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Obama would reinstitute the windfall profits tax, which almost bankrupted the oil industry back in the 1980's. Congress repealed it in 1988 because of that.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
That's what I've been reading.
What articles exactly would you like us to read?
>>I know what you linked to, and I know what i linked to.
That's odd. Here they are again. And I know they work.
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/090808/nat_329681940.shtml
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1839372,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3638710&page=1
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/clinton_obama_and_the_social_s.html
http://firststatepolitics.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/the-obama-tax-plan-a-tax-plan-which-might-not-even-work-in-narnia/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080928210903AAPZaFf
http://www.thefreedomfactory.us/time-to-cut-corporate-tax-rates-obama-doesnt-quite-get-it/
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/02/26/the-obama-tax-plan/
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/3/28/obama-yes-to-higher-taxes-meh-to-spending-cuts.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9218
They're all in the same order I originally posted them in. That's how I bookmarked them.
That actual number is 45 million, not 47 million. It's funny how that number keeps going up. But at least you're not claiming what another very stupid person tried to claim, which was that out of the 45 million uninsured, 27 million die every year. Had that statement been true, the actual uninsured would have been only 18 million. I pointed that out to hm, and he kind of slinked off in embarrassment.
But let's take a look at that number for a second. The majority of those 45 million are young people, just starting out, who feel there are more important things to worry about in life than health insurance. You know how it is to be young. You think you're invincible, until age starts to creep up on you. So most of them are uninsured by choice, not because they can't afford it. But this thread is about taxes, not about health insurance. Please stick to the subject matter and stop diluting things.
In conclusion, Obama's health care plan would not be voluntary, it would be compulsory. Fines would be leveled against employers for not carrying health insurance. Many small businesses would suffer. Young people just starting out would be forced to buy into the Obama plan, whether they wanted it or not, or whether they could afford it or not. At least I never heard Obama say his plan was voluntary.
<There you go again, playing the class envy card. >
How about playing the class responsibility cared? You make more, you pay more because a stable society with consumers is a good one for the rich.
Are you serious?
Try the links again:
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/090808/nat_329681940.shtml
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1839372,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21739271/
http://abcnews.go.com/politics/Story?id=3638710&page=1
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/clinton_obama_and_the_social_s.html
http://firststatepolitics.wordpress.com/2007/09/21/the-obama-tax-plan-a-tax-plan-which-might-not-even-work-in-narnia/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080928210903AAPZaFf
http://www.thefreedomfactory.us/time-to-cut-corporate-tax-rates-obama-doesnt-quite-get-it/
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/02/26/the-obama-tax-plan/
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/3/28/obama-yes-to-higher-taxes-meh-to-spending-cuts.html
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9218
Thanks for reposting them.. I'm not sure why the full links weren't working for all of us. Off to read after I put the kids to bed.........
Other places you can find me:




Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Flickr Badge" border="0" />
Our family photo album online!
(password: ballfamily)
border=0>
Other places you can find me:
How about playing the flat tax card? Everyone pays the same tax rate, we get rid of all the loopholes, and we reduce the size of the IRS. For every tax dollar we send the federal government, only thirty cents of it ever gets spent on the program it was earmarked for. Seventy cents of every dollar goes to pay the federal bureaucracy.
Thanks to this sub prime mess!
If Obama's tax cuts are better than Bush's, shouldn't Obama want to implement them right away? It would seem Obama is admitting his tax cuts and tax policy is no good for the economy, and that Bush's cuts are better than his.
Because it is unfair? Those who have more get more. Like Adam Smith, I'm a progressive tax proponent.
The subprime mess caused the record deficits and
Pages