Tax cuts that don't cut the rate, that just give a set amount of cash back, esp. if they are highly "targeted" are in effect more like spending than tax reductions. If they are refundable, then the refunded about below zero net income tax liability actually is spending, not just something with the same effect as spending.
But the tax policies of the Bush/Cheney era were a failure. They didn't create jobs, they didn't generate vast economic growth, and they contributed to massive explosion in federal debt.
Failure - false
Didn't create jobs - false
Didn't generate vast economic growth - Pretty much true, depending on how you define vast
Contributed to the massive deficits - True, but not nearly as much as the increase in spending, or even just the increase in non-military spending.
Obama tax cuts, on top of the cuts he approved last year, would make lower rates permanent for the middle- and lower-class.
That's not a tax cut, its acting to avoid an increase.
The expected tax increase is not "an Obama increase", since its already written in to the law from before Obama (well to the extent he played any role in putting a time limit on the tax cuts, when he was a senator then it is partially an Obama tax increase, still the role of one senator is rarely as large as the president's in such things, and I'd be ok with saying its not an "Obama increase").
Similarly avoiding the increase by keeping the rates the way they are now for some people, wouldn't be an Obama cut, it would just be Obama (partially) avoiding an increase. |
