PDA

View Full Version : The antidote for dear leader's spoon feedings...



LWW
02-10-2011, 04:03 AM
<span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>TRUTH: (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/02/08/group-disputes-obamas-assertion-didnt-raise-taxes/)</span></span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A taxpayer watchdog group is throwing a penalty flag on President Obama's assertion in a Super Bowl pre-game interview that he didn't raise taxes, claiming the president signed into law at least two dozen tax increases.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"Just 16 days into his presidency, Obama signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco -- a hike of 62 cents per pack,"</span> Americans for Tax Reform said in a press release Monday, arguing that Obama's approval of this tax hike was a violation on his campaign pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.

Seeking to burnish his centrist credentials, President <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Obama told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly Sunday that he "didn't raise taxes once."</span><span style="color: #6633FF"> By use of Clintonian level word parsing this statement is true as congress raised the taxes and he merely signed off on them ... and did it far more than once.</span>

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"I lowered taxes over the last two years,"</span> <span style="color: #6633FF">Now that's funny ... but I have no doubt that a fleet of O-cultists nodded their heads in collectivist unison.</span>he said in an interview that aired before the heavily-viewed Superbowl on Sunday.

But ATR cites the health care law as an <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Obama administration imperative that contains two dozen new or higher taxes, including the individual mandate tax and the employer mandate tax.</span>

"President Obama's entire claim of being a net tax-cutter rests merely upon the temporary tax relief he has signed into law," the group said. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"The tax increases Obama has signed into law have invariably been permanent. In fact, Obama has signed into law $7 in permanent tax hikes for every $1 in permanent tax cuts."</span>

The group estimates that the permanent changes to tax law <span style='font-size: 11pt'>Obama signed totals a net tax hike of $618.7 billion.</span>

But supporters of the president say ATR's math doesn't add up.

"I think it's a little tendentious on their part," Robert McIntryre, director of the progressive Citizens for Tax Justice, told FoxNews.com."If the rule is anything that's temporary doesn't count as a tax cut, then George W. Bush is in trouble from their point of view since all of his tax cuts were temporary. They must hate Bush."

Ryan Ellis, the tax policy director for ATR, responded that Bush would have made his tax cuts in 2001 and 2003 permanent if he could have gotten the 60 votes required in Congress.

But Obama, he argued, prefers to make the tax cuts temporary.

"If you're looking at temporary tax cuts, how are you paying for it? He's paying for it with a permanent tax hike," he said. "It's not exactly fair to mix those things together."

"It's a question of baselines and the biggest problem is he's a tax cutter of temporary tax cuts by permanent tax hikes that never go away," he added.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Tuesday that he had not seen ATR's claims but "I would note that I think the Congressional Budget Office released figures yesterday that show that for the third consecutive year the American people are paying less in taxes than they did during the previous administration." <span style="color: #3366FF">True because the newly unemployed don't pay taxes and those working reduced hours pay less than before. The democrooks war on prosperity has decreased federal revenue by 13% while laying crippling burdens on employees/employers still working/in business ... hence causing a suituation that is acting as a brake against job hiring.</span>

The CBO on Monday said that according to projections, <span style='font-size: 11pt'>income tax payments this year will be nearly 13 percent lower than they were in 2008, the last full year of the Bush presidency, and corporate taxes will be lower by a third.</span>

The White House also has defended the tobacco tax hike previously, saying it didn't violate Obama's pledge because it didn't apply to income, payroll or investment taxes. Supporters have also noted the money gained from the tobacco tax is intended to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children.

The White House has addressed charges that the health care overhaul raises taxes, saying the law includes the largest health are "tax cut" in history for middle class families. The White House has cited the Congressional Budget Office estimate that Americans buying the same coverage they have today in the individual market will see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent. <span style="color: #3333FF">WOW! Just WOW! Complete denial of reality.</span>

ATR says the individual mandate tax, which starts in 2014, will require anyone not buying "qualifying" health insurance to pay an income surtax of $495. That amount increases to $990 for two members of a family and $1,485 for three-member families.

