Obama's Tax Policies

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

"Question: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on
millions of Americans.

OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.
CLINTON: That’s right.
OBAMA: I’m not bashful about it.

-2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles, California; Jan 30, 2008

“And the Bush tax cuts–people didn’t need them, and they weren’t even asking for them, and that’s why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives.”

-Obama: 2007 Democratic Presidential Debate; Howard University, June 28, 2007"

http://www.exposeobama.com/taxes.html

"Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly recently wrote:

“Obama’s costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433)… would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts…”

Schlafly also wrote:

“The Global Poverty Act would be a giant step toward the [United Nation’s] Millennium Goals of global governance and international taxes on Americans.”

2

Nice Avatar :)…
I need no more evidence that Obama is an asshole. He’s not getting my vote.

3

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"Question: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on
millions of Americans.

OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.
CLINTON: That’s right.
OBAMA: I’m not bashful about it.

-2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles, California; Jan 30, 2008

“And the Bush tax cuts–people didn’t need them, and they weren’t even asking for them, and that’s why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives.”

-Obama: 2007 Democratic Presidential Debate; Howard University, June 28, 2007"

http://www.exposeobama.com/taxes.html

"Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly recently wrote:

“Obama’s costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433)… would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts…”

Schlafly also wrote:

“The Global Poverty Act would be a giant step toward the [United Nation’s] Millennium Goals of global governance and international taxes on Americans.”

[/quote]

It is sad but true, I believe to get out of the mess our economy is in, some one is going to have to increase taxes and decrease spending. Your link to Obama is funny, it acts as though Bushes fiscal policies are just peachy, and Bush is leaving a big mess for future. If McCain get president all you will get is a bigger mess. Some day America will be bankrupt, just like U.S.S.R.

4

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"Question: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on
millions of Americans.

OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.
CLINTON: That’s right.
OBAMA: I’m not bashful about it.

-2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles, California; Jan 30, 2008

“And the Bush tax cuts–people didn’t need them, and they weren’t even asking for them, and that’s why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives.”

-Obama: 2007 Democratic Presidential Debate; Howard University, June 28, 2007"

http://www.exposeobama.com/taxes.html

"Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly recently wrote:

“Obama’s costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433)… would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts…”

Schlafly also wrote:

“The Global Poverty Act would be a giant step toward the [United Nation’s] Millennium Goals of global governance and international taxes on Americans.”

[/quote]

My God! The government needs revenue to run! When it doesn’t have enough revenue it goes into debt! To get out of that debt it needs additional revenue! The Horror of actually saying it out loud!!!

Muslim!
O.J.!
Arugula!

5

[quote]100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
"Question: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on
millions of Americans.

OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.
CLINTON: That’s right.
OBAMA: I’m not bashful about it.

-2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles, California; Jan 30, 2008

“And the Bush tax cuts–people didn’t need them, and they weren’t even asking for them, and that’s why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives.”

-Obama: 2007 Democratic Presidential Debate; Howard University, June 28, 2007"

http://www.exposeobama.com/taxes.html

"Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly recently wrote:

“Obama’s costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433)… would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts…”

Schlafly also wrote:

“The Global Poverty Act would be a giant step toward the [United Nation’s] Millennium Goals of global governance and international taxes on Americans.”

My God! The government needs revenue to run! When it doesn’t have enough revenue it goes into debt! To get out of that debt it needs additional revenue! The Horror of actually saying it out loud!!!

Muslim!
O.J.!
Arugula![/quote]

Dude,

The issue is that the Fed has much more than it needs, it just does not manage what is has. Ever heard of the government buying a hammer for $1,000? The government wastes billions of dollars each year and then says; “give me more”.

So it’s not about need it’s about the lack of accountability of Washington.

6

To get elected, Obama (and many others, of course) spout: “We’re only going to tax the rich! They didn’t want a cut anyway!”

Then, there’s a revenue shortfall, and…just maybe…taxes go up for earners of 100K, then 75K, then…

Its the same old story: those who have not want to get from those who have, with a big heavy stick called ‘Government’. Will we ever learn?

I may actually vote Libertarian this year, since ‘None of the Above’ is not an option.

7

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
100meters wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
"Question: If either one of you become president, and let the Bush tax cuts lapse, there will be effectively tax increases on
millions of Americans.

OBAMA: On wealthy Americans.
CLINTON: That’s right.
OBAMA: I’m not bashful about it.

-2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles, California; Jan 30, 2008

“And the Bush tax cuts–people didn’t need them, and they weren’t even asking for them, and that’s why they need to be less, so that we can pay for universal health care and other initiatives.”

