Reuters withdraws article reporting on the impacts of the President's FY2011 federal budget, 'Backdoor taxes to hit middle class,' then issues an advisory

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not their own facts. Some people form opinion without facts. A lot of opinions are inconsistent with the real world.

You have no facts to back up your opinion.

Greg J - you mean it wasn't true therefore did not tow the WH line or that it specifically was a bunch of L I E S in order to claim the WH was wrong?

In either event, Reuters had to admit the story was a crock of L I E S

Deny reality all you want; it only demonstrates the obvious character flaw

"I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for you meddling kids"....Scooby Doo

Thank you Catch22

Factually false - the Obama budget does inlude the tax cuts - just not as part of the original bill, as part of the current bill

You are not the only one with this falsehood - this is the "factual errors" as described in the article you seeded - you are repeating the same lies as reuters just corrected

You see, there are differences between appropriation laws and authorization laws; and even greater differences between the President’s budget submission to Congress (as required by the Constitution) and the actual legislation.

I am very familiar with the difference - another reason why it is false to blame Obama for expiration of the tax cuts.   The President gives proposals that frame the debate - in his proposal he asked congrss not to change tax rates for those the article he claimed did.

Another fact:  That a sunset provision duly enacted by law expires is NOT raising taxes.

Another fact: Even if it were, Obama expressly asked Congress not to do that.

Another fact:  The details of the appropriations legisilation is written by the House and not the Executive Branch.

Should the President’s budget be approved (exactly as submitted by Obama) by the two Houses of the Congress and in turn signed by the President into law, the so-called Bush Tax Cuts would expire at the end of this year (a tax law is an authorization and in this case sunsets on the last day of 2010) despite the "assumptions" made in the President’s budget. Period.

That is an assumption not a fact.  That is also not the way it works.  "Period."

"BTW, that's not opinion, that's the fact"

Its not a fact. The legisilative process is not an operation of natural law or scientific fact. Its not how it happens in the real world. Its not how people reasonably expect it to happen. You confuse how you interpret how it could or what you believe should happen to a Presidential Budget proposal and how they are actually done. The fact is the HOUSE writes appropriations, the Constitution requires it. The fact is that Obama asked them not allow tax rates to rise on those people and that if Congress signed an appropration that did so, it would not be consistent with his proposal. That is a fact.

The fact is the article was withdrawn becaues of factual errors. That you believe it has some form of truth does not make it true.

And so the ignorance continues

NO it is included in each item; not listed as a continuation of tax cuts; it is built in

Your comment is kind of like saying you don't believe the car ahs 4 wheels unless it lests the four wheels - you can see them but believe they do not exist

Crazy much?

I know its a silly question but I'm not easily impressed with statements coming from DC! If he didn't put it in writing then I'm certain I can look forward to a budget cut at my house very soon.

What is "silly" is ignoring the facts (impression has little to do with it) and instead opting to stick with a false discredited story.

It is also silly to somehow assume that Congress is going raise your taxes let alone be "certain." Dont confuse gut politics with certainty.

Did you know that since Obama has been President taxes have gone down on 95% of Americans?

Forgive me for being skeptical but THIS IS the president who just spent the entire first year of his presidency asking the American people to pass his health care plan.

but I like black and white

You have not provided anything like that at all.

It is also the President who lowered taxes on 95% of Americans - doesnt matter if you are Democrat Repbublican or none of the above.

empirical data has no meaning if you believe.

What "empircal data" are you talking about?

You seem to be the one ignoring the actual data and substituting emotional political opinion and feeling.  By all means share your emprical data.

"

Explanations won't help, nor will facts."

Dont you see the irony in the fact that you have provided no explanations and no facts except debunked facts. Go ahead explain with facts.

Obama's budget proposal is a fact, what facts are you pointing to exactly?

My taxes did not decrease this year or since he has been in office so I must be the other 5%. That is a fact.

A lot of people believe a lot of things that may or may not be true - that is a fact. People are often biased too. A sampe of one is not statistically significant. all facts.

When Obama raises taxes on anyone, it means those revenues that use to run through the filter of sales taxes will no longer be available to tax at the state or city level. So raise the taxes and further hurt the local economies - this is economics 101 fact!