Among the other tax hikes ATR cites in the health care law are:

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>the medicine cabinet tax, which began in January.</span> It will prevent consumers from using their health savings accounts (HSA), flexible spending accounts (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin), the group argues;

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>the HSA withdrawal tax hike, which started in January.</span> It increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, making them less appealing than IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent, ATR said;

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>the flexible spending account cap, or the "Special Needs Kids Tax," which was unlimited. It has been capped at $2,500 since January. The new cap imposes a "particularly cruel and onerous" burden on parents of special needs children</span> who use the money to pay for costly tuition, the group argued.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>the medical itemized deductions cap, which allows consumers to deduct medical expenses if the total cost reduces the filer's income by 7.5 percent, will face a threshold of 10 percent starting in 2013.

the tax on indoor tanning services, which began in July, imposes a new 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons.</span></div></div>

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-10-2011, 08:41 PM
Ezra Klein called out that statement as false as well. Somehow, as a liberal or further left than that, working at the WaPost, HE isn't taking any position that says O is always right about everything.

However, it really depends on what is meant by 'didn't raise taxes once.'

If by that he meant, I raised them a dozen or more times, then that is a true statement.

Then there is what you now call a Clintonian argument, but one that you've been making yourself recently-- that NO president does anything, that Congress does it. I'm not sure why the same argument you made is now Clintonian, unless you think Clintonian arguments are true?

I'll try to be consistent, but in this case, O may really have a point along those lines as to everything in HCR. He didn't author or push much of anything in the HCR-- its provisions WERE the product of Congressional work. Whereas things he DID author or push included the tax cutting that he campaigned on and proposed and pushed through.

jimmyg
02-10-2011, 09:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ezra Klein called out that statement as false as well. Somehow, as a liberal or further left than that, working at the WaPost, HE isn't taking any position that says O is always right about everything.

However, it really depends on what is meant by 'didn't raise taxes once.'

If by that he meant, I raised them a dozen or more times, then that is a true statement.

Then there is what you now call a Clintonian argument, but one that you've been making yourself recently-- that NO president does anything, that Congress does it. I'm not sure why the same argument you made is now Clintonian, unless you think Clintonian arguments are true?

<span style="color: #CC0000">I'll try to be consistent, but in this case, O may really have a point along those lines as to everything in HCR. He didn't author or push much of anything in the HCR-- its provisions WERE the product of Congressional work. Whereas things he DID author or push included the tax cutting that he campaigned on and proposed and pushed through. </span></div></div>

Yes, consistently biased.

What a stretch! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/blush.gif

J

LWW
02-11-2011, 03:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, it really depends on what is meant by 'didn't raise taxes once.' </div></div>

So we are back to "It depends on what your definition of "IS" is."

The doublethink is strong in you.

LWW

LWW
02-11-2011, 03:15 AM
You have to remember Jimmy ... just because it can be proved that dear leader lied doesn't prove that dear leader lied.

LWW

pooltchr
02-11-2011, 08:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
I'll try to be consistent, but in this case, O may really have a point along those lines as to everything in HCR. He didn't author or push much of anything in the HCR-- its provisions WERE the product of Congressional work. Whereas things he DID author or push included the tax cutting that he campaigned on and proposed and pushed through. </div></div>

We are all aware that HCR was pretty much put together by Nancy and Harry. But to suggest that Obama wasn't pushing them to put the whole thing together is foolish. This was his baby all along, and was intended to be the cornerstone of his presidency.

Pelosicare just doesn't have quite the ring to it that Obamacare does.

Steve

LWW
02-11-2011, 03:26 PM
You keep forgetting ... the O-cult will do anything to defend dear leader.

LWW

Soflasnapper
02-11-2011, 04:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, it really depends on what is meant by 'didn't raise taxes once.' </div></div>

So we are back to "It depends on what your definition of "IS" is."

The doublethink is strong in you.

LWW </div></div>

I am inclined to agree with Ezra and you, that the statement was false. That's my consistent position-- that what happens in Congress that the president signs is his responsibility as well as the Congress'.

It is YOUR PRIOR STATED POSITION (just a couple of days ago) that presidents actually do nothing, and that it is ALL THE CONGRESS' DOINGS. Remember that?

I guess you didn't add your qualifier, that if the thing is BAD, and the president one you favor, THEN that president isn't responsible. If it is GOOD, then the president is responsible (if you like the president). If it is bad, and the president in charge is one you disfavor, then HE is responsible.

Can you explain your change of position in that past few days in some way other than the foregoing paragraph?

If the question is instead, under what STRAINED theory or argument is Obama making what appears to be a clearly false claim (which was the point of my post), it is YOUR (prior) position that indeed comes immediately to mind.

LWW
02-11-2011, 04:08 PM
Actually ... that's not even close to what I said.

But ... you already knew that.

LWW