Obama and Congress sends out checks for April 2009 tax cut?

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...obama/tax-cut-95-percent-stimulus-made-it-so/

' . . . Under the stimulus bill, single workers got $400, and working couples got $800. The Internal Revenue Service issued new guidelines to reduce withholdings for income tax, so many workers saw a small increase in their checks in April 2009. . . '
Basically, this was the tax cut no one noticed! And U.S. rightwingers were able to make political hay out of that fact.

So . . .

What if Congress includes in the stimulus bill that checks will be mailed out (like Bush did with at least his first tax cut), so that each person can hold it in his or her hot little hands?
 
Last edited:
Here comes your stimulus bonus

CNN Money, March 31, 2009

https://money.cnn.com/2009/03/31/pf/taxes/making_work_pay_credit/

“ . . . As a rough guide, singles eligible for the credit might get between $10 to $15 per paycheck if paid weekly; . . . ”
So, an extra $20 to $30 in take-home if paid every two weeks.

I can see how a lot of people would miss this. You’d pretty much have to be a news junkie to know about it, or just happen to hear about it.
 
The point of the stimulus bonus in the paycheck was so that people wouldn’t notice that they got extra money and would actually spend the money instead of paying off credit card bills that happened before when checks were issued.
 
A pound would get you a penny that the Republicans would accuse him of trying to bribe voters with the cheques.
 
So, an extra $20 to $30 in take-home if paid every two weeks.

I can see how a lot of people would miss this. You’d pretty much have to be a news junkie to know about it, or just happen to hear about it.

Or be one of the 10% who actually track their pay, withheld taxes, & read the instructions correctly on there tax returns.
 
I think it on paper would been a good idea but like someone said the republicans, fox news, the Rush's etc of talk radio would of called it a stunt even tho they praised when Bush did the same thing just a couple years earlier trying to stunt the recession he had created. I keep a good attention on what i get paid so i noticed it honestly I don't remember it being used for anything more then a extra couple stops at starbucks or being spent in other fashions like that.
 
A pound would get you a penny that the Republicans would accuse him of trying to bribe voters with the cheques.

You win, that accusation was made bout the payroll tax reduction. I recall one of my peers in business pounding the bar and calling that tax reduction fiscally irresponsible, deficit busting, and more Democrat action to destroy the US economy.
 
A pound would get you a penny that the Republicans would accuse him of trying to bribe voters with the cheques.

Not a chance, they would claim the tax cut wasn't nearly big enough. That the tax cut was basically a token and they would give you a much bigger tax cut. If they tried your route they would have it thrown in their faces after being the tax cut party for over 20 years.
 
The point of the stimulus bonus in the paycheck was so that people wouldn’t notice that they got extra money and would actually spend the money instead of paying off credit card bills that happened before when checks were issued.
Yes, I think mainstream economists agree with you.

However, even though I'm aware that different kinds of spending have different multiplier effects, it still seems to me that when someone pays down credit cards, that money kicks through the economy, but maybe just a multiplier slightly more than 1.
 
Last edited:
090126_r18148_p646.jpg


A SMARTER STIMULUS

The New Yorker, James Surowiecki, Jan. 26, 2009.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/01/26/a-smarter-stimulus

' . . . Past tax rebates, as many economists have argued in recent weeks, haven’t seemed to boost consumption as much as was hoped. . . '
So, yes, a little more in each paycheck does seem to be the mainstream view.

However, on this one, I think Obama should have compromised. Or, viewed a different way . . . should have taken the lion's share of both the economic benefit and the political benefit. You could even have called it a measure to boost public confidence. :)
 
090126_r18148_p646.jpg



So, yes, a little more in each paycheck does seem to be the mainstream view.

However, on this one, I think Obama should have compromised. Or, viewed a different way . . . should have taken the lion's share of both the economic benefit and the political benefit. You could even have called it a measure to boost public confidence. :)

To be honest I disagree with that view. I think when people don't notice the difference they act like they don't notice the difference and won't change anything until it is noticeable. They leave it in their checking account until it accumulates into a least a couple of hundred dollars extra and then either pay off the credit card or buy something. If they pay off the credit card all that means is that the credit card company builds its reserves by returned capital than borrowing from the Fed (Remember the Fed wanted to make sure that the banks had bigger reserves and they had to pass a stress test) so all that changes is that the Fed doesn't need to loan banks quite as much money.
 
A pound would get you a penny that the Republicans would accuse him of trying to bribe voters with the cheques.
. . . the republicans, fox news, the Rush's etc of talk radio . . .
. . . I recall one of my peers in business pounding the bar and calling that tax reduction fiscally irresponsible, deficit busting, and more Democrat action to destroy the US economy.
. . . they would claim the tax cut wasn't nearly big enough. . .
No question the hard right and even many run-of-the-mill and everyday Republicans would increase the rhetoric and make a lot of colorful statements, all the more so since this would be an issue they were losing on,

but . . .