-Obama: 2007 Democratic Presidential Debate; Howard University, June 28, 2007"

http://www.exposeobama.com/taxes.html

"Conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly recently wrote:

“Obama’s costly, dangerous and altogether bad bill (S. 2433)… would commit U.S. taxpayers to spend 0.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product on foreign handouts…”

Schlafly also wrote:

“The Global Poverty Act would be a giant step toward the [United Nation’s] Millennium Goals of global governance and international taxes on Americans.”

My God! The government needs revenue to run! When it doesn’t have enough revenue it goes into debt! To get out of that debt it needs additional revenue! The Horror of actually saying it out loud!!!

Muslim!
O.J.!
Arugula!

Dude,

The issue is that the Fed has much more than it needs, it just does not manage what is has. Ever heard of the government buying a hammer for $1,000? The government wastes billions of dollars each year and then says; “give me more”.

So it’s not about need it’s about the lack of accountability of Washington.

[/quote]
buying a $1000 hammer.
when the hammer is a metaphor for so many things gone wrong over

the past 8 years…

tax cuts for the rich borrowed from china to stimulate the economy is such a hammer,

war in Iraq is such a hammer,

and of course all the hammers literally…

yes accountability of all sorts is needed, hence more and better democrats are needed, ala Obama.

8

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
To get elected, Obama (and many others, of course) spout: “We’re only going to tax the rich! They didn’t want a cut anyway!”

Then, there’s a revenue shortfall, and…just maybe…taxes go up for earners of 100K, then 75K, then…

Its the same old story: those who have not want to get from those who have, with a big heavy stick called ‘Government’. Will we ever learn?

I may actually vote Libertarian this year, since ‘None of the Above’ is not an option.[/quote]

Instead of eating crow 4 years from now, why not just vote for Obama?

9

[quote]100meters wrote:
My God! The government needs revenue to run! When it doesn’t have enough revenue it goes into debt! To get out of that debt it needs additional revenue! The Horror of actually saying it out loud!!!

Muslim!
O.J.!
Arugula![/quote]

Has the United States levied a federal income tax since its inception?

It must have, since by your logic it couldn’t have “run” otherwise, right?

10

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
100meters wrote:
My God! The government needs revenue to run! When it doesn’t have enough revenue it goes into debt! To get out of that debt it needs additional revenue! The Horror of actually saying it out loud!!!

Muslim!
O.J.!
Arugula!

Has the United States levied a federal income tax since its inception?

It must have, since by your logic it couldn’t have “run” otherwise, right?[/quote]

Hmmm… so you’re saying the gov. doesn’t need revenue or with no revenue it doesn’t go in debt? Or you played trivial pursuit last night and thought you’d throw out an irrelevant fact?

11

[quote]100meters wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
100meters wrote:
My God! The government needs revenue to run! When it doesn’t have enough revenue it goes into debt! To get out of that debt it needs additional revenue! The Horror of actually saying it out loud!!!

Muslim!
O.J.!
Arugula!

Has the United States levied a federal income tax since its inception?

It must have, since by your logic it couldn’t have “run” otherwise, right?

Hmmm… so you’re saying the gov. doesn’t need revenue or with no revenue it doesn’t go in debt? Or you played trivial pursuit last night and thought you’d throw out an irrelevant fact?[/quote]

No, I’m pointing out that your post was a non-sequitur. This thread is about federal taxes, see the heading above? You’re either implying that a government must have high taxes to “run” (and again just flat out wrong factually), or your post makes no logical sense and has no place in this thread.

Has the federal government ever “run” without an income tax? How? Is the only way to reduce a deficit to increase federal taxes? Do “revenues” always increase with an increase in the tax rate? Do you even know the answers to these questions? Clearly this all went over your head but here’s a zany thought: Maybe we could reduce this debt by, instead of raising the tax rate, cutting extraneous spending. (gasp!)

See, your posts generally make no sense to anyone with half a brain and a middle school education in logic and rhetoric. You lack even the most basic understanding of how our economy works and how our republic functions. You are worse than Lixy, because while she is being put up to spouting propaganda by our foreign enemies, you are willfully ignorant. You’re the worst kind of person to debate with: someone who is too stupid to understand your own lapses in logic.

12

[quote]Moriarty wrote:
100meters wrote:
Moriarty wrote:
100meters wrote:
My God! The government needs revenue to run! When it doesn’t have enough revenue it goes into debt! To get out of that debt it needs additional revenue! The Horror of actually saying it out loud!!!

Muslim!
O.J.!
Arugula!

Has the United States levied a federal income tax since its inception?

It must have, since by your logic it couldn’t have “run” otherwise, right?

Hmmm… so you’re saying the gov. doesn’t need revenue or with no revenue it doesn’t go in debt? Or you played trivial pursuit last night and thought you’d throw out an irrelevant fact?

No, I’m pointing out that your post was a non-sequitur. This thread is about federal taxes, see the heading above? You’re either implying that a government must have high taxes to “run” (and again just flat out wrong factually), or your post makes no logical sense and has no place in this thread.

