economy, like the last shot in the arm that we spent $150 billion on. It's better to use that money to create jobs, government jobs.

But there is no tax revenue generated from Food stamps.

The money floods UP not down.

All that Laffer, trickle down stuff, is
just smoke and mirrors.

It would not influence my company in the least to hire even one new worker.

As far as the $19.23 per week tax credit per family. Again, very weak.

This is a disappointing "stimulus" package proposal. I agree with Conrad and Harkin.

ongoing since the primaries. You see this OP and you know its spinning ugly.

of important spending on things we need. But the middle class has been suffering for years. Obama proposed this tax cut during the campaign. I desperately need an extra $20 a week. Gas, groceries, utilities, mortgage. It all adds up at the end of the week and I will put it right back into the economy. Trickle down economics was giving tax breaks for the wealthy and hoping it trickled down to the rest of us. $150,000 and under is the wealthy? Am I missing something here? Obama also gave the proposal as being on the low side to see where changes could be made, its not even written on paper because its flexible! (My God, a president that actually listens to other ideas-someone pinch me).

Will people now be attacking John Kerry, under the guise of loyalty to the PE but actually in a covert effort to drive the discussion and the party to the right?

Senator John Kerry: "I'd rather spend the money on the infrastructure, on direct investment, on energy conversion, on other kinds of things that much more directly, much more rapidly and much more certainly create a real job."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4792053

As I said on another thread, referenced by the link above (my apologies for linking to my own thread, but I would like to see more discussion about this) many have been talking about hope and about change, and about the need to give the Democratic party politicians a chance and to support them. There was a very hopeful sign, a rare cause for hope, today that hints at real change, real change that reflects the rejection and repudiation by the voters of Reaganomics and the religious right, and that is in alignment with the traditional principles and ideals of the Democratic party.



The debates here are not between those who are "positive" and those who are "negative." Some feel very positive about any move to the right, and then call any and all ideas from the Left "negative." Nor is is about "loyalty." Why is support for politicians talking centrism and drifting to the right to be seen as "loyal," while support for politicians speaking out for the traditional principles and ideals pf the Democratic party top be seen as "disloyal?"

What Kerry is saying on this is real change, it is a breath of fresh air, the first rain drops on parched ground after a long drought. The trickle down approach that has been tried for 30 years now - boost the business community in the hope that this will trickle down to the workers - and it has failed spectacularly.

The people rejected the religious right and Reganomics, they did not reject the political Left.

As the general public moves to the Left, and toward tolerance, we have some Democrats moving to the right, and admiring and applauding those politicians who are moving to the right. This was demonstrated in a recent Pew Research survey shortly before the election:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x113168

tax cuts. Any money spent should go into the hands of those who are most likely to spend the money and put it back into the economy.

bad cop? He starts to the right and forces Congress to drag him to the left with some Rs in tow? The closer he starts to R economic policy in the light of the current economic mess started and driven by R economic policy the better moving left looks to the people and the more support he'll get.

I'm not ready to piss in the corn flakes yet. The table is still being set.

Obama started the debate exactly where he wanted it to start - with room for the Dems to move it left.

Our role is to make a big stink and call Obama on the carpet so he has political cover to be the progressive he deeply wants to be.

At least I hope that is the plan. He certainly is brilliant enough to pull it off.

I posted the article earlier - don't think Obama wasn't anticipating this. In fact, his plan actually depends on Congressional Democrats demanding a bigger stimulus.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/obamas-price-is-right-negotiating.html

Obama is basically doing the Price Is Right strategy - he determined that high-balling the economic stimulus package would be bad - the Republicans would unite and filibuster and whine about how expensive it is. So Obama low-balled it, which gives the Republicans less room to maneuver - Obama's playing the role of fiscal conservative, so the Republicans look like assholes if they filibuster or demand more concessions. If the Republicans balk, Obama instantly goes on TV saying "We need this stimulus package now! We can't wait! The economy needs help! CHOP CHOP!!!" At the same time, the Senate Democrats get to piss and moan and say we need less tax cuts and more stimulus and more money total, and Obama will do a nice choreographed "Well, since you insist..."

