Another Obama lie: Raising taxes on Middle Class

[justapixel]

Rhonnie Rheagan was forced to raise taxes -- the economy improved as the deficit declined. Clinton raised taxes and the economy improved as deficits declined, indeed, Billy Clinton ran budget surpluses -- surpluses, mind you, surpluses that George WTC Bush spent, and then some. Indeed, Clinton's surpluses were the first in the post-WWII era.

Clinton NEVER had a surplus. That is simply a lie told over and over again by the left. It never was the truth and never will be the truth.


To get a surplus, you will have to add the surplus social security and medicare tax to the deficit.

 

[JB3]

Thats a fair point as is my point that a man should not be accused of lying until he actually tells a lie.

This is true. However, these are the men that give the president advice on his economic policies. (and in the case of Geithner, actually MAKE the economic policies) It is a reasonable (even though it is unlikely) assumption to think that these men stated this opinion because this is the advice they're giving the president.

 

[syntax]

The Clinton 'improvement' was only temporary. He passed what was then the largest tax increase in history.

Congress passed the legislation. President Clinton signed it. Are you new to this country? Here's a link to the Constitution. It will explain how the government works:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Such constitutional niceties aside, here's the beauty of this post: the largest tax increase in history.

When one lacks evidence or is simply too intellectually lazy to advance an argument against the Clinton administration, one reverts to: Clinton passed the largest tax increase in history.

According to a Treasury Report issued during the G. W. Bush administration in 2006, the largest tax increase in American history since 1968 was the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) signed by President Reagan in 1982 not the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) signed by President Clinton in 1993:

TEFRA was the biggest tax increase of the period measured in constant dollars and as a percentage of GDP. OBRA93 was the second biggest tax increase measured in constant dollars and as a percentage of GDP.

http://www.ustreas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/ota81.pdf

 

[01solara]

Yeah it may cost him votes among voters who have an oversimplistic black and white view of politics. People who think on higher planes might ask the question, why would Obama and Congress do it if they knew it would cost votes? Hmm. Perhaps because of the toll not acting on reducing deficit and debt would have on future generations. Unlike Bush who wanted to spend and leave the bill for the next administration, Obama may actually want to pay for his agenda while he's in office. Seems pretty selfless actually.

If you think holding him accountable for promises made is black and white and wanting higher taxes makes you on a higher plane, pay extra in fact why don't you pay double. You can feel so good about that higher plane you're on. Under Bush revenues went up but not fast enough to keep up with new spending. The excess spending under Bush was reprehensible and the even higher spending under Obuma is even more reprehensible.

He also promised to stop earmarks and eliminate the influence of lobbyists. He isn't even attempting to do either. In fact most of the porkulus bill was earmarks and payback to the unions and fat cats on wall street. George Bush's stimulus was just as wrong but not just as big. If these two parties can't get it right then let's get a another one. One way or the other this shit has to stop.

 

[syntax]

^But he was the first Dem to win reelection since FDR.

I guess Lyndon doesnt count.

Lyndon Johnson was not re-elected, so he, like your stupidly sarcastic post, does not count.

 

[letme]

REALLY? Says who, you? LOL! Can you explain why Bush herself mentioned these surpluses SEVEN TIMES in his speech in 2001 (see post #28 in this thread).

I'm WAITING, letme.

I am sure you are not addressing me.................


Quote:
Originally Posted by justapixel View Post
Clinton NEVER had a surplus. That is simply a lie told over and over again by the left. It never was the truth and never will be the truth.

To get a surplus, you will have to add the surplus social security and medicare tax to the deficit.
REALLY? Says who, you? LOL! Can you explain why Bush herself mentioned these surpluses SEVEN TIMES in his speech in 2001 (see post #28 in this thread).

I'm WAITING, letme.

 

[Inwood]

Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the most influential jurists to ever sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, once quipped "Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society."

I just love how people love to bemoan taxes, especially Americans. Mind you, I'm not in favor of higher taxes than what I currently pay, but I don't mind paying my fair share. I don't hire an accountant to do my annual income taxes to find loopholes and shady ways to get me a bigger return as I feel that is tantamount to theft.

You know who should complain about their tax rates? Belgians. In Belgium, a single person with no kids and who earns the national average wage can expect to pay about 55%. Someone else who should complain are Hungarians and the French, who both pay about 50% of their wage to the government. Italians shell out 45% while Austrians shell out 47%. Germans get slapped with a 51% tax on their income.

What do single Americans pay? Why, a mere 29%. Married with two kids and that plummets to 12%.

I'm just sayin'....

 

[NW007]

What? That Obama is doing something intelligent? Yes.

