Obama's Four Tax Increases

[erynthered]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/sen...tax_increa.html

[YellowLinesandArmadillos]

The American Thinker??? Does this fall under the Mother Jones Category.... yuck, yuck, yuck.... Noice assumptions though in the article.

[IDBillzFan]

You know, that dude says he's earned up to $100,000/year. Those taxes are a drop in the bucket to him and I have a hard time finding sympathy for someone who earns that kind of dough. Time to be patriotic, dude.

 

Here's what I want to know: Does he owe back taxes? Has he ever left a phone bill unpaid? Does he belong to a union? Did his first marriage fail? Did he ever have a DUI? Has he ever done coke? (Wait, doing coke is cool. Nevermind).

 

Let's stop with these desperate right wing conspiracies. Stay focused. Don't you guys know this country is going to be tested with a generated international crisis in less than eight months? That's the campaign promise we need to be ready for. This tax cut stuff is just a smoke screen.

[erynthered]

The American Thinker??? Does this fall under the Mother Jones Category.... yuck, yuck, yuck.... Noice assumptions though in the article.

 

Are you saying the numbers he ran at the bottom of the article are wrong?

[molson_golden2002]

Does this include the AMT?

[elegantelliotoffen]

Ned Barnett is a political strategist and the owner of Barnett Marketing Communications in Las Vegas, Nevada. A PR crisis management expert, Barnett has been a university professor and has written nine published books on public relations and marketing communications, and writes a regular column on crisis PR for the International Association of Business Communicators.

 

Sounds like a tax expert to me!

[IDBillzFan]

I was just watching a new Obama ad, and is it me or is he already lowering the income bar for the folks who are going to get taxed. All I have repeatedly heard from him is is "over $250,000."

 

Now it's $200,000?

 

Oh, I know. I'm misunderstanding. This is what he's been saying all along, except he's been saying it differently, and all that means is he isn't changing anything other than how he is explaining it.

 

"Nothing up my sleeve. Nothing in my hat."

[erynthered]

I was just watching a new Obama ad, and is it me or is he already lowering the income bar for the folks who are going to get taxed. All I have repeatedly heard from him is is "over $250,000."

 

Now it's $200,000?

 

Oh, I know. I'm misunderstanding. This is what he's been saying all along, except he's been saying it differently, and all that means is he isn't changing anything other than how he is explaining it.

 

"Nothing up my sleeve. Nothing in my hat."

 

[Kelly the Dog]

I was just watching a new Obama ad, and is it me or is he already lowering the income bar for the folks who are going to get taxed. All I have repeatedly heard from him is is "over $250,000."

 

Now it's $200,000?

 

Oh, I know. I'm misunderstanding. This is what he's been saying all along, except he's been saying it differently, and all that means is he isn't changing anything other than how he is explaining it.

 

"Nothing up my sleeve. Nothing in my hat."

One thing that Obama has very often been misleading about is the 200K versus 250K. He used to always say "working families" but now he often leaves that part out, and it's disingenuous. As I understand it, and I think I'm right, if you're married or with kids the figure is anything over 250K your taxes go up. If you're single, it is 200K. So when he used to say working families, he was correct. Now he only says that about half the time and will talk about families in another sentence. To be correct though, it's 200K if you're single and 250K if you're married or with kids.

 

Also, however, people assume that if you make 200K or 250K your taxes will go up 3-4%. That's not really true. The first 200K or 250K you make is still taxed at the old 36% rate, and anything ABOVE that goes to 39%. So if you make 280 like Joe the Plumber who would make more money under Obama's plan wants to, he would be taxed 250 at the same amount it is now, and 30K at 3% more.

[IDBillzFan]

One thing that Obama has very often been misleading about is the 200K versus 250K. He used to always say "working families" but now he often leaves that part out, and it's disingenuous. As I understand it, and I think I'm right, if you're married or with kids the figure is anything over 250K your taxes go up. If you're single, it is 200K. So when he used to say working families, he was correct. Now he only says that about half the time and will talk about families in another sentence. To be correct though, it's 200K if you're single and 250K if you're married or with kids.

I spent almost nine years working for a guy who operates this same way, which is probably the root of why I so deeply distrust Obama as a person, let alone as leader of the free world. It's not so much what he says as what he doesn't say. And when guys like them are incorrectly criticized due to misinterpretation, they can always say "No, that's not what I said. Listen again to what I said." And when you go back to what they said a second or third time, you more often than not realize that what you inferred is totally different from what they implied. In the end, both sides could still be argued, but neither side would be right or wrong simply because of the way both sides approached the topic.

 

Again, it goes back to the slippery relationship between implied and inferred. It'll get him what he wants, but much like my old boss, there's a good chance it won't end well for a lot of people because the longer you operate that way, the less people ultimately trust you. Yes, they'll still listen and maybe even obey, but they won't trust, and once the trust is gone, so is the loyalty. And once you eliminate loyalty from a leader, they're kind of !@#$ed.

