Historically, this has a better chance of increasing government revenue than raising taxes - it sounds off but less taxes actually increases productivity and spending - therefore tax revenue.
Sorry, but flat out false.
This is not true by any objective measurement.
Of course, some taxes would be better off being cut and would help the economy- I am thinking the Kennedy tax cuts in 1963 and the 1978 Capital Gains Tax cut, which restored a meaningful differential between ordinary and capital income taxation. However, the idea that tax cuts directly cause increased revenue has been proven time and again to be complete b.s. It is just in the early 60s, income taxes were too high and 1978 cap gains taxes were too high, so we cut them and said the benefits out weigh the revenue loss here.
This can work, but it does not work when you just cut taxes across the board regardless of how high they are, or where the incentives are targeted(investment for example) as the supply siders claim! Reagan did supply side tax cuts, revenues fell, Bush II did the same thing, revenues fell, Clinton raised taxes in 1993, revenues increased......
Take my word for it or get a page full of statistics and charts!
As far as Obama’s policies up to the present, I can’t say he’s done a great or poor job until the mess is officially behind us. Remember, the Great Depression didn’t hit the day after the crash – it took years to develop. Obama’s best chance of success from here on out is to take on an attitude fiscal restraint similar to Clinton’s Welfare Reform days.
Obama does not lack a commitment to fiscal responsibility anymore than the next person does. He has supported pay as you go, convened a bipartisan deficit cutting commission over the objections of Republicans in Congress, has reformed health care to finally get the cost of entitlements, the biggest driver of our deficit, under control and has gone line by line through the budget looking for waste and inefficiency.
You are contrasting him to Clinton in the welfare reform days?? First off, reforming welfare actually entailed spending money, on balance, because we were laying out money for child care, health care and work and training programs to get people employed, and rightfully so! Welfare reform worked.
Clinton came in and immediately went to work- the 1993 budget bill raised the top rate, cut capital gains taxes for small businesses and start ups to provide investment incentives, and then cut $255 billion in spending over 10 years. In 1994, he introduced a welfare reform bill like the one that eventually passed in 1996- the Republicans distracted everyone with their unrealistic proposals while calling Clinton, the intellectual father of welfare reform, soft on welfare throughout 1995!
Obama inherited something completely different. Instead of a very sluggish recovery that had to take a back seat to getting the deficit under control(1992) Obama inherited an economy spiraling downward at breakneck speed toward a depression after the entire financial system collapsed. It was easily the worst situation a President has inherited in modern times- remember FDR did not have 2 wars to deal with as well! In fact, you probably have to go as far back as Lincoln to get something similar!!
So Obama, inheriting a completely different situation, did what all economists, liberal, moderate, conservative, suggested he do and passed a HUGE stimulus to pump in the money that the private sector was incapable of pumping in at the time.
Obama has said and done more to address the deficit since 2005 when he became a Senator than Bush or the Republicans ever did. Bush never even mentioned the deficit- Cheney said himself "Reagan proved deficits don't matter" and that was the prevailing Republican philosophy until Obama was elected. Obama on the other hand, introduced the "google for government" feature that allows you to see exactly who is spending your money where, has long been a critic of the idea that we solve problems just by throwing money at them, was a co sponsor of earmark reform that has cut earmarks in half since 2007 and is a long time supporter of pay as you go, which is socialism according to Republicans.
Watch his speeches and press conferences- he has made clear the entire time that he did not come in amped up to spend $787 billion we did not have, and has shown that he grasps the economic consequences of failing to control the deficit better off the top of his head than Bush did reading from a script! Obama has said as far back as the debates that we will get whiplash turning around from stimulating the economy to controlling the deficit so fast. He is not perfect by any means, nor does he have a magical touch nor is he the messiah or anything like that, but rest assured, he grasps the issue.
You are right, the jury is still out for damm sure, but one thing is undeniable, Obama has pulled us back from the brink and turned this recession around to a recovery much faster than similar collapses in the past!
Also, Irvine, great posts in here!