First, he hasnt raised taxes.
Second, if he does he wont be the first President to do so - including "Saint" Reagan.
Third,

Money spent by the government is available and can be targeted to help economies, that is a economics 101 fact. There are tradeoffs in such policies and no simple answer to the question as to whether a particular tax rate will hurt or help the economy.

You seem to have missed at least half of economics 101 - perhaps you missed the days about kensian ecomomics or you took the right wing version of economics 101?

"

Keynesian economics is just plain dumb - it tells us that if we take 1,500 (as an example) from every citizen and then give that money back to targeted industries we can kick start an economy. This is the same socialist idea from Russia....Not an opinion but a fact"

That is a dumb explanation and do you honestly believe that merely by saying that government spending cant help the economy that some how makes it so by faith?

This is ALL opinion, and badly supported opinion. HINT this is not remotely "the same as socialist idea from Russia." That is a fact - the definitions of kensian economics and Russian socialism are fundamentaly different.

Why would any sane person argue for those that spend record amounts of money and create record amounts of deficits which will result in record amounts of taxation on all of us? This my friend is nutty!

The Reagan administration increased the deficit by more than all prior administrations combined - that is a real fact -we are still paying for it. The Reagan and Bush I and II administrations added more to the deficit than any Presidents in history - fact.

Under Bush and Clinton this did not occur.

Under Clinton the ballooning deficit was reversed - that is a real fact.

The top income tax bracket was 90% during some of the some of the highest growing years in America (in my opinion way to high but directly contradicting your attempt to equate lower highest tax brackets with prosperty).

Keynes was a man made popular by those in government not those who had to pay the taxes. He advocated a message that those in power like to hear so they made him a hero.

This is complete and total bull@!$%# as well as irrelevant adhominem. You confuse your ideological based opinions with fact, over and over and over again. Denial, insults and conclusory claims.

OVERALL FEDERAL TAX BURDEN ON MOST FAMILIES — INCLUDING MIDDLE-INCOME FAMILIES — AT LOWEST LEVELS IN MORE THAN TWO DECADES Income Taxes for Median Family of Four at Lowest Level in 44 Years

Let me break it down for you in elementary terms. If the economy is bad as it is now - don't you think that it's better to let every American keep 1,500 a year more of their money or give it to "evil" corporations to build a bridge or a road in that same city? Take a fictional city of 10,000 ppl X $1,500.00 each in lower taxes which equates to 15 Million in actual cash flow that is now released to all of the businesses equally and that means that same town will have 15 million in new cash to tax at the sales tax level increasing revenue to hurting cities. This is not Keynes at all but Hayek would agree to this policy and so would every sane American. Keynes would say that we need to keep those taxes and target a few segments of society to help start the economy which is economical dumb! It's economically dumb because you are saying that you will take money out of 300 million americans to give to 200-300 businesses that employee less than 50,000 jobs? Ok so what about the other 155 million jobs that now don't have access to that cash since the government took it out of the local economy (this is dumb). This supposes that one company in this city, building one road will spend 15 million across the city which will not happen since you actually have to buy the dirt, tractors, labor, asphalt etc. and the grant for the bridge was 3 million to start so now you are 12 million lower than if you just gave the city the tax cut in the first place! We don't need all of the agencies in the government to start with so how about cutting them out of the picture instead of my neighbors budgets?

Keynes as an economist was discredited in late 1970's by both the USA and Britian and wasn't brought back until now by both of the same countries. Which is ironic since both countries now have men who believe in government intervention through taxation to solve all crises, more Keynes.

It wasn't the Reagan admin that single-handedly increased the deficit, although he helped for sure, but it was the congress (democratic controlled) that increased it. Defense spending didn't even double under Reagan but social spending by the Democrat congress did double. So if you are going to debate about Regan at least be as honest as I am as both Regan and the Democrats were to blame. You will never get an argument out of me as i previously stated before concerning this issue. Secondly since 1933 -1980 under complete Democratic control our country went into debt year after year after year. This is a long trend to ignore!

Concerning the highest growing years in America came after WWII. You fail to mention that our country didn't get bombed into ashes like Europe and Asia thus allowing us to become a major exporter of products resulting in carzies growth our country has ever seen that could sustain high taxation and a nice lifestyle.

