moneymakers Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 : Tonight: Will President Obama raise taxes on the middle class? Now, that depends on who you ask. President Obama says no. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year... -- which includes a 98 percent of small-business owners, you will not see your taxes increase one single dime under my plan. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax, no tax. We don't need to raise taxes on the middle class! You will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat, not one single dime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
posty Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Funny... Reuters pulled the story... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100202/bs_nm/...t_backdoortaxes The story Backdoor taxes to hit middle class has been withdrawn. A replacement story will run later in the week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Funny... Reuters pulled the story... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100202/bs_nm/...t_backdoortaxes The story Backdoor taxes to hit middle class has been withdrawn. A replacement story will run later in the week. There used to be a thing called free speech. Based on the president's brow beating of the court during the SOTU, and the libs reaction it appears as though free speech is in jeopardy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Funny... Reuters pulled the story... http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100202/bs_nm/...t_backdoortaxes The story Backdoor taxes to hit middle class has been withdrawn. A replacement story will run later in the week. I guess the first of the tax hike will go to pay Reuters off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Isn't spending a ton and cutting taxes a bit more retarded than spending three tons and raising taxes? Fixed. With this budget the obamessiah loses all credibility with respect to deficit reduction, IMO. You can spin it how you like, but he's pulling what Circuit City did - raising prices to just mark them down and parading around saying "look at me! I'm fiscally responsible!" He's raising spending to ridiculous levels, then freezing a tiny bit of it and telling us how responsible he's being. The phrase "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining!" certainly comes to mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Isn't spending a ton and cutting taxes a bit more retarded than spending a ton and raising taxes? Not really. They are premised on different logic, but they both lack the same common sense: it's dumb to spend more than you earn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 You remember the tech bubble, or 9/11? Do you think they had an impact on the economy? Now look at this graph. It wasn't until after 9/11 we started running deficits, and the trend from 2004 until 2008 (Pelosi's first budget) was that of shrinking deficits. Does the current deficit have more to do with tax cuts, or the out of control spending? You do realize it has more to do with out of control spending, people do realize that....right??? Perch PLEASE tell me you can do better than "the heritage foundation" . . . please? This is worth posting again . . . . http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Not being able to keep the fruits of one's labors is the definition of slavery. We come together as a nation and agree to elect politicians to represent us, but then they decide to act like spoiled undisciplined children with our hard earned money. At some point what they are doing becomes both immoral and criminal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 They are premised on different logic, but they both lack the same common sense: it's dumb to spend more than you earn. I don't disagree with that at all, regardless of the fact its very debatable on what needed to be funded and what didn't over the last 10 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 At some point what they are doing becomes both immoral and criminal. Eric Cantor occassionally kicks in my barn door and tells me it'll be over real quick if I don't struggle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Perch PLEASE tell me you can do better than "the heritage foundation" . . . please? This is worth posting again . . . . http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3036 Why don't you look at the information instead of just throwing it away out of hand because you don't like the source. The graph was actually first published by the Washington Post not the Heritage Foundation. If you bother to look you would know that. I'd like you graph if only it showed a comparison to previous years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100202/bs_nm/...t_backdoortaxes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100202/bs_nm/...t_backdoortaxes Rahm must have slipped a horse head in someones bed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Why don't you look at the information instead of just throwing it away out of hand because you don't like the source. The graph was actually first published by the Washington Post not the Heritage Foundation. If you bother to look you would know that. I'd like you graph if only it showed a comparison to previous years. Perch, I worded my previous response incorrectly. I was asking for a different source because it can often confuse the message. The Heritage foundation is very far right wing, and posting something from THEM can be dismissed. That info is valid . . . especially when you add in the commenatry from the Washington times that puts it in context. In addition to the substantive proposals, Obama’s team boasts of improving the budget process itself. For years, budget analysts complained that former president George W. Bush tried to make his deficits look smaller by excluding cost estimates for the war in Iraq and domestic disasters, minimizing the cost of payments to Medicare doctors and assuming that millions more families would pay the costly alternative minimum tax. Obama has banned those techniques, the senior official said. So The Heritage Foundation conveneintly "forgot" that part of the article. Either way it shows how huge the hole is that we are stuck in, but the CONTEXT help to show the differential . . . Either way Perch, we are skrewed (quote from dmarc) no matter what. It looks like Bush was trying to "hide" the real costs that were spent to make his budget look better than it was. Obama looks like a villain for actually reporting the spending, but then unashamedly ADDING more stuff that we cant afford. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 It wasn't until after 9/11 we started running deficits, and the trend from 2004 until 2008 (Pelosi's first budget) was that of shrinking deficits. Does the current deficit have more to do with tax cuts, or the out of control spending? You do realize it has more to do with out of control spending, people do realize that....right??? Thank you for making my point...are you sure your not one of us....you know, an American? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 There used to be a thing called free speech. Based on the president's brow beating of the court during the SOTU, and the libs reaction it appears as though free speech is in jeopardy. Well, if they write bad stuff about Obama, he won't grant them exclusives where they can ask warm fuzzy questions, like how cuddly and soft he is when he's saving baby seals single-handidly. What an f'n joke this mainstream media is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 There used to be a thing called free speech. Based on the president's brow beating of the court during the SOTU, and the libs reaction it appears as though free speech is in jeopardy. Or the article was a pack of lies. I read it before it was withdrawn and the backdoor taxes were completely unsubstantiated with any kind of facts or even logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 There used to be a thing called free speech. Based on the president's brow beating of the court during the SOTU, and the libs reaction it appears as though free speech is in jeopardy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 There used to be a thing called free speech. Based on the president's brow beating of the court during the SOTU, and the libs reaction it appears as though free speech is in jeopardy. Z.O.M.G.!!1!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 There used to be a thing called free speech. Based on the president's brow beating of the court during the SOTU, and the libs reaction it appears as though free speech is in jeopardy. The Second Amendment is next! Run for the hiiiiiiillllllsss!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 The Second Amendment is next! Run for the hiiiiiiillllllsss!!! Somebody would end up with cold dead hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Somebody would end up with cold dead hands. Perch . . any response to the Heritage foundation stuff? It is how a innocent graph can be completely taken out of context without accompaning information for purely partisan reasons. It is obvious that the actual way of accounting for the Iraq war was omitted in Bush's budget, yet included in Obamas. I think that is a HUGE step forward to actually release how much EVERYTHING costs instead of "creative" omissions. Do you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) When you become outraged by almost everything, almost no-one will take you seriously. Have to agree here! Edited February 2, 2010 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Perch . . any response to the Heritage foundation stuff? It is how a innocent graph can be completely taken out of context without accompaning information for purely partisan reasons. It is obvious that the actual way of accounting for the Iraq war was omitted in Bush's budget, yet included in Obamas. I think that is a HUGE step forward to actually release how much EVERYTHING costs instead of "creative" omissions. Do you agree? If you had read further down the page you would have noted the Update that read: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has now been added. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Or the article was a pack of lies. I read it before it was withdrawn and the backdoor taxes were completely unsubstantiated with any kind of facts or even logic. It also omitted all the tax benefits that the currently proposed budget is offering to give businesses and business owners. But I doubt any of our deficit hawks around here will complain when they receive the benefit of those spiffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.