Economists agree that the stimulus worked. But this ad from American Crossroads has a point.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
24 Responses to Super PAC Ad That Hammers Obama On Jobs
About Capitol Watch
The Hartford Courant’s Capitol Watch blog provides insightful and in-depth coverage of Connecticut politics... read more- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
NEW! CT Politics App.
Courant.com brings you the latest CT political news, blogs, tweets and photos, powered by the Hartford Courant and FOX CT.
Download it now:
- -- ADVERTISEMENT --
Which economists agree, Rick? And just how did the stimulus work, unless you’re talkng about how it helped GM union workers become owners of GM, at a cost so far to the taxpayers of $25 billion or so. And that union is now talking of pushing for government forgiveness of any debts because they can’t find good executive talent. Apparently good talent wants to work in the private sector.
Is this what you call ‘working’? Government takeover of private enterprise, overturning centuries of contract law, and defrauding taxpayers of billions in order to do it. And if the reports are correct, Obama wants to do even more of this in a second term.
While he’s at it, it sounds like he’s going to bail out states pension problems as well. I can’t wait to take home even LESS for my work so I can support the public sector unions in an even better lifestyle than they already have.
Thanks for the objectivity, Rick.
Wait, which economists, and how many?
You may not have meant this, but your first line implies that “ALL economists agree…” and this is flat out wrong.
http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/02/news/economy/fed-stimulus-john-taylor.moneymag/index.htm
Huh: He meant it – that’s the word game that libs love to play
Kim, you are paying LESS federal tax under Obama. He reduced your Social Security tax by 2 percent for 2011 and 2012.
sure Mike, but he’s more than made up for it in other areas, such as gasoline taxes, etc. If there is one thing taxpayers understand, it’s that they are taking home LESS of their income now than they were 4 years ago. Policy decisions and excessive regulations play a large part in this.
and by the way, Mike, reducing my SS ‘tax’ means I get less money when I retire. In other words, I’m paying myself LESS than otherwise. If he were serious about helping the middle class he would cut taxes that really help me by reducing government spending.
Kim, Social Security benefits are determined by your income (wages only), not by how much SS tax you pay.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/Benefits.html
So enjoy your Obama tax cut!
you’re wrong Mike. If I don’t pay into SS, then I don’t get SS when I retire regardless of how much I earn. Don’t you get SS forms occassionally showing how much you’ve earned to date and how much your anticipated benefits are as a result? You really should research a little before posting here
Sorry, no, you are wrong. Read the first paragraph in the link above.
I also got out my SS forms and it lists all my earnings for my entire life, year by year. It does NOT list the taxes I paid. How do they base it on taxes paid if they don’t record taxes paid?
Yes, you do not collect if you do not pay. But any time you earn you pay. Saying this backwards, if you do not pay you have no earned wages.
Read your own words above:
“Don’t you get SS forms occasionally showing how much you’ve earned to date
See? You say *earned* not taxes paid. You said it yourself.
If we cannot agree on this one simple fact then there is no sense in talking.
Here is an example. Say I have $50,000 earnings this year.
6.2% tax = $3100
4.2% tax = $2100
So I pay $2100 SS taxes instead of $3100 taxes. I have $1000 extra in my pocket.
At the end of 2012 my earnings are still $50,000 no matter what tax rate is used.
When I get the form from SS it will show my 2012 earnings as $50,000.
When they calculate my SS benefit they use $50,000 as my 2012 earnings. They do not care that my tax rate was lower.
Mike, your post has little if anything to do with mine. YOu are right that SS wages are determined by income but I’m not sure what that has to do with my post
Mike, you’re continuing with the spin game. You want to pretend that Obama’s reducing our SS payments (which you insist on calling taxes) is a break for us when in fact it is not. It is simply taking less from us and giving less back when we retire.
I asked for a real break in TAXES, not SS payments.