Why is Keynes and Russia a lot like each other you ask? Because Russia believed that through price controls it could coordinate a complex system of economics and provide a smooth system for all involved - this has shown to not work at all. Keynes believed that the government knew best on how to start up an economy from a down slide by taking money from the very people that need it and filter 40% of it out through government payrolls, paperwork etc. and then give the rest to its buddies. This is called Government waste.

Hayek would rather the government cut its spending, reduce taxes to the citizens and let that money which is at 100% unfiltered to enter into the marketplace and increase economic livelihood.

The overall federal tax burden on most families in over 2 decades that you talk about - you can thank the Bush Administration and the Republicans for cutting those taxes to reduce that burden on those families. Not one tax cut can I find in any bill going to any family from the Obama Administration or this congress. A tax cut is one that is in the books and is permanent until a new bill is introduced to change that provision. I state this plainly just in case you are about to reiterate the Obama tale of giving tax cuts to 95% all american's - haha that is a good one!

However if you do plan on using that line please direct me and the readers here on where you find that bill and on what page would that be on? I would surely like to read it.

My equation of the Regan era was to show that if you lower taxes on the American people that revenues go up not down. The argument by those in power holding our wallets in their hands always state that "we can't afford those tax cuts". Yes they can afford them, first of all cut the programs and lower the taxes and watch federal revenue go up. It really is that simple!

I feel that this will be my last post since I can tell that you are unable to directly answer the question of what is better, giving money to the government to direct spending into the economy or letting Americans keep more of its money to spend locally? The first is socialism since it dictates to us which company will receive what money (this is government saying it knows best - socialism) the last being that Americans determine who gets their money which is the American way.

So if you do respond please tell us readers how exactly increasing the federal budget which has to borrow 33% from somebody else to pay for it is good for us? How can taking money out of our local economy and giving it to a few companies is actually going to help us? See this administration refuses to allow us to keep more of our money to increase domestic spending - imagine if just 20% of what you are taxed came back to your pocket book this week and every week for the next 52 weeks? Then imagine if the 10,000 other people in your town had the same thing happen, I suspect the small businesses would be hurting less than they are now!

Lastly: Keynes was made popular by those in government plain and simple. Other economist like Hayek called him an intellectual lightweight which later on we discovered he really was. I dare you to ask average Joe what he thinks is a better policy — Keynes on taxing and government spending or Hayek policy of taking less from americans so they "all" have more to spend and see what they say? It really is that common sense. It isn't that difficult to understand.

Cheers,

Let me break it down for you in elementary terms. If the economy is bad as it is now - don't you think that it's better to let every American keep 1,500 a year more of their money or give it to "evil" corporations to build a bridge or a road in that same city?

The world is not so simplistic and corporations arent evil they are without morals - out to make money within the rules set by government. You can rely on simple minded ideologically faith based story time, but the facts show that targeted spending can be a lot more effective at stimulating the economy than tax cuts. Emprical evidence over time shows this whether you want to believe it or not.

In elementary terms, there were tax cuts passed for 95% of Americans included in the stimulous package already.

The first is socialism

It is evident you do not know what Socialism is, if you were correct then the United States and every other nation on the planet is Socialist and has been for a long time. Its not a black and white universe where it is either ALWAYS better to have government spending money or ALWAYS better to have zero taxes. IT depends on the cirucumstances, having government is better than anarchy and you need to pay for it.

Tax cuts have been shown not to be the magic elixer that ideologues believe - notice how the Bush/GOP tax cuts failed to deliver what they promised and instead of prospertiy left us with the worst economic conditions since the great depresion.

Much like the Bush administration, ideologues see tax cuts as a recippe for every problem.

It really is that common sense.

Nope its blind ideology that in reality has failed just as it did between 2001 and 2008. I bet you have a common sense explanation for those failures too right?

Its true common sense that people do better with Government than they do without any government whatsoever. There can be too much or too little government accross many parameters. People might dream of a world that doesnt need government - you have that in common with Karl Marx. We know how realistic his dream of the State fading away is right?

