from your link
And, she's also right that on the campaign trail Obama promised not to raise "any" taxes on a family making less than $250,000. We rated that Promise Broken after Obama signed laws increasing taxes on cigarettes and indoor tanning.
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
|
Categorical statements are trivially wrong. Film at 11:00.
Context matters. When the discussion is about federal taxes, and categories are based on income, then the context is federal income taxes. This isn't complicated.
Yes, Obama and Gibbs and the rest were sloppy in trying to make a soundbite. It's a tragedy up there with the Hindenberg. Or something. :-/ Way to miss the forest for the trees. ;-) Cheers, Scott. (Who guesses that Beep and Box will be voting for Team Sarah based on this important issue.) |
|
Ok, so unless just the singular
FEDERAL income tax rises on earners under that magic limit, you will not recognize it as a tax increase.
Every other federal tax could go up by 2000%, but HE will have kept his promise to you. Got it. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
|
You're amazing...
|
|
Me?
Thats funny. You bend over backwards and sometimes alter reality to defend something and >I< am the amazing one.
Too funny. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
|
I'm not your strawman. Open your eyes. :-)
|
|
Really?
You state
"Yes, Obama and Gibbs and the rest were sloppy in trying to make a soundbite." and are using this to forgive the fact that indeed some federal taxes have gone up that impact those making under $xxx and add now the qualification that it HAS to be income tax. Thats not what HE said. But in order for HIM to violate HIS promise, you've now limited it to only income tax. I'm not building an strawman. I'm quoting you. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
|
Yes, really.
What are these "taxes" you speak of. AFAIK, the only 2 are excise taxes on tobacco and on tanning services.
The federal tax was increased from $0.39 to $1.01 per pack of 20 cigarettes in April, 2009. http://www.ttb.gov/m...hip-summary.shtml Other taxes on tobacco were increased as well. It is intended to pay for an expansion of SCHIP. Imagine that - increasing a benefit and finding a way to pay for it under PAYGO. Whodoathunkit. Smoke 2 packs a day, pay $226.30 more to the federal government a year. It's a huge burden. :-/ Don't like it? Don't buy tobacco. Problem solved. It's not a tax on people who make less than $250k, it's a tax on smokers. This isn't complicated. The excise tax on indoor tanning services is 10%. Around here, one can get "high level" monthly packages for $100 a month. That additional tax would be $120 a year. Another huge burden. :-/ It doesn't apply to medically necessary treatments at licensed medical offices - http://www.irs.gov/b...id=224600,00.html Don't like it? Go to a doctor. Or go outside. Problem solved. In contrast, Obama has cut taxes more than that - http://www.politifac...mulus-made-it-so/ . So even if someone is a heavy smoker and a heavy tanner, they would have come out ahead - had their net taxes cut. Or, IOW, he would have cut taxes on people making less than $200k/$250k. But let's step back and see what Obama actually said that gets reduced to the "I won't raise any taxes" sound bite: http://www.barackoba...rack_obam_112.php [...] The big picture says he's right. He obviously wasn't talking about excise taxes. Excise taxes are in the noise. But the big picture isn't interesting to some people here. And some people around here seem to think that Obama is a dictator who writes legislation, while most of us who were awake in American History know that the House writes the tax rules... :-/ Your insistence in constructing a strawman of me as some brainwashed Obamabot ideologue is rather tiresome. But whatever. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Do you pay attention to your quotes?
And I can make a firm pledge: under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase - not your income taxes, not your payroll taxes, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. That is an absolute statement made by President Obama. Care to look up the demographic of smokers and or tanners? (other taxes have changed, but no need to look them up, as point is made here). I'm willing to bet that those demographics are majority making less than 250k and the last piece IS absolutist and NOT a net calculation. Yes, this is semantics. But I can bet pretty safely that I make under 250k and my take home is already down because of the change in withholding. And will everyone get this back equally? Or will alot of folks who don't make enough to file simply give that extra to the fed? (oh but they could get it back if they filed, so thats not the dems fault either). So again, we qualify to your semantics because it isn't >really< a tax increase. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|
|
It's those bees ... in his head.
I could almost see voting for Palin in 2012 on the grounds that this sorry ratfucking excuse for a republic, this savage, smirking, predatory empire deserves her. Bring on the Rapture, motherfuckers! -- via RC |
|
Well Mr President...It's the bees and spiders again
Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
|