Generally, I use “Stop talking” with tgirsch. I have been known, though, to have to resort to throwing things at him.

Good overall point, too.

Either way, the advantage would go to Kerry, unless you fell asleep waiting for him to finish typing something like you do when you’re waiting for him to finish a sentence. If you take away Bush’s aw shucks affability or his cockshure get tough demeanor, there isn’t much substance.

JFK: I propose to create new jobs with manufacturing tax credits and providing incentives to stop the outsourcing of jobs and offshoring of corporations overseas.

GWB: MY UPPON^B^B^B^B OPONIN^B^B^B^B FOE DOES NOT UNNERSTAND HOW THE REAL ECONAMEE WORKS. WE NEED MORE TAX CUTS IF THINGS ARE TO WORK RIGHT. THIS HAS BEEN PROVED OVER AND OVER EVER TIME AND AGIN WITH MY POLOS^B^B^B POLAC^B^B^B PROGRAMS. AND DONT FORGOT THE WAR ON TERRIR IS OUR TOP PRYOR^B^B^B PRIORA^B^B^B GOAL ANY WAYS.

What SKB attributes to Kerry appears to be directly from Kerry’s web site. (Expand the “Reviving American Manufacturing tab, near the bottom):

Over 2.7 million manufacturing jobs have been lost since President Bush took office. John Kerry will save jobs by ending the unpatriotic practice of U.S. corporations moving offshore simply to avoid paying their fair share of our nation’s tax burden. To create new manufacturing jobs Kerry will provide new tax breaks to manufacturers who produce goods and create jobs in the United States. He will provide relief for manufacturers that provide quality health care and retirement. John Kerry will strongly enforce trade laws to assure that American industries are on a level playing field with our trading partners. To guarantee that American manufacturing will be strong in the future, John Kerry will invest in research and development, give tax incentives to help industries upgrade, and work to assure a highly qualified workforce.

Emphasis mine.

But you’re both missing the point…

I didn’t miss the point; I was merely countering Uncle’s line of argument before it started. Wasn’t trying to any particular line of reasoning to you. Sorry ’bout that.

Just curious, but on what basis do you say this? I’m no accountant, but I was under the impression that tax credits were virtually always preferable to tax cuts. I suppose if you didn’t pay any taxes at all, it wouldn’t make much difference…

Which part of the Constitution authorizes the President to “create jobs”?

Kerry would tell you that when he was “in-country” earning medals that Bush was too busy ducking service to learn about economics & that his (Bush’s) plan would create an economic quagmire like the one he (Kerry) dealt with in Viet-Nam & the one going on in Iraq.

Of course the SS would quietly but forcefully escort you out of the building right afterwards. mentioning the constitution makes them “nervous”.

I’m not a tax accountant but, IIRC, credits reduce tax owed. Cuts reduce the rates to compute taxes. both have the impact of reducing tax burden (if you pay taxes).

I would answer Article II, Section 3, but that’s just me:

[The President] shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.

After all, that’s all a Presidential jobs creation plan would be, wouldn’t it?

Truth to tell, the President isn’t explicitly granted the power to do much of anything domestically.

That’s my understanding as well. But unless a tax CUT is significantly larger than a tax CREDIT, I would think the credit would be preferable. Certainly a tax credit is preferable to a tax deduction, but that’s another matter…

Bingo. If you’re going to try to manipulate people’s behavior (and the economy in the process) you’ll have better results if you figure out what incentives will get them to behave how you want and tailor them accordingly vs. the shotgun approach of throwing everthing against the wall and seeing what sticks.

Or something like that.

Who’d a thunk it? And here all this time, i thought it was about funding the operation of our government.

And that, folks, is all it should be about.

Social engineering through the tax code is nothing more than blackmail, something that used to be considered against the law.

A brief digression, if I may; in control system engineering, a fundamental design principle is that you need a handle for each parameter you’re trying to control. While there are instances when a single handle can control two variables, (example, level control and flow control using a single flow control valve) if the two variables require separate control actions (level increase opens flow valve, while flow limits require the valve to close), you lose control of the system. One variable is controlled at the expense of the other.

Back to cases. By using the tax code to promote social engineering, you wind up with a system that is inefficient at both tasks.

Which could explain why the printed version of the tax code weighs more than I do.

By the way, the other key difference between a cut and a credit, is that a cut can only bring you down to zero taxes owed. A credit, on the other hand (EIC and Child Tax Credit as examples) can actually reduce your taxes below zero, so that the gov’t owes you money.

My ex pays about $1300 in withholding each year. Her refund over the last 3 years has averaged about $4500, thanks to the increased Child Tax Credit.

Which part of the Constitution authorizes the President to “create jobs”?

It’s quite clearly the part about wanting to get elected and thus its required that the President pander to the voters.

Re: role of the President. It’s not supposed to be much of a role. He’s the Prime Minister of Parliament, but pulled out of that body to provide yet another check on government action. It’s the natural human tendency to look for The One Guy In Charge (the alpha male) that has invested the office with so much over time. Jackson took that into overdrive; then T. Roosevelt; then FRD took it to warp. We’ve been suffering ever since.

Wow, you’ve cornered the market on straw, haven’t you… I don’t see where anyone here suggested that the purpose of taxation was social engineering. Some have suggested that you can achieve social engineering by tweaking the tax code.

But you know, I might be able to live with a tax code that doesn’t do social engineering. That way, Bill Gates’ long-term capital gains would be taxed at the full 35% they should be rather than the paltry 15% that they currently are.