Cheers

I just want to know why it's always a Democratic president's fault when the economy goes South when the president is a Democrat, but it's always Congress's fault that the economy went South when the president's a Republican.

And if anything good happens in the economy, it can always be tied back to the last Republican in office?

How hypocritical are Republicans?

Brian,

In asnwer to your question: the economy performs better under Democratic presidents than it does under Republican presidents.

http://currencythoughts.com/2008/08/19/how-the-us-economy-performed-under-democrat-and-republican-presidents/

I won't even go into how high marginal tax rates were during the 50's and 60's and how the economy prospered anyway.

George:

To your comment about the 50's and 60's you fail to understand the implications of being the only country from WWII that wasn't blown to oblivion. This is data that I posted up top. We prospered because we were at 100% manufacturing capacity after the war and was quickly able to convert war making products into free market products the world over desired. I don't blame one party over the other. Both parties have given us deficits from day one. My argument is why would we desire more government spending over them reducing there budgets allowing ours to get bigger. Fact - average income earners under Republicans paid less in federal taxes than under Democrats. I'm sorry but i refuse to apologize for believing that I have a right to my wages. Feel free to give yours away to ideology of bigger government to become your parents.

nms,

I do not fail to understand any implications. You fail to understand that the US economy has been better under Democratic Presidents than under Republican ones. You overlook the simple reality that Republican presidents do not lead to economic prosperity. They are in fact detrimental to it.

Your argument is that somehow Republicans are better for the economy. I provided you data that that is not accurate. Your response is to look at the remark about tax rates in the 50's and 60's and ignore that your premise is in fact wrong.

To add insult to injury, I shall point out that the tax rates under Reagan were higher than they are now until his final 13 months in office. So in fact just about everything you have claimed is fact is really just what you want to believe without any basis in facts.

You are wrong. The data shows you to be wrong.

Reagans tax rates went up under Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton and was reduced to the current rates by Bush W. My argument about the 50's and 60's was to point out the fact that our economy grew by leaps and bounds due to a world needing products that only the U.S. was producing as a result of the aftermath of WWII. This should be taken into consideration when looking at your referenced article. You could say hey Reagan increased defense spending by almost 180 billion a year and then I could say yes and under that same democrat controlled congress social spending doubled and then you could say Clinton had surpluses and I could then say yes but he arranged for legislation resulting in current housing crises and on and on. But here is a fact I hope you can agree with: The Democrats and the Republicans only create government programs and never cut them and it's costing you and I over 30% of our income before we start paying money to our local governments. The deficit rose by 1 Trillion dollars in 2009 and will almost goto 2 trillion this year. It doesn't matter who is to blame if we don't cut government we will not have an internet to argue much longer.

You really don't like data, do you? It will take you all of five seconds to google Reagan's tax Rates. Until the final 13 months of his second term, the tax rate was 38.5%, at which point he dropped it to help George HW get elected.

If you wish to discuss the housing crisis, you need to go back before Clinton. We could keep going back and forth on this, but as I pointed out earlier, you have a very simple double-standard: Republicans can do no wrong, even when they are in charge, it's always someone else's fault.

You are being disingenuous.

Ha - I wish Republicans could do no wrong then i could sleep better at night!

It's a fact that under Clinton he mandated that banks give out loans to people to get houses that couldn't afford it, this is a known event which lead to people buying two houses and getting no down loans and ARM loans and all this came to a head. I don't care who is in charge it's wrong to try and social engineer our economy as it always ends up in disaster. I assure I have no love for Republicans or any other party!

Tax cuts were not in the stimulus bill - I would ask that you refer me to the page number to prove your point?

Tax cuts are a part of the Stimulus bill. Here's a pdf from an accounting firm outlining the tax implications (they spec portions of the bill that are tax related):