Has the federal government ever “run” without an income tax? How? Is the only way to reduce a deficit to increase federal taxes? Do “revenues” always increase with an increase in the tax rate? Do you even know the answers to these questions? Clearly this all went over your head but here’s a zany thought: Maybe we could reduce this debt by, instead of raising the tax rate, cutting extraneous spending. (gasp!)

See, your posts generally make no sense to anyone with half a brain and a middle school education in logic and rhetoric. You lack even the most basic understanding of how our economy works and how our republic functions. You are worse than Lixy, because while she is being put up to spouting propaganda by our foreign enemies, you are willfully ignorant. You’re the worst kind of person to debate with: someone who is too stupid to understand your own lapses in logic.

[/quote]

I guess you’re some kind of clown or something, but you’ll notice that no, it doesn’t really say anything about federal taxes, but while you are apparently to stupid to realize that even before the “federal income tax” the federal govt. used (yikes!) “taxes” of all sorts to “raise revenue”. They even “raised” them when they needed “additional revenue”. While I suppose we could dramatically raise the taxes on whiskey ala Hamilton, there are probably easier ways given today’s system.

But yes, we’ve run on “taxes” for a long time. Hilariously your “federal income tax” canard the actual non-sequitur.

Also to point out another of your fallacies… I didn’t say “high” taxes. You made that up. Stop doing that.

13

How do you explain the fact that the “Bush Tax Cuts” actually increased tax revenues?

14

[quote]100meters wrote:

[/quote]

My favorite line of stupidity:

“Has the federal government ever “run” without an income tax? How?”

apparently in Moriarty’s world (somewhere in the magical world of “candyland” I suppose) it ran on: “cutting spending”.

Hmmm…

15

[quote]futurepharm wrote:
How do you explain the fact that the “Bush Tax Cuts” actually increased tax revenues?

[/quote]

Err… they don’t. The economy is just a bit better now than it was then. It did, however, seem to lower unemployment a tad.

Regardless, how is a democrat campaigning for higher taxes a surprise? This is a default, and assumption. It really had no need to be said.

16

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
To get elected, Obama (and many others, of course) spout: “We’re only going to tax the rich! They didn’t want a cut anyway!”

Then, there’s a revenue shortfall, and…just maybe…taxes go up for earners of 100K, then 75K, then…

Its the same old story: those who have not want to get from those who have, with a big heavy stick called ‘Government’. Will we ever learn?
[/quote]

That’s exactly the point that people fail to see. Raising taxes will not only apply to the rich. Bush cut taxes for everyone.

See:

Don’t quote me as these being exact, just grasp the concept.

Now, you have someone who wants to raise taxes and start many government programs (e.g. universal health care, etc). This will cost a lot of money. Or more simply, your checks will get smaller.

The other thing people don’t get is how taxes actually work. Everybody pays the same amount per bracket and it will cost them more to make more money. Consequently, raising taxes on the “rich” will give people less of an incentive to work extra. When every dollar that you make above a certain amount is taxed at a higher rate than the previous dollars, what is the point of going the extra mile? Who does this penalize? Who draws the line of what “rich” is?

17

Lowering tax rates DID increase revenues…

Hmmm…

NY Times, too.

18

[quote]futurepharm wrote:
How do you explain the fact that the “Bush Tax Cuts” actually increased tax revenues?

[/quote]

But lower than had they not been raised. And of course they have to be paid for( double ouch!). But hey the stimulus they gave! 2.5% real GDP was soooo worth the longterm debt, that now has to be repaid!

Otherwise a good point!

19

[quote]100meters wrote:
But lower than had they not been raised.

[/quote]

If they hadn’t been lowered in the first place, you wouldn’t have had the revenue increase because you wouldn’t have the increase in economic activity.

20

[quote]Chewie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
To get elected, Obama (and many others, of course) spout: “We’re only going to tax the rich! They didn’t want a cut anyway!”

Then, there’s a revenue shortfall, and…just maybe…taxes go up for earners of 100K, then 75K, then…

Its the same old story: those who have not want to get from those who have, with a big heavy stick called ‘Government’. Will we ever learn?

That’s exactly the point that people fail to see. Raising taxes will not only apply to the rich. Bush cut taxes for everyone.

See:

Don’t quote me as these being exact, just grasp the concept.

Now, you have someone who wants to raise taxes and start many government programs (e.g. universal health care, etc). This will cost a lot of money. Or more simply, your checks will get smaller.

The other thing people don’t get is how taxes actually work. Everybody pays the same amount per bracket and it will cost them more to make more money. Consequently, raising taxes on the “rich” will give people less of an incentive to work extra. When every dollar that you make above a certain amount is taxed at a higher rate than the previous dollars, what is the point of going the extra mile? Who does this penalize? Who draws the line of what “rich” is?

[/quote]
If they work as hard as they did in the 90’s (tax rate will be rolled back to that level) we’ll be alright.