[Kelly the Dog]

I spent almost nine years working for a guy who operates this same way, which is probably the root of why I so deeply distrust Obama as a person, let alone as leader of the free world. It's not so much what he says as what he doesn't say. And when guys like them are incorrectly criticized due to misinterpretation, they can always say "No, that's not what I said. Listen again to what I said." And when you go back to what they said a second or third time, you more often than not realize that what you inferred is totally different from what they implied. In the end, both sides could still be argued, but neither side would be right or wrong simply because of the way both sides approached the topic.

 

Again, it goes back to the slippery relationship between implied and inferred. It'll get him what he wants, but much like my old boss, there's a good chance it won't end well for a lot of people because the longer you operate that way, the less people ultimately trust you. Yes, they'll still listen and maybe even obey, but they won't trust, and once the trust is gone, so is the loyalty. And once you eliminate loyalty from a leader, they're kind of !@#$ed.

Every single politician everywhere does stuff like that and he doesn't do it any more than anyone else. I think he does it a lot less in fact, than most. The vast, vast majority of the time he says 95% of the people will get tax cuts, and that part is rather true. Sometimes he breaks it down and says working families making less than 250K will not get their taxes raised and that is true, too. The least amount is when he says if you're making less than 250K you will get a tax cut, when that does not count the single people with no kids making between 200-250. 95% of the time he mentions the tax cuts he seems to be accurate. On the contrary, John McCain, 20 times a day every single day, says Barack Obama will raise your taxes when 95% of the people he's saying that to it is not true. It's a fat lie. All day every day.

[IDBillzFan]

Every single politician everywhere does stuff like that and he doesn't do it any more than anyone else. I think he does it a lot less in fact, than most. The vast, vast majority of the time he says 95% of the people will get tax cuts, and that part is rather true. Sometimes he breaks it down and says working families making less than 250K will not get their taxes raised and that is true, too. The least amount is when he says if you're making less than 250K you will get a tax cut, when that does not count the single people with no kids making between 200-250. 95% of the time he mentions the tax cuts he seems to be accurate. On the contrary, John McCain, 20 times a day every single day, says Barack Obama will raise your taxes when 95% of the people he's saying that to it is not true. It's a fat lie. All day every day.

Loyalty usually is the last thing to go.

 

This isn't about John McCain, though I appreciate how well the classic Obama Spin-It-N-Win-It approach is put to use in all it's successful glory. It's about Barack Obama. He may not do it more than the next guy, but he certainly doesn't do it less. The edge Obama has is that he's BETTER at it than most, which gives it the perception of happening less in the eyes of his loyalists. And it is the undying loyalty of good people like yourself who will go to the mat for him even on his inconsistencies, flailing around like the knight in The Holy Grail ("It's only a flesh wound!"), that is helping him win. He's clean, he's slick, he's ridiculously well organized and he has his foot soldiers doing incredible work for him, arguing his cause straight to the bone regardless of all rational and independent thinking.

 

That's how you win.

[Kelly the Dog]

Loyalty usually is the last thing to go.

 

This isn't about John McCain, though I appreciate how well the classic Obama Spin-It-N-Win-It approach is put to use in all it's successful glory. It's about Barack Obama. He may not do it more than the next guy, but he certainly doesn't do it less. The edge Obama has is that he's BETTER at it than most, which gives it the perception of happening less in the eyes of his loyalists. And it is the undying loyalty of good people like yourself who will go to the mat for him even on his inconsistencies, flailing around like the knight in The Holy Grail ("It's only a flesh wound!"), that is helping him win. He's clean, he's slick, he's ridiculously well organized and he has his foot soldiers doing incredible work for him, arguing his cause straight to the bone regardless of all rational and independent thinking.

 

That's how you win.

Hey, I was the one that criticized my guy for being disingenuous. I said it wasn't right. I criticize people on my side all the friggin' time. I hate Pelosi and Reid, badmouth the Clintons all the time, have abused Gore and Kerry repeatedly for being the worst candidates ever. You on the other hand, rarely if ever do anything but badmouth the left and stick up for the right. I never see you say anything contrary to your side.

 

It's putting it in context with the other side and I gave specific examples of what Obama says, how often he is wrong about it, IMO, and what McCain says on the exact same subject. I think that's a fair comparison. If you want to believe that all politicians are all exactly the same because they all shade truths and act disingenuous, go ahead. I think there are important distinctions and degrees. Like in this tax thing.

 

Oh, and by the way, I would think we would want our President to know how to play and know how to win.

[drnykterstein]

Way to also analyze and compare McCains taxes. Bravo to the author for looking at both sides.

[IDBillzFan]

Hey, I was the one that criticized my guy for being disingenuous. I said it wasn't right. I criticize people on my side all the friggin' time. I hate Pelosi and Reid, badmouth the Clintons all the time, have abused Gore and Kerry repeatedly for being the worst candidates ever. You on the other hand, rarely if ever do anything but badmouth the left and stick up for the right. I never see you say anything contrary to your side.

 

It's putting it in context with the other side and I gave specific examples of what Obama says, how often he is wrong about it, IMO, and what McCain says on the exact same subject. I think that's a fair comparison. If you want to believe that all politicians are all exactly the same because they all shade truths and act disingenuous, go ahead. I think there are important distinctions and degrees. Like in this tax thing.