Tax cuts were not in the stimulus bill

Have you actually read anything objective about the bill?
Here are some quick examples, I am not here to be your research asisstant.
-Allows an income tax credit of up to $400 for individuals with an adjusted gross income of less than $70,000 or $800 for joint returns for taxpayers with an adjusted gross income of less than $140,000 (Div. B, Sec. 1001).
-Rescinds taxes on up to $2,400 of unemployment benefits (Division B, Sec. 1007).
-Increases the credit percentage for taxpayers with three or more children to 45 percent and reduces the marriage tax by changing the formula for the amount of credit allowed (Div. B, Sec. 1002).
-Extends the first-time homebuyer's tax credit to December 1, 2009 and increases the maximum amount of the tax credit to $8,000 or $4,000 for married individuals filing separately (Div. B, Sec. 1006).
-Extends tax credits for electricity produced from wind facilities until 2013, and from other renewable resource facilities such as biomass, geothermal, solar energy, landfill gas, trash combustion, and qualified hydropower facilities until 2014 (Div. B, Sec. 1101).

have run into persons like yourself before and realize that debating you isn't useful since you refuse to show by math how stimulus bills are better than tax cuts.

That is pretty iroinic since you have provided no such "math" go ahead and show your math that you imagine proves your claim. Go ahead and show by math why after all of the tax cuts during the Bush administration the nation entered into the worst economic times since the great depression? Tax cuts was the Bush administration solution to everything and it failed miserably. Care to show with math otherwise?

Its not useful to try to rational discuss this issue because you simply refuse to consider anything other than your ideological faith in tax cuts. You dont even know what is in the stimulus bill. You also continue to show your confusion by assuming that either stimulus bills are always better than tax cuts or vice versa - its not the way works. You also seem to be under the delusion that only stimulous money costs anything and that tax cuts are some how free.

These are tax credits not tax cuts. You might say they are the same but they are not since these tax credits are one time events and not a change in the tax brackets. A tax cut means congress will lower your taxes that you are required to pay annually until a new law comes into effect changing that tax bracket for your income level. A tax credit lowers your taxes if you qualify for that credit. In this stimulus bill this is not your usual tax credit as most are a one time event not guaranteed annually. So yes you can argue he lowered taxes for those that qualified for these credits but he did not give a tax "cut".

These are tax credits not tax cuts.

Most of the tax cuts were in the form of credits, some were not - they are still cutting taxes..

You see you dont define words to suit your ideology or politics. A tax cut is a change in law that "cuts" that lowers the amount of taxes cut. Of course a tax cut that is also permanent, is a permanent tax cut. A tax cut that involves chaning tax brackets is a bracket tax cut.

So yes you can argue he lowered taxes for those that qualified for these credits but he did not give a tax "cut".

In other words he cut their taxes but just not in a way that you believe qualifies for your own subjective reasons.

You provide no basis to believe that tax credits are inferior to tax cuts that do not involve credits, when in fact, tax credits can be targeted to those more likely to spend and stimulate the economy.

I am still waiting for you math. I wont be surprised if you claim that "math" is subjective conclusions when you support tax cuts, but not when you dont.

Please show with math how the George W. Bush tax cuts failed to do what you claim they always do?

Indeed, the top income tax rate was 91% in the 1950s, but the S&P 500 rose 245%. On the other hand, the combined federal tax on income and investment during the presidency of George W. Bush was lower than at any time post-World War II. Despite the relatively low tax burden, the S&P fell 36% on Bush's watch.

And you were where when the technology bubble busted? Anytime you over buy, over spend without any short term returns you get a bubble that pops! Gold is always the true heartbeat of confidence in an economy as that is the last place to invest!

the 70's didn't stop until Reagan stepped in and helped out the middle class by cutting taxes to them by over 35%.

Care to show your math especially the part where all middle class familes have a total tax burden 35% less due to Reagan.

Did youeven know that Reagan was one of the biggest deficit increasers in history and that his proposed budgets would have left the deficits even higher. Care to use facts and actual math as you said is necessary.

Deficits - Reagans defense spending didn't double in 8 years of his administration, yet the democrat controlled congress did double social spending programs in that same time period. They are BOTH to blame. Can you tell me the name of the person who is actually taking our economic situation serious enough to cut spending by 35% to be back in black? 2008 deficit of 458 billion and 2009 it goes to 1.4 trillion and expected to be upwards of 2 trillion this year. We can argue back and forth but this administration has the grand prize of all mother deficit spending.

So far, the top prizes to date goes to Reagan, George HW Bush and George W. Bush - the top 3 deficits of completed terms. This administration inherrited the worst economic conditions since the Great Depression.