Again, Obama's playing chess while everyone else is playing checkers. Nice to have a smart president for a change, isn't it?

Jobs, not temporary infusions of chump change.

I think Obama highballed the tax-cuts for the same reason, so the Republicans have less room to maneuver. Make lots of noise, contact your Congresscritters, and they'll shave down the tax cuts and turn up the stimulus and job creation.

Part of the plan...

Not you, 'K?

I'd like to see a bit more go back to families UNTIL we can get these infrastructure projects going. but, I don't see criticizing immediate tax breaks to families is Regeanesque. Do these guys think we can just start building bridges tomorrow?

meaning less than 60 days. 60 days after these clowns do their little barking at the big dog act.

undercutting their shiny new president in the media is not my idea of a bright political ploy. in private, fire away, but to be talking to the media at this stage of the game? dumb. just dumb.

Senators are looking for a fight from US if they mess with the O-man. We got your back, Barack!

If $600/taxpayer didn't work last time, why would it work this time? n/t

similar to Bush's $600 rebate checks when it actually isn't?

Why not provide text that are facts to your posts
instead of one liners of exaggerations while stretching the truth?

Why be so desingenious in order to make your point?
How does that make you better?

People need real jobs, not a temporary few hundred dollars. Why not advocate that?

is what Obama is talking about doing.

You are looking at various offerings in a vaccum and nixing what you think is not as good. In otherwords, you are doing a contrast and compare and looking at each component as stand alones, instead of how all of the components work together when combined.

There is instant stimuli, and stimuli that takes more time. Operating in concert, they makes a recovery possible. But simplistically thinking about each apart from the whole makes a complicated package that is meant to work as a complex piece of machinery into a bunch of spare parts.

The Tax cut stimulus which provides instant added income (in amounts to small to save) provides instant stimulus. The infrastructure projects provide stimulus a wee bit down the road (I'd guess 60 days tops), while the Business Employee credit benefits those businesses who hire once the economy starts to turn (without incentives a company doing infrastructure work can decide to hire two partime temps or schedule overtime for existing employees instead of hiring a permanent employee) comes even later, and those who don't hire won't get the credit, so the money budgeted isn't utilized and therefore is not wasted.

I thought you were more sophisticated than that, but perhaps I was wrong.

Bottomline is that you are either being purposefully simple when dealing with a complicated offering because of your ignorance, or because of just plain bad will.

Tax credits are useless unless there is a business case for adding employees. That can only happen when there is demand for products.

I know very well that any bill that gets through will inevitably be larded with less useful items, but that is no reason not to argue against them.

that would allow us to debate the issue of the Stimulus plan frankly and intelligently.

The fact that you go back to the "$600 giveaway didn't help" mantra as a part of your answer
to my points, demonstrates that you don't really have a clue, beyond acting as though you do.

--funding more food stamps and extending unemployment benefits for economic stimulus. I understand that much.

Obama's anticipating and expecting some pushback from Congress demanding a larger package, with fewer tax cuts and more job creation.

No, don't tell Senate Democrats to shut up.

What Obama did with this little maneuver was that he put a floor on the value of the stimulus package. If he'd high-balled the stimulus package, he would have created a ceiling, then the Republicans would throw a hissy-fit and filibuster, and before long, we'd have a tiny stimulus package that's mostly tax cuts for the rich. By low-balling, he makes the Republicans look like assholes if they demand concessions or try to block the stimulus, since Obama stole their fiscal-conservative hat, and the Democrats get to throw the hissy-fit, demand the stimulus package be raised, and that tax-cuts are eschewed in favor of job creation.

All the more reason to advocate the stimulus plans that give the most bang for the buck. The ceiling is up to us.