Obama the tax shifter, not tax cutter
Find a Conversation
| 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Obama would reinstitute the windfall profits tax, which almost bankrupted the oil industry back in the 1980's. Congress repealed it in 1988 because of that.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
You don't think Halliburton needs more money?
<>
Chrissy
mom to Aidan 8/21/03
Grayson Blaine 12/30/07
Now a serious question on the "pre-existing condition" situation.
Person "A" is in good health, no pre-existing conditions, no maintenance medications.
Person "B" has diabetes and high blood pressure, their maintenance medications alone cost $100/week, and they are at markedly higher risk of medical complications.
Why should they both be charged the same amount for medical coverage?
<>
Because the cost of medical care for serious conditions is way out of line with what the "average" person makes.
The whole point of "insurance" is that risk is shared.
I have two kids with Type 1 diabetes. We have no family history of this condition. So far this autoimmune disease is not preventable and has no cure. The incidence of Type 1 is now 1 in 300, so there are lots of other families in this situation. Without insurance, we'd be bankrupt. Mr. McCain wants to end employer sponsored medical insurance. I've mentioned this before, but it's worth repeating: diabetes care for the uninsured in the US is not adequate.
I and dh both paid for medical insurance for years and years and years before we needed it. During that time we were covering other people who had high medical costs.
In an ideal world, my time would be worth as much as a doctor's or a lawyer's. Then I wouldn't have to worry about insurance because I'd be able to pay for medical care outright. As it is, even with medical insurance I've paid enough in medical costs to pay for a couple of years of college.
Yes, the risk is shared, but there is something called "underwriting".
While I don't think health insurance is a right, I do think medical care is a right. i cannot even imagine the argument that medical care is something that should only happen should you be able to afford it.
Then again my daughter was diagnosed with Type I diabetes at the age of 3. She did not do anything -- drive poorly and dangerously in an unsafe car, build or buy a house in a flood plain. While I can see the argument if you could prove her illness was entirely preventable though better choices -- hers was not. Neither was the bipolar disorder my son has.
But I'd love to hear the argument that she should pay more. Please feel free to expand on it.
<>
My point exactly.
<>
Nor I.
rosey, medical care isn't a right, because you require someone else to give it to you.
Pages