Can you tell me the name of the person who is actually taking our economic situation serious enough to cut spending by 35% to be back in black?

Words are cheap. I think you meant promise. George W. Bush claimed there was no way that the surpluses would decline under his Presidency.

There is no one with the power to cut spending by 35% at this time and do so without totally wrecking the national and world economies.

I can tell you the name of teh President who put the nation into more red ink than all Presidents in history combined before him. I can tell you the name of the President under which we went from record deficits to record projected surpluses and the name of the President under which we went from projected record surpluses back to record deficits.

I agree wholeheartedly that Obama inherited a drowning economy. But what in the world does that have to do with record breaking increases in government spending? It's called leadership, you are given a hand that you must deal with. You can't just say "hey I inherited this so don't blame me" all the while you are increasing the budgets of various government agencies by 75%.

The deficit in 2007 was 160 billion in 2008 it was 458 billion and then in 2009 it was 1.4 TRILLION. I don't blame Obama for what he walked into, i do blame him for not taking care of it now that he is in office.

I really honestly with all of my heart hope you don't believe that our government cutting its spending by 35% will wreck world economies? If you study other governments in economic woes like Greece the actual solution demanded of them is to cut spending to reinvigorate their economy. I think I finally see where you're coming from now. You believe in government more than yourself!

I also think you confuse me with someone who puts a party ahead of my pursuit of happiness, if so you would be wrong. Think about this in 2009 the interest payment that we made was 383 billion, that was close to 19% of actual revenue that the U.S. govt took in the same year. By next year it will be over 500 Billion. Just how long do you believe "govt spending" can continue and still pay an staggering interest payment that doesn't even touch the principle?

Hey fight for govt spending if you desire so but i would like for you to explain just how long you think this can go on?

But what in the world does that have to do with record breaking increases in government spending?

That spending is credited by most objective observers as having helped prevent a second great depression.

The drowning economy also resulted in droping government revenue and increased demand for assitance - see the link.

I think I finally see where you're coming from now. You believe in government more than yourself!

You apparently are coming from imaginary pscyhobable projection. You obviously have no idea where I am coming from.

I also think you confuse me with someone who puts a party ahead of my pursuit of happiness, if so you would be wrong.

Nope, maybe ideology ahead of the real world. Then again government policy isnt designed to maximize your individual pursuit of happiness - you have to be a totalitarian dictator to get that kind of policy. I dont doubt that you may prefer a government that matches your subjective personal idead of maximizing your happiness - try convincing most of the rest of those people.

In our Democracy everyone has a say on what the government should look like for all of the American people with the Constitution guaranteeing certain rights.

Hey fight for govt spending if you desire so but i would like for you to explain just how long you think this can go on?

Government spending has existed since the nation was founded. Sometimes its appropriate to do more, sometimes less. In our history, the deficit has gone up a lot more under Republican Presidents in modern history. Not all deficit spending is created equal - sometimes it can be a good idea, especially appropriately utilized in a down economy, often its a very bad idea. The 8 years under Clinton saw the country move away from deficit spending, the 8 years under Bush saw it come right back, at this moment in history most objective observers believe cutting spending is about a good idea as raising taxes.

10,000 citizens getting 1,500 each in lower taxes would have an extra 15 million in extra cash to spend locally - nothing and i mean nothing can be better at jump starting that economy than a tax cut to make this happen. This is the ultimate stimulus bill :)

Thats the kind of empty claims that were made by the Bush administration - it didnt work and helped lead to the mess we are in today.

If tax cuts can't help the economy then why offer housing tax credits? Why offer credits to businesses to hire employees, why offer credits to american families hurting from the economies. If reducing the amount of money you have to pay the government doesn't help the economy then why all these credits?

After the housing tax credit was introduced low and behold housing sales went up and then tapered off at the end when they decided to renew it. You must be a lobbyist? Only such a person could believe that continued or more govt spending is the answer to a drowning economy.

If tax cuts can't help the economy

No one said they "cant" but rather just pointed out their utility is far more limited than advertised by many right wingers. The world isnt a simple black and white thing where all tax cuts are always good or always bad. They depend on how where and when and what are the tradeoffs. There are no free lunches.

Tax credits are one factor of many that influence housing prices.