No that you actually believe that Obama wants to pay for his agenda while in office. And more importantly that you actually believe that what Obama is trying to do is save the nation. You have been drinking too much of the WH koolaid

 

[01solara]

I hear North Korea is looking for immigrants. At least there you know none of your tax monies go to feeding those welfare queen, poor people.

*shrug*


Just a thought.

I would think you communist types would like it better there. I am sure they have single payer health care there. The government there owns everything just like you want things to be here.

 

[seven_sins]

Oh how sad. How pathetic. Can't you come up with your own avatar?

Good point Toriko.

 

[01solara]

Oh how sad. How pathetic. Can't you come up with your own avatar?

For now I am liking this one but I will change it when I am in the mood and not until.

 

[NickCole]

Well if nothing else this thread is an interesting study of how Obama supporters here protect and defend Obama as ObamaCo floats the possibility of breaking another campaign promise by raising taxes on the middle class.

But it didn't take long for ObamaCo to recognize there's potentially too much political fallout for breaking that promise and sent out Gibbs to backtrack. Most likely Obama won't raise taxes on the middle class until after 2012, after he's been re-elected.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Oh, Obama will raise the taxes on the middle class, but stealthily.

Through Cap and Trade, the energy companies will pay HUGE taxes, and then pass that cost along to all the rest of us. Obama can claim to have never raised taxes (on the middle class), but we'll all be paying double, or more, in utility fees.....

Meanwhile, the government is raking in the money.

 

[NickCole]

^^ He needs more than that.

Obama's looking for a way to pay for health care reform because he didn't bother to come up with that pivotal element before negotiations started and now he's behind the eight ball. All the hare-brained schemes he's backed so far have fallen flat.

 

[HenryReardon]

What do single Americans pay? Why, a mere 29%. Married with two kids and that plummets to 12%.

...

Only if they're at the bottom of the economic ladder.

Productive single Americans pay a LOT more. Ditto, married with kids.

 

[NickCole]

On the other hand, while the embittered people like NickCole and others, would sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing for 4 years waiting for the next election so they can try to elect their candidate all the while Rome/US is burning, you cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good or achievable. Sometimes you have to take the win, even if you know you will have to come back to it to tweak or adjust it in the future.

Completely clueless.

My criticism of Obama and the Democratic Congress has never been that they're doing too much, and certainly not that they or anybody else should do absolutely nothing. It's that they're doing too little, that what they're doing isn't bold or potent enough (said repeatedly that the stimulus bill was too small and had too little actual stimulus in it, and that health care reform is going to be far less than the gold standard health care legislation a Democratic majority has the opportunity to make law).

 

[NickCole]

Of course, you COULD send him another Sternly Worded Text Message and Change The Course of History (Yet Again).

"Another"? "Yet again"?

I never said I did that. And yet you keep on lying about it.

 

[NickCole]

The thing is I think just about any reasonable Democrat that supported Hillary, as I did, was more than happy to pull the voting lever for Obama. No my first choice wasn't selected as the nominee, but only someone so bitter would run and pull that lever for McCain and try to destroy the Democratic President.

Hell, I wanted and supported Howard Dean, but John Kerry was nominated instead (by mistake, huge mistake). But attacking John Kerry like some former Hillary supporters might choose to with Obama only gave them Bush for another 4 years, as if that would be a win.

Hey if you have fair critiques, as you do Alfie of Obama, go for it. But having 4,104 posts anti-Obama by a Democrat, well stop lying you're a Republican.

Because of what I learned and observed about him I believed and still believe that Barack Obama is a talented seducer, and sometime effective bully, but a failure at creating, fighting for and ultimately leading through good policy and legislation.

We're in a very difficult place right now and the choices, the wins and losses from the US administration and Congress, will have a major impact on what comes next. I had good reason for believing Obama was not up to that challenge, and his choices have substantiated my concern.

Those who continue to protect and defend Obama, and strike out at critics like me who point to his unkept promises and timid "reform" measures, rather than hold his feet to the fire are as responsible for his failures as diehard Bush supporters are responsible for his. Both Bush and Obama are individual men, and it takes a lot of bot support for them to make their messes and fail to achieve what we need.

 

[NickCole]

And you spending 4 hours a day every day skulking forums trying to defeat anything and everything he is trying to do, accomplishes what?

It would accomplish nothing.

But then, I don't do that.

What does making up denigrating personal attacks accomplish?

 

[01solara]

You don't? My bad.

Perhaps I should have phrased it, what does posting thousands upon thousands of Obama hate accomplish? (Speaking hypothetically of course.)

It seems that most of the hate comes from your side. If someone has a different opinion they are personally attacked. I know that's the best you can do. Since the facts aren't on your side, you have to do something.