QUIZ: What president passed the largest tax cut in history?

[wyldwolf]

A. George W. Bush
B. Ronald Reagan
C. Barack Obama
D. John F. Kennedy.

The answer? Barack Obama!

According to the Wall Street Journal, Bush's first two years of tax cuts amounted to $174 billion. A second batch in 2004 and 2005 cost $231. And those were thought to be bigger than the tax cuts offered by Reagan, Kennedy or others.

The stimulus plan Barack Obama just passed includes $282 billion in tax cuts over two years. Steve Waldman points out Obama kept a campaign promise that few Republicans thought he'd keep. If this weren't part of a larger package, that would be an enormous story. A liberal Democrat in the campaign promised the biggest tax cut in history. Republicans said it was a complete charade (and many liberals didn't much like it anyway). And the Democrat in his first few weeks delivers the tax cut.

Mark Ambinder remarks, "it's hard imagine we won't hear about this four years from now. And if that's not boxing a future Republican candidate in ahead of time, I don't know what is. Think about how many potential Republican arguments are going to be pre-empted by that nice little fact?"

A bonus for Democrats: Nearly every Republican in Congress voted against it.

Relevant links here: http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/02/17/obamas_tax_cut.html

[Kdillard]

1. This really needs to get out there. I am sick of people thinking

Democrats are out to tax you to death.

[elleng]

4. Those who 'think' it only do so

because reps TELL them to; its one of the big, repeated lies.

[4lbs]

2. Unlike many of those previous tax cuts, this one is actually targeted at the people who will make

the best use of these tax cuts in the economic sense.

[elleng]

3. It has to be mentioned NOW

or forseeable future, to build recognized list of accomplishments, NOT just pop them out in 4 years.

[depakid]

5. Tell me again whose policies have led to the economic meltdown?

No clue?

[wyldwolf]

6. No clue? Well, no clue to what you're referring to

[depakid]

7. Of course not

No surprise there.

[wyldwolf]

8. you're vague as always. Doesn't take long for depakid to come shit on a thread like this

[depakid]

10. You're still arguing over tax cuts- and playing the game by Republican rules

How about learning from our mistakes and changing the rules- rather than banging our heads against the wall:

Something as simple as a metaphor can mean the difference between shared prosperity and widespread suffering.

It's time to tell the truth about tax cuts. This phrase dominates political discourse and is coughed out every time a conservative public figure opens his mouth. It is treated like the basis of sound reasoning, yet no one points out what should be obvious - that "tax relief" and "tax cuts" are just code words for destroying the capacity of government to serve the public.

We've heard over and over again that the source of society's problems is the government. The solution that follows is to "trim the fat", "cut out the waste", "shrink the government", and provide "relief" to millions of citizens who suffer the burden of exploitation by Washington elites. This story flies in the face of the facts, yet it makes sense to a significant portion of the U.S. population. How can this be?

The answer has to do with how we make sense of things in the world.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x426049

[wyldwolf]

13. Kindly quote me where I have EVER argued over tax cuts?

I'm stating

1. A fact
2. A tactical advantage that fact gives Obama in 2012.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[unblock]

9. but will we hear about it? the media, of course, will paint it as an irresponsible liberal giveaway

they won't talk about the tax cut portion of it, they'll just talk about the free-spending socialist giveaway to welfare queens and so on.

[WeDidIt]

11. I'm writing a letter to the editor today

Illinois Republican Congresscritters will have a lot to answer for.

[denem]

12. JFK. In constant dollars JFK's tax cuts were the largest in history,

and more so in terms of national income.

Tax Cuts and National Income

Contrasting the size of the tax cuts with national income shows that the Kennedy tax cut, representing 1.9 percent of income, was the single largest first-year tax-cut of the post-WW II era. The Reagan tax cuts represented 1.4 percent of income while none of the Bush tax cut even breaks 1 percent of income. The Kennedy tax cuts would only have been surpassed in size by combining all three Bush tax cuts into a single package.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/323.html

The torch has been passed to a new generation ;)

[OwnedByFerrets]

15. Its good for political campaigns, not so good for rebuilding economies

[Triana]

16. A collection of such facts needs to be compiled for 2010, 2012...and beyond. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

17. The perfect answer to my Repub. friend who's complaining about....

... "socialism" this morning.

[Demi_Babe]

18. pubs are saying they are only tax credits and not permanent

[ieoeja]

19. Every Republican in congress voted to raise taxes.

Using the GOP frame that voting against a tax cut -- no matter what else is in the bill containing that tax cut -- is equivalent to voting for a tax increase, then every Republican in the US House voted to raise taxes.

That was my first thought and why I immediately started laughing when the Republicans voted 100% against these tax cuts.

[archiemo]

20. Should be lead story of every MSM outlet!!!!

[Still Sensible]

21. This fact should be front and center along with

the argument that the issue isn't how big the tax relief is--the argument is "who" is getting the tax relief. The supply siders and trickle downers argue that tax cuts for the wealthy trickle down in the form of investment and job creation. Obviously that is bullshit given the job losses of the past eight years, which featured two tax-cuts of their variety.

With trade policy, the housing bubble, the credit fiasco and other factors working simultaneously the job losses of the last eight years is certainly more complicated than just the failure of Bush-type tax cuts to do what the republicans claimed it would do... but generally speaking the persuadable electorate doesn't do complication and nuance well. So keep the message simple--they had two tax cuts and their way failed miserably. That's why our approach is from the bottom up, not from the top down.