Liberal Forum

Cannonpointer » 20 Oct 2014 12:00 am » wrote: I take it back. You were right. He realized that if he explained what a Keynesian tax cut was, I would call BS on him for his obvious lie, Here is the issue:

http://schansblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/ ... -good.html

One dissenter was economist Milton Friedman. His research had led him to conclude that consumer spending was less a function of liquidity than something he called "permanent income." Friedman observed that when workers lost their jobs, they didn't immediately cut back on spending. They borrowed or drew down savings to maintain spending, in the expectation of finding a new job shortly. Conversely, consumers didn't immediately spend windfalls. They kept spending on an even keel until they achieved a promotion at work, or other increase in their long-term income expectations.
Thus Friedman predicted that the $100 to $200 checks disbursed by the Treasury Department in the spring of 1975 would have a minimal impact on spending, because they did not alter peoples' permanent income. Most likely, people would save the money or pay down debt, which is the same thing. Very little of the rebate would cause consumers to buy things they wouldn't otherwise have bought in the near term.
So, if you look at Obie's tax cuts, they were not Keynesian. The social security cut affected every W2 worker in America, lasted for a couple of years, and amounted to 2% of every affected worker's gross income. That's not Keynesian. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit was actually a reduction in withholding as well - so it increased take home pay, which is what we call a "tax cut" - a good thing when Republicans do them and a *** thing when done by democrats.

It was also not Keynesian, because of its duration - 2 years. A good example of a KEYNESIAN tax cut - or tax rebate, tax credit, etc - would be Obama's "fist time homebuyer" credit: a one time lump sum paid to anyone buying a home for the first time in three years, intended to increase consumer spending on a temporary basis. Other good examples would be most of the tax cuts that Bush ever passed - like his $600.00 happy checks at the end of several tax years during his Decidership. but those were GOOD tax cuts, implemented by a white man as God intended.

Plain and simple, the bush tax cuts were temporary (one year), had to be renewed, and affected wealthier folks more so than the working class.

Obama's cuts were temporary (two years), had to be renewed, and affected all workers equally.

Bush's were good, Obama's were bad - PRECISELY AS I PREDICTED IN MY VERY FIRST REQUEST FOR A DEFINITION!