Your refusal to differentiate the two says a great deal. The numbers you want to throw around mean nothing when your basic premise is skewed and incorrect.
and Mike, let’s not forget the massive increase in costs of fuel in this country since Obama took over, all due to his policy decisions. His overregulation and striking down of drilling etc have hurt the middle class immensely and who does it hit the hardest? The poor and middle class, those he pretends he wants to help.
His energy policies are in line with his lacky, Chu, who slipped and let it be known that he and your president want gas to go up to European prices (above $8.00 per gallon).
You can continue to pretend that Obama has done wonderful things for the middle class, but I’m willing to wager you can’t point to any group of poor or middle class who get to keep MORE of their income since he took office. Smoke and mirrors, and unsubstantiated rhetoric, is the liberal way. You’ll have to do better than tout the party line if you want anyone to believe you.
Mike,
Are you in denial of, unaware of, or just don’t wan’t to talk about all of the tax increases that go into effect after the election?
The fact that the tax increases do not occur until it is politically convenient does not mean they are not tax increases.
For example, do these 21 tax increases in Obamacare not count as tax increases?http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/obamacare-21-new-or-higher-taxes.html
We can list all the indirect taxes that will increase, but first let’s hear your spin on the first set. Keep in mind, the fact that you may think any and all of the above mentioned taxes are a good idea in no way invalidates the plain and simple fact that they are tax increases.
Mike is a direct beneficiary of the Obama way, in his role in the public sector. He is bought and paid for as is his vote, but it’s the ‘wealthy’ who are greedy. He puts his own interests above those of his non-public sector neighbors and friends, and the rest of the country, so he can continue to reap the benefits of government largesse
I do not work in the public sector. You probably read something somewhere and drew a false conclusion that you then post as fact. Most of your posts are that way: vague, hyperbolic, wildly speculative. You really don’t know how silly you sound.
my apologies for the inacurracy – my memory failed me.
All I said was President Obama reduced the taxes you pay today. People seem to be in denial, unaware, or don’t want to talk about this fact. Yes, there are tax increases in Obamacare. I never said there were not.
that’s right Mike. You said Obama reduced taxes and implied that I should be grateful. I responded that what he reduced was something that I was paying to my own benefits when I retire. In other words, I pay less to Obama now and get less when I retire. That’s what SS is supposed to be – payback out of an account that you contribute to.
If he wanted to REALLY reduce my taxes, he would reduce something that amounts to a REAL reduction. For example, reduce my federal income tax rates. That’s money I would get to keep instead of the illusion of benefitting from SS tax reductions
First, most conservatives I know would say they can better invest the SS money than the government. Second, you must know that SS is not a savings plan. It uses taxes from current workers to pay current retirees. I guess you argument is that long term if the money is not there they will have to adjust benefits down. I’ll give you that, maybe, but the future is really hazy across many administrations. Who knows what will happen. Third, I think most workers see more money in their hand and call that a tax reduction. They’re not thinking about retirement. And it’s pretty big chunk of money, about $1000 (each year for 2 years) for a middleclass guy. Fourth, this extra cash is undeniably a consumer stimulus of the best type, right? People, not the government, spending on things they need by their own choice in a free market. There has been a benefit. I can’t tell you how much, but the extra spending created some jobs, and not just in the public sector.
Kim, I was working in a private industry that got a contract from NASA. NASA got the money from the Obama Stimulus. I spent the money and created more jobs. Some additional people were hired. The contract was short-term. What many do not know is the stimulus was not just public sector jobs. An amazing array of private businesses got money too. Waiting for private sector tax reductions, and reduced regulation, to kick in takes time. I’m convinced we are in better shape because of the stimulus. Scroll down through this very long list of stimulus programs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Tax_incentives_for_individuals
Phony in Chief
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell101112.php3
Obama is moving up in the world. Sowell did not compare him to Adolf Hitler again.
right, he’s moving up in the Muslim world. Not so much in America, though