Obama the tax shifter, not tax cutter

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Obama the tax shifter, not tax cutter
172
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 6:09am

When Ed Rendell became governor of Pennsylvania, he promised tax cuts very similar to what Obama promises. What he gave Pennsylvanians was a tax shift. While he cut the state's income tax, he also raised taxes in other categories to make up the difference in state revenues. What Pennsylvania ended up with was a tax cut con. Pennsylvanians ended up with tax increases instead of a tax cut. Obama is going to do the same thing Rendell has done. Obama will certainly increase other taxes, which means we won't be getting a tax cut, but a tax shift.

The bottom line is this: Whenever a Democrat promises to give you a tax cut, they're actually giving you a tax shift, which overall amounts to a tax increase. It's kind of like political bait and switch. Obama is just a con man.

Why does Obama want to keep the Bush tax cuts if his tax cuts are better?

Obama would reinstitute the windfall profits tax, which almost bankrupted the oil industry back in the 1980's. Congress repealed it in 1988 because of that.

Obama wants to reintroduce the capital gains tax, not quite qt the 28% level previously stated, but somewhere between 20% and 28% according to Obama.

Obama wants to raise social security taxes.

More on Obama's tax cuts and tax increases in general:


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 9:21pm

>>The uninsured number of Americans actually fell to 43.6 million, according to them. Most of them being young. Eat crow.<<


Sure, but first you'll need to point out which of the stats you provided indicate that most of the uninsured are young adults who are choosing to not purchase insurance they can afford.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 9:45pm

The windfall profits tax has never worked right on a federal level. It has been tried once before. Congress had to repeal it in 1988. It may work on the state level because of the smaller oversight needed, but it's too cumbersome for the federal government. It almost bankrupted the US oil industry, which is another reason why Congress repealed it. It was a Jimmy Carter invention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windfall_profits_tax

And here we have the truth about the social security trust fund:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Security_Act#Creation:_The_Social_Security_Act

The 1983 Amendments also included a provision to exclude the Social Security Trust Fund from the unified budget (in political jargon, it was taken “off-budget”). This provision also provided for the exemption of Social Security and portions of the Medicare trust funds from any general budget cuts beginning in 1993. This change was one way of trying to protect Social Security funds for the future.

As a result of these changes, particularly the tax increases, the Social Security system began to generate a large short-term surplus of funds, intended to cover the added retirement costs of the "baby boomers." Congress invested these surpluses into special series, non-marketable U.S. Treasury securities held by the Social Security Trust Fund. Under the law, the government bonds held by Social Security are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Because the government had adopted the unified budget during the Johnson administration, this surplus offsets the total fiscal debt, making it look much smaller. There has been significant disagreement over whether the Social Security Trust Fund has been saved, or has been used to finance other government programs and other tax cuts.

A lot of finger pointing has gone on over who did what with the trust fund. The fact is, it's gone, and was more than likely spent by Congress on pet projects and their favorite programs.

I've reposted the links to the articles I've cited twice now. I'm sure you'll be able to find them, and get back on topic, which is how Obama is a tax shifter, not a tax cutter.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-15-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 9:59pm

<>


ive reported several violations today due to vulgarity and personal attacks

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-03-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 9:59pm
Would you vote for McCain if he wasn't Republican? Look, Republicans have ALWAYS been for Big Business and the very WEALTHY. Since I am neither, I'm a Democrat, and Obama is who the Democratic candidate is. I am very very soured on Republicans. It's your prerogitive if you want to throw your panties to McCain.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 10:18pm
Just coming from the thread of the McCain rally...wow your JUST like them in that clip...so filled with hate.

Powered by CGISpy.com

Photobucket


Photobucket


Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 10:49pm

<>


Sorry, but it was repealed because oil prices were low which is what I stated in my OP. It is not necessary to have a wind fall profit when the profits are not large.


Repeal. On August 23, 1988, amid low oil prices, the tax was repealed when President Ronald Reagan signed P.L. 100-418, The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988.

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2007
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 10:55pm

Reported.


Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-06-2007
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 11:30pm

Excuse me CL, but I find it very disturbing that you have not said anything to kestrels11 regarding her blatant violations of TOS. Not to mention the numerous references to Obama as "the BO man"

Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-07-2003
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 4:51am
I recommend "Big Mac".
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-24-2008
Mon, 10-13-2008 - 6:33am
The pre-existing condition issue is huge with Obama.

Pages