You have been incredibly diligent in your criticisms of both sides, I don't deny that. And yes, you've even taken a shot or two at Obama. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the biggest reason Obama will win is because people on the left want Obama and people on the right don't.

 

I know that sounds obvious, but note what I didn't say: that people on the left want Obama and people on the right want McCain. Being particularly conservative myself, I'm not a very big McCain fan. A lot of true conservatives aren't. Which is why I say what I say about people being so loyal to Obama. I'm not a McCain loyalist. I just don't want Obama as my president because as a conservative, I feel like I'll have a better chance trying to get McCain to shift more to the right than I'll ever have getting Obama to shift anywhere away from the extreme left position where he currently resides. People like Pelosi and Reid will see to it that Obama will only move farther to left, as if he could possibly move farther in that direction.

 

So as is the case for most conservatives, it's not that we want McCain, it's that we absolutely, positively dread Obama as president. He goes against everything true conservatives believe in. That is why, I believe, the right spends so much time beating up on Obama and less time promoting McCain.

[SDS]

Regardless of Obama's plan, what needs to be noted here is that we don't elect Kings. Who here thinks the Democrats in Congress aren't chomping at the bit to lower those thresholds substantially? Do some of you people really expect not to hear "Well, I know we promised X, but now that we are here - the mess is SO big - bigger than we thought, we are going to have to all be more patriotic and lower those thresholds." Take that to the bank.

 

OTOH, if Obama enacts his plan as detailed on his website then every pinko-liberal out there supporting this plan should kiss our fat-conservative asses because we essentially won the tax debate (at least 75% of the debate). The fact that we have an election on who is going to cut taxes more (with disagreements at the margins) is a victory for the conservatives.

 

With that said, I personally don't believe for one NY second that this congress isn't going to raise taxes on every Tom, Dick, and Hussein in this country.

[TPS]

Regardless of Obama's plan, what needs to be noted here is that we don't elect Kings. Who here thinks the Democrats in Congress aren't chomping at the bit to lower those thresholds substantially? Do some of you people really expect not to hear "Well, I know we promised X, but now that we are here - the mess is SO big - bigger than we thought, we are going to have to all be more patriotic and lower those thresholds." Take that to the bank.

 

OTOH, if Obama enacts his plan as detailed on his website then every pinko-liberal out there supporting this plan should kiss our fat-conservative asses because we essentially won the tax debate (at least 75% of the debate). The fact that we have an election on who is going to cut taxes more (with disagreements at the margins) is a victory for the conservatives.

 

With that said, I personally don't believe for one NY second that this congress isn't going to raise taxes on every Tom, Dick, and Hussein in this country.

Please! Bush2 is an extreme version of Reagan. After putting the country into a deep hole by increased spending and cutting taxes, leading to larger deficits, Bush1 had to raise taxes. Now, the budget situation is so extreme because of the republican's idiotic cut taxes and increase spending program2, no matter who is in there, someone has to clean this !@#$ing mess up--a mess that you wonderful conservatives caused. And now your so-called conservatives are acting like socialists bailing out their buddies on Wall Street. Sure, set up Obama as a straw man; but it's your conservative policies that are pushing US to 3rd world status. What a bunch of hypocrites.

 

run up that credit card Georgie!

[DC Tom]

Please! Bush2 is an extreme version of Reagan. After putting the country into a deep hole by increased spending and cutting taxes, leading to larger deficits, Bush1 had to raise taxes. Now, the budget situation is so extreme because of the republican's idiotic cut taxes and increase spending program2, no matter who is in there, someone has to clean this !@#$ing mess up--a mess that you wonderful conservatives caused. And now your so-called conservatives are acting like socialists bailing out their buddies on Wall Street. Sure, set up Obama as a straw man; but it's your conservative policies that are pushing US to 3rd world status. What a bunch of hypocrites.

 

run up that credit card Georgie!

 

True...but that really wasn't SDS's point, now was it?

[Johnny Coli]

Regardless of Obama's plan, what needs to be noted here is that we don't elect Kings. Who here thinks the Democrats in Congress aren't chomping at the bit to lower those thresholds substantially? Do some of you people really expect not to hear "Well, I know we promised X, but now that we are here - the mess is SO big - bigger than we thought, we are going to have to all be more patriotic and lower those thresholds." Take that to the bank.

 

OTOH, if Obama enacts his plan as detailed on his website then every pinko-liberal out there supporting this plan should kiss our fat-conservative asses because we essentially won the tax debate (at least 75% of the debate). The fact that we have an election on who is going to cut taxes more (with disagreements at the margins) is a victory for the conservatives.

 

With that said, I personally don't believe for one NY second that this congress isn't going to raise taxes on every Tom, Dick, and Hussein in this country.

Talk about hedging. "Obama is gonna raise taxes! Unless he doesn't and actually lowers them, then I'm right because I'm a conservative. Even though I'm betting he won't."

[gmac17]

wow - not a single actual comment on the veracity of the article? does this mean it's true? (seriously - i'm asking).

 

I bet my favorite charities hope it's not true...though I'm sure the feds will do a better job with my money than a charity would .....