Honest to gosh, there's an awful lot of people in the middle, and this is where the tectonic shifts happen in politics. So, if Pres. Obama and the Democratic Congress do a middle-class tax cut which is actually noticed by most members of the general public, the D's win the tax issue -- at least for a season, and maybe even several seasons.
 
No question the hard right and even many run-of-the-mill and everyday Republicans would increase the rhetoric and make a lot of colorful statements, all the more so since this would be an issue they were losing on,

but . . .

Honest to gosh, there's an awful lot of people in the middle, and this is where the tectonic shifts happen in politics. So, if Pres. Obama and the Democratic Congress do a middle-class tax cut which is actually noticed by most members of the general public, the D's win the tax issue -- at least for a season, and maybe even several seasons.

They would at least do better with the issue than OTL. It would take a big tax cut for them to win on the issue over Republicans. Instead of $400, it would have to be at least $800 otherwise the Republicans simply go for increasing the tax cut.
 
The issue wasn't the tax cuts. It was that Obama and co still were concerned about the deficit in the middle of a major economic downturn.
 
. . . Instead of $400, it would have to be at least $800 otherwise the Republicans simply go for increasing the tax cut.
I agree Obama and the Democratic Congress should have gone bigger.

In fact, I remember economist Paul Krugman, who was all in favor of a bigger stimulus, saying you can't ramp up infrastructure spending fast enough to make that much of a difference. Instead, you've got to go the directions of tax cuts, especially reducing withholding, to put more money in people's hands right now.
 
And thus began the 2008 near-meltdown of financial institutions.

To their credit, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, as well as President Bush, worked to stop the hemorrhage. At about the same time he was trying to swing a deal to save Lehman, Paulson succeeded in helping a deal in which Bank of America took over Merrill Lynch.

Congress passed a bailout early Oct. 2008. AIG and Bank of America received major money, as did other financial institutions.

Point being, the immediate crisis was over when Obama was inaugurated as President on Jan. 20, 2009. The challenge Obama faced was trying to push along a slow recovery.
 
Last edited:
The issue wasn't the tax cuts. It was that Obama and co still were concerned about the deficit in the middle of a major economic downturn.
I think Obama made a statement that this year we'll work on the recession, next year on reducing the deficit.

We should be spending money wisely all along, which we did, few if any scandals regarding the Obama stimulus money, publicized at least, I'm sure like any other human endeavor, all kinds of problems.

And then, a modern economy is almost biologically complex. You can't give it a rigid time frame.
 
I agree Obama and the Democratic Congress should have gone bigger.

In fact, I remember economist Paul Krugman, who was all in favor of a bigger stimulus, saying you can't ramp up infrastructure spending fast enough to make that much of a difference. Instead, you've got to go the directions of tax cuts, especially reducing withholding, to put more money in people's hands right now.

As I said earlier unless it really noticeable in every paycheck I don't think it would make a big difference, they just leave the extra couple hundred bucks in the checking account. A big check at the end of the year is noticeable in which case they either spend it or pay off their credit card bill.

Since the Fed wanted the banks to shore up their reserves anyways I am not sure it would be a bad thing. The banks would simply use that money to shore up their reserves instead of money from elsewhere, short term impact would be that they could lend more out from elsewhere with little impact in short term spending. Long term people aren't wasting money paying interest so they have more money to spend in the economy.
 
I remember on Election Night 2008 after Obama was declared the winner, there were many mainstream pundits on television saying that the first priority for Obama was to reduced the deficit first.
When the stimulus was first proposed there was a conscience decision to keep it under a trillion dollars which turned out to be enough to keep the economy going but not enough to expand fast enough to overcome the worst effects of the recession until a couple of years later when the economy picked up on its own.
While other countries went with an austerity recovery plan, the United States was the only country not to slip back in to a mild recession because the United States did stimulus.
The main reason that the recession was so deep and long was because of the requirements by many States and local governments to maintain a balanced budget and that meant deep cuts in spending and laying off of government workers that took money out of the economy, and it didn't help that many state and local governments decided to cut taxes even further and that caused even deeper cuts in government services at a time when they were needed more.
 
I'm a pessimist, so I find it funny that some of you think people would spend it wisely either way. Give a check for $400, and people would use it to buy a new iphone, or TV, and ignore the credit card bill coming due.
Give them 10 bucks a week, they'll spend an extra 10 bucks a week, ignoring that credit card bill coming due.

The question is whether to have a one time spending bump, or a weekly spending bump.
 
Top