Obama's tax cuts & big spending was a promised stimulus. How does he justify doing the opposite now?

I understand the idea behind the spending in Keynesian economics. But if Obama is using Keynesian policy, then why the abrupt, opposite plan. This seems either schizophrenic or intentionally destructive to me.|||It is a knee-jerk reaction to the attacks from teabaggers...and yes, it is destructive...





We are reliving the 1930's.|||President Obama had agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for 2 more years. No doubt, his economic advisors told him that it would be a good idea to do so, in order to stimulate the economy and try to increase the money supply and the consumer's need to spend.





On the other hand, while increaing the money supply, it also results in the natinal debt ballooning. At some point in the future, we have to pay back, what we are borrowing now. I am thinking that he wishes to start the "dialog" now, so that we have a plan in 2 years time, when the tax cuts expire, so that the Congress is not rushing around trying to pass a last minute, poorly written, bill.





While I personally enjoy the tax cuts, and they also benefit me directly. I don't mind paying a little bit extra, in order to SAVE THE COUNTRY.





My own idea is to have EVERYONE pay a little bit more. Even the working poor should be made to pay SOMETHING in the way of taxes. The idea that 45% of Americans pay NO INCOME TAXES is crazy. And no, it's not just the rich and their loopholes that are doing it.





I would suggest raising federal income taxes between 1 and 5 percent, depending on the earnings of a person. The poor need to pay about 1 percent more a year. The wealthy need to pay about 5 percent more a year. These numbers are not at all outrageous, but would rebalance the budget.|||"Obama's tax cuts %26amp; big spending was a promised stimulus."





Right, and it worked. The DJIA has nearly doubled since he took office.





"But if Obama is using Keynesian policy, then why the abrupt, opposite plan."





It is not "abrupt". See above.





Much has changed since 2009. Publicly traded companies are doing just fine. It's the people who are screwed.|||It is better than the Republican's broken record stance on tax cuts for the wealthy. I remember in February 2001 when Bush released his budget plan. He said that we were running a surplus, which meant government was collecting too much tax payer money, so he instituted tax cuts. This ran up deficits, and sent us into a small recession. So in order to build a revenue surplus, Bush wanted more tax cuts. So if tax cuts reduce government revenue, how can they also create more government revenue? It can't be both.|||According to literally 100% of Democrats


tax-cuts = government spending


AND


government spending = stimulus to the economy.


AND


tax-cuts hurt the economy.





Now seriously; do you expect any Democrat to make any sense?|||He has always said he wouldn't raise taxes on single people making $200,000 or less and couples making $250,000 or less. So it's neither schizophrenic nor destructive.|||Tarp was actually created before Obama hit the Whitehouse.