Obama's Middle Class Betrayal

Canceled2

Banned
The rest here.

<snip> The real key to Obama's victory a year ago – indeed his "signature" issue – was his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.

"You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," Obama promised tens of millions of Americans making $250,000 or less. In fact, candidate Obama promised the middle class billions of dollars in tax cuts, part of his whole "spread the wealth around" plan.

"If you're a family that's making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes," Obama promised. "Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your personal gains tax, not any of your taxes."

Never mind the fact that Obama's plan would have hit income and payroll providers especially hard, rendering "middle class tax relief" irrelevant to the millions of workers heading toward already-crowded unemployment lines.

No matter how you look at it, though, what a difference a year makes.

As an unprecedented string of multibillion-dollar government bailouts and a viral explosion of new discretionary spending continues to wreak havoc on the deficit, does it really surprise anyone to learn that Obama's "middle class tax cut" was the very first thing to wind up on the cutting room floor?

Of course not. "Class warfare" may have succeeded in getting Obama elected, but it cannot pay for the political promises Obama has made with our borrowed billions. <snip>
 
Translation:

I cannot say anything constructive using actual information to debate this, so I will use ad hominems and hope it looks like I am wise.

That's it.

You know perfectly well that if anyone on this site tried to address every bit of bullshit the AOL gang posts on this site they'd have to quit their full time job.
 
The rest here.

<snip> The real key to Obama's victory a year ago – indeed his "signature" issue – was his promise not to raise taxes on the middle class.

"You will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime," Obama promised tens of millions of Americans making $250,000 or less. In fact, candidate Obama promised the middle class billions of dollars in tax cuts, part of his whole "spread the wealth around" plan.

"If you're a family that's making $250,000 a year or less, you will see no increase in your taxes," Obama promised. "Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your personal gains tax, not any of your taxes."

Never mind the fact that Obama's plan would have hit income and payroll providers especially hard, rendering "middle class tax relief" irrelevant to the millions of workers heading toward already-crowded unemployment lines.

No matter how you look at it, though, what a difference a year makes.

As an unprecedented string of multibillion-dollar government bailouts and a viral explosion of new discretionary spending continues to wreak havoc on the deficit, does it really surprise anyone to learn that Obama's "middle class tax cut" was the very first thing to wind up on the cutting room floor?

Of course not. "Class warfare" may have succeeded in getting Obama elected, but it cannot pay for the political promises Obama has made with our borrowed billions. <snip>

Rich, of course, is supplying a list of the the new taxes thast have been foisted upon the US Middle Class?
Is this Rasmussen the same as the "unbiased" Rassmussen Survey?

Cut and paste, paste and cut,..........................................
 
Rich, of course, is supplying a list of the the new taxes thast have been foisted upon the US Middle Class?
Is this Rasmussen the same as the "unbiased" Rassmussen Survey?

Cut and paste, paste and cut,..........................................
And this fallacy is called "Guilt by Association"... because you don't like the polls Rasmussen does, this is supposed to mean that anything at all that is there, including editorials that have nothing to do with polls, must be untrue.

This particular fallacy is pretty much a constant on the board though. Many conservatives do it with Huffpost. Even if 90% of something from Huffpost is untrue, that does not mean that everything from Huffpost is untrue. (That's a different form of fallacy, but just as prevalent as this one.)

The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike, or who are considered biased (here on this board). Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes (or who are biased) he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with "biased" people.

Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes, or likes but are considered "biased", does not justify the rejection of any claim at all, let alone every single thing that may be associated to that "biased" source. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even those who might be biased).
 
Rich, of course, is supplying a list of the the new taxes thast have been foisted upon the US Middle Class?
Is this Rasmussen the same as the "unbiased" Rassmussen Survey?

Cut and paste, paste and cut,..........................................

Actually, Rasmussen IS unbiased. You just don't like what they have to say. Poor Belme.

Rasmussen Reports’ campaign coverage has been praised for its independence, accuracy and reliability.


Douglas E. Schoen, a pollster for President William J. Clinton, says "Rasmussen Reports is one of America's most insightful and analytical sources of data and analysis on U.S. public opinion. They are fearlessly independent, always ahead of the curve, and offer unique insights unavailable anywhere else. I rely on them to keep me informed about what is happening today and is likely to happen tomorrow."
 
Back
Top