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Obama would reinstitute the windfall profits tax, which almost bankrupted the oil industry back in the 1980's. Congress repealed it in 1988 because of that.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: 03-19-2003
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 8:21pm
I live in PA and agree with you!!
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 8:22pm

Those are not the same links you had in your original post. So not "Here they are again" but rather "here they are"


Thank you for finally providing links to actual articles,


1) the article makes a claim it doesn't support.


2) the Time article has "expired from the site" so I cannot read it


3) According to this article from Nov 2007 he plans to raise the cap on the payroll tax so folks who earn quite a bit will pay a bit more.

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-25-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 8:23pm

>>So most of them are uninsured by choice, not because they can't afford it. <<


Feel free to support this contention.


iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 8:37pm

<>


Nice distracting and transparent

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-09-2006
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 8:43pm

<>

Exactly!

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2006
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 9:06pm

<

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-03-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 9:10pm
Um, Obama has a projected 333 electoral votes to McCain's 175. The fact is that either candidate is going to have a very rough time. We are in a RECESSION, it cannot be denied any longer. Taxes are going to have to be raised, no question about it. the debt is like 400,000 per person, did you know that?
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 9:10pm

I will. Especially since the CDC is on my side.

http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Uninsured/#content

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

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-12-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 9:15pm
Read the book The Forgotten Man, then tell me I'm wrong. FDR's policies made the depression last much longer than it should have, and only served to make it worse. Many of FDR's New Deal policies were found to be unconstitutional.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-03-2008
Sun, 10-12-2008 - 9:21pm

The way to insure the uninsured is to tell ins. companies that they can no longer deny coverage to people with pre-exhisting conditions. Make it illegal for them to do so. I'm sure a high % of people who are uninsured are uninsured fro this very reason!

Pages