As predicted, folks are seeing they've been had

[FUCK THE POLICE]

That would be the Democratic voters. Those that switched affiliation are concerned about the deficits, spending, and government control. Guess who elected hope & change? Not the Democrats.

Meh. If we do some good then our vote will increase. The only way we can certainly lose is if we stay divided and do nothing.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

When talking about what a "top tax rate" should be, I think it's essential to differentiate government taxation that's essentially sent back to taxpayers from taxation that the average taxpayer is not usually going to get back. Social security, medicare, education spending etc... would fall into one category, while military spending, scientific research, etc... would go into the other. A lot of it is merely mandatory risk pooling, and some things are better handled if regulated by society in that manner.

The debate about lowering taxation should not be about merely indiscriminately cutting government spending and taxation just for the sake of doing so, it should be about taxation efficiency.

 

[Onceler]

When talking about what a "top tax rate" should be, I think it's essential to differentiate government taxation that's essentially sent back to taxpayers from taxation that the average taxpayer is not usually going to get back. Social security, medicare, education spending etc... would fall into one category, while military spending, scientific research, etc... would go into the other. A lot of it is merely mandatory risk pooling, and some things are better handled if regulated by society in that manner.

The debate about lowering taxation should not be about merely indiscriminately cutting government spending and taxation just for the sake of doing so, it should be about taxation efficiency.

I would never advocate indiscriminate cuts. When I talk about a 33% top rate, I think that should be our goal. I don't think anyone should have to pay more than a third of their income to income taxes.

It's a worthy goal; all it takes is some commitment.

 

[Canceled2]

For the record, my understanding was always "income tax." When he's talking about ranges like $250K, and talking with guys like Joe the Plumber, that's how I understood it. I understood it to mean keeping the Bush tax cuts for that group, and not raising them.

To be honest, that is what is important to me. I think the tax rate is too high, anyway, and have always advocated for not just lower taxes, but a top tax rate of 33%. If Obama repeals the Bush cuts for everyone, or otherwise raises income taxes on the range specified, he pretty likely loses my vote (I say pretty likely, because I'll have to see what the alternatives are).

If you want to make hay out of things like cig & liquor taxes, be my guest; it's not how I took it, and it's not what is important to me.

That's right Onceler, let Obama get you looking at his left hand while he clobbers ya with his right...btw ALL the talk is and has been, that Congress plans on allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire...like DUH!

 

[Canceled1]

The Adolph Bush should have warned him how hard it was going to be.

I wonder if the Benito McCain would have fared better...

I don't know, but one thing's for sure. We don't have to make up Barack Hussein Obamas name.

It's part of the record.

I wonder if his kids will name their kids, Mike or Pete, or be more modern day and call them Mahmoud bin laden Obe Wan Kanobe?

 

[Onceler]

That's right Onceler, let Obama get you looking at his left hand while he clobbers ya with his right...btw ALL the talk is and has been, that Congress plans on allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire...like DUH!

ID, you should know that I don't consider you to be very intelligent, and I also believe you to be something of a hack. All you have to do is tell me that you were going to respond, and I can pretty much guess what that response will be.

As I said, if Obama lets the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone, he's cooked...

 

[Annie]

I'm asking specifically for proof that he broke his promise on income taxes. It keeps getting repeated here - and by you, as well, Tutu.

But when I ask for the proof - for the measure that raised our taxes, I get nuthin'....

Not on 'income' but on others:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/

Promise Broken rulings on the Obameter

No. 24: End income tax for seniors making less than $50,000
"Will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year. This will eliminate taxes for 7 million seniors -- saving them an average of $1,400 a year-- and will also mean that 27 million seniors will not need to file an income tax return at all.">>More

No. 234: Allow five days of public comment before signing bills
To reduce bills rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them, Obama "will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.">>More

No. 240: Tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials
"No political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years. And no political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration.">>More

No. 505: Create a $3,000 tax credit for companies that add jobs
"During 2009 and 2010, existing businesses will receive a $3,000 refundable tax credit for each additional full-time employee hired.">>More

No. 508: Allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009
"Obama and Biden are calling for legislation that would allow withdrawals of 15% up to $10,000 from retirement accounts without penalty (although subject to the normal taxes). This would apply to withdrawals in 2008 (including retroactively) and 2009.">>More

No. 511: Recognize the Armenian genocide
"Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term 'genocide' to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. … as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.">>More

No. 517: Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN
To achieve health care reform, "I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies -- they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process.">>More

 

[Good Luck]

For the record, my understanding was always "income tax." When he's talking about ranges like $250K, and talking with guys like Joe the Plumber, that's how I understood it. I understood it to mean keeping the Bush tax cuts for that group, and not raising them.

To be honest, that is what is important to me. I think the tax rate is too high, anyway, and have always advocated for not just lower taxes, but a top tax rate of 33%. If Obama repeals the Bush cuts for everyone, or otherwise raises income taxes on the range specified, he pretty likely loses my vote (I say pretty likely, because I'll have to see what the alternatives are).

If you want to make hay out of things like cig & liquor taxes, be my guest; it's not how I took it, and it's not what is important to me.

In Dover N.H, Obama said the following:

"I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

Now, tell me that a tax on a product is not a form of tax. Tell me that the proposed increases in taxes on gasoline and fuel oil is not a form of tax. You see, Obama was responding to the accusation that he was going to raise all kinds of taxes, not just income taxes. So he starts promising to not raise ANY taxes on those making less than $250,000. Dover was the first time, but it was repeated many times. Here in Montana was one of the many times he promised:

""you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

You can poo poo tobacco and alcohol taxes, because admitting he is the typical tax as much as possible liberal democrat is beyond your scope. What will you have to say when the proposed tax increase on gasoline and fuel oil go through? "That's not what is important to me". What will you say when the proposed cap and trade drives prices of electricity up 20%, which, as is typical of liberal policies, will hit the very people you are SUPPOSED to be concerned about the hardest.

Of course, I do understand that anything which is a lie from Obama "is not important to you." It is the typical reaction of the blind partisan devotee. The hardest core bushite has nothing on the likes of you.

 

[Onceler]

"The hardest core bushite has nothing on the likes of you. "

Wow...you really love hyperbole!

I'm really not as partisan as you think. In the quote you copied, he says income tax, payroll tax & capital gains taxes. Pretty clear to me.

I'm not troubled by the cigarette tax; I'm just not. Partisan hacks will try to make a big deal about it, but good luck campaigning on that. It won't resonate, and people will see it as disingenuous.

You seem to want to believe I'm a certain kind of person or follower or something; I really don't care what you think of me. Your history on this board is one of pathological exaggeration & anger, usually with a partisan view.

 

[apple0154]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/us/politics/03year.html

Change is coming liberals!

Obama is trying to make changes. He can't do it by himself. He puts ideas forward and either Congress or the Senate won't support them. They are the ones to blame, not Obama.

 

[apple0154]

Now, tell me that a tax on a product is not a form of tax. Tell me that the proposed increases in taxes on gasoline and fuel oil is not a form of tax. You see, Obama was responding to the accusation that he was going to raise all kinds of taxes, not just income taxes. So he starts promising to not raise ANY taxes on those making less than $250,000. Dover was the first time, but it was repeated many times. Here in Montana was one of the many times he promised:


You can poo poo tobacco and alcohol taxes, because admitting he is the typical tax as much as possible liberal democrat is beyond your scope. What will you have to say when the proposed tax increase on gasoline and fuel oil go through? "That's not what is important to me". What will you say when the proposed cap and trade drives prices of electricity up 20%, which, as is typical of liberal policies, will hit the very people you are SUPPOSED to be concerned about the hardest.

If you look at it like that what could he tax that wouldn't affect that group? Everything from food and clothing to hotel rooms to rental cars to new cars to vacations to movie theater tickets to building supplies to.....everything except, I suppose, million dollar yachts.

I think it's unrealistic to say Obama meant he wouldn't tax anything anyone earning $250,000/yr or less might use. If he proposed a tax on freight trains one could say that would increase the cost of transportation and, thus, the price of goods people earning under $250,000 might use. If he taxed airplane sales the same thing could be said. Or the sale of cargo ships.

Where would you draw the line?

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Not on 'income' but on others:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-broken/

He was and is trying to get most of that passed. The president doesn't have infinite power.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I would never advocate indiscriminate cuts. When I talk about a 33% top rate, I think that should be our goal. I don't think anyone should have to pay more than a third of their income to income taxes.

It's a worthy goal; all it takes is some commitment.

No, it's not a worthy goal. The taxes on the rich should be raised to 50% or 60%.

 

[Good Luck]

If you look at it like that what could he tax that wouldn't affect that group? Everything from food and clothing to hotel rooms to rental cars to new cars to vacations to movie theater tickets to building supplies to.....everything except, I suppose, million dollar yachts.

I think it's unrealistic to say Obama meant he wouldn't tax anything anyone earning $250,000/yr or less might use. If he proposed a tax on freight trains one could say that would increase the cost of transportation and, thus, the price of goods people earning under $250,000 might use. If he taxed airplane sales the same thing could be said. Or the sale of cargo ships.

Where would you draw the line?

I do not consider cap and trade taxes (proposed) as breaking his promise not to increase taxes on people making less than $250,000. I think it is stupid. I know for certain it will, in fact, hurt the lower income brackets most as the end result will be people facing a 20% or more increase for their power bill. It definitely falls under the heading of taxing anything that twitches. But not as a tax on lower income, no. A power bill is not taxes.

If you read Onceler's diatribe, he keeps harping on a statement I made a long time ago when I said one of the things I would do differently than the current democratic leadership is I would not tax everything that twitches. (I was referring to, of course, the myriad of proposed tax increases and/or new taxes being talked about at the time.) He makes hay out of that statement every time he can (poor dumb bastard). As such, I named a bunch of proposed taxes and fees that do NOT fall under the heading of taxing people making less than $250,000, but DO fall under the heading of taxing "everything that twitches".

OTOH, placing or increasing federal taxes on anything that is directly purchased by the common public, from cigarettes and alcohol (already in effect) to gasoline and fuel oil (on the table) IS raising the TAXES people pay, including those making under $250K.



As an additional note, when Obama made the statement that people making less than $250,000 would not see ANY of their taxes increase, he was responding to an accusation that even if he didn't raise income taxes, many of his plans called for other tax increases affecting the lower income brackets. Onceler can make it mean whatever it takes for him to excuse the past and coming tax increases, but taken in context of the situation, when Obama said ANY he meant ANY, not just various forms of income.

 

[Good Luck]

Obama is trying to make changes. He can't do it by himself. He puts ideas forward and either Congress or the Senate won't support them. They are the ones to blame, not Obama.

The ones to blame, or the ones to thank?

 

[apple0154]

I do not consider cap and trade taxes (proposed) as breaking his promise not to increase taxes on people making less than $250,000. I think it is stupid. I know for certain it will, in fact, hurt the lower income brackets most as the end result will be people facing a 20% or more increase for their power bill. It definitely falls under the heading of taxing anything that twitches. But not as a tax on lower income, no. A power bill is not taxes.

If you read Onceler's diatribe, he keeps harping on a statement I made a long time ago when I said one of the things I would do differently than the current democratic leadership is I would not tax everything that twitches. (I was referring to, of course, the myriad of proposed tax increases and/or new taxes being talked about at the time.) He makes hay out of that statement every time he can (poor dumb bastard). As such, I named a bunch of proposed taxes and fees that do NOT fall under the heading of taxing people making less than $250,000, but DO fall under the heading of taxing "everything that twitches".

OTOH, placing or increasing federal taxes on anything that is directly purchased by the common public, from cigarettes and alcohol (already in effect) to gasoline and fuel oil (on the table) IS raising the TAXES people pay, including those making under $250K.



As an additional note, when Obama made the statement that people making less than $250,000 would not see ANY of their taxes increase, he was responding to an accusation that even if he didn't raise income taxes, many of his plans called for other tax increases affecting the lower income brackets. Onceler can make it mean whatever it takes for him to excuse the past and coming tax increases, but taken in context of the situation, when Obama said ANY he meant ANY, not just various forms of income.

I see it as comparable to the tax breaks the wealthy currently receive. Those taxes, whether raised or lowered, specifically pertain to the wealthy. In other words ANY would refer to taxes specifically aimed at the lower income earners.

According to your definition of taxes on people receiving a lower income what could Obama tax that wouldn't affect those people? And how would the few items/services that qualify be sufficient to raise the necessary funds?

 

[DamnYankee]

No, it's not a worthy goal. The taxes on the rich should be raised to 50% or 60%.

They're already that high.

 

[apple0154]

The ones to blame, or the ones to thank?

I guess it does depend on ones point of view.

 

[Good Luck]

I see it as comparable to the tax breaks the wealthy currently receive. Those taxes, whether raised or lowered, specifically pertain to the wealthy. In other words ANY would refer to taxes specifically aimed at the lower income earners.

According to your definition of taxes on people receiving a lower income what could Obama tax that wouldn't affect those people? And how would the few items/services that qualify be sufficient to raise the necessary funds?

Try again, as that is NOT how I define taxes with respect to Obama's promise.

Yes, I am against taxes which will have the net effect of harming the lower income brackets, such as cap and trade taxes, higher corporate taxes on essential goods, federal "fees" on health insurance, and all the other proposed taxes and fees being bandied about. But no, these are NOT taxes which could be counted as Obama breaking his promise.

OTOH, raising the taxes on cigarettes, alcohol, and (proposed) gasoline and fuel oil DO directly increase the amount of federal taxes paid by the individual. It's more than just "affecting" them, it is making them pay more federal taxes. That makes them a promise breaker: "You won't see ANY of your taxes go up."

And, BTW, according to your definition, if he raised the base rate to 25% across the board, then it would not be a tax raise on the lower income brackets, because it was not aimed specifically at them? That is how that kind of logic goes - and is all too often used successfully by governments to cover up their lies.

 

[Annie]

I do not consider cap and trade taxes (proposed) as breaking his promise not to increase taxes on people making less than $250,000. I think it is stupid. I know for certain it will, in fact, hurt the lower income brackets most as the end result will be people facing a 20% or more increase for their power bill. It definitely falls under the heading of taxing anything that twitches. But not as a tax on lower income, no. A power bill is not taxes.

If you read Onceler's diatribe, he keeps harping on a statement I made a long time ago when I said one of the things I would do differently than the current democratic leadership is I would not tax everything that twitches. (I was referring to, of course, the myriad of proposed tax increases and/or new taxes being talked about at the time.) He makes hay out of that statement every time he can (poor dumb bastard). As such, I named a bunch of proposed taxes and fees that do NOT fall under the heading of taxing people making less than $250,000, but DO fall under the heading of taxing "everything that twitches".

OTOH, placing or increasing federal taxes on anything that is directly purchased by the common public, from cigarettes and alcohol (already in effect) to gasoline and fuel oil (on the table) IS raising the TAXES people pay, including those making under $250K.



As an additional note, when Obama made the statement that people making less than $250,000 would not see ANY of their taxes increase, he was responding to an accusation that even if he didn't raise income taxes, many of his plans called for other tax increases affecting the lower income brackets. Onceler can make it mean whatever it takes for him to excuse the past and coming tax increases, but taken in context of the situation, when Obama said ANY he meant ANY, not just various forms of income.

Just wait for the VAT taxes, the most onerous of all!