The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/fact_check_obama_taxes

WASHINGTON – An economic crisis, rising joblessness and a credit squeeze can make a president-elect refine his words. Today's word is "repeal." During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to repeal President George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of their scheduled expiration in 2011.

It was part of how Obama would pay for an overall net tax cut aimed at low- and middle-income taxpayers, and an effort to bring what he called "fairness" to the tax system.

No one is talking tax hikes now.

Over the weekend, Obama said he has charged his new economic team with devising a plan that would create or preserve 2.5 million jobs over two years. He said the plan would include broad spending plans as well as the middle- and low-income tax cuts he described during the campaign.

Aides later said the plan would not include any of the tax increases Obama, as a candidate, had said he would impose on taxpayers who make more than $250,000.

Asked Monday when those hikes might go into effect, Obama said, "Whether that's done through repeal, or whether that's done because the Bush tax cuts are not renewed, is something that my economic team will be providing me a recommendation on."

If repealed early, Obama's tax increase on the rich would have generated significant revenue, but not enough to compensate for the cost of his tax cuts. An analysis by the Tax Policy Center, based on January 2008 income projections, estimated that the increases would result in about $43 billion in revenue in 2009 and $45 billion in 2010. Those numbers would be smaller now, as the economy has lowered expected incomes.

Obama's economic advisers say he will not propose any tax increases in the economic plan he unveils in January. It is to be focused entirely on job creation and economic recovery.

I am glad that he is focused on job creation and economic recovery, but where is all the talk about taxing the rich now? I thought he already had an economic plan that was going to turn the Country around and part of that plan was taxing the rich and giving more money back to the middle class and poor? Kazoo will probably say this is classic liberal smoke and mirrors to dupe the poor into believing that democrats are about "taking care" of those who cannot take care of themselves just to get elected. As it looks right now, I would agree with that sentiment, but its not just democrats rather its just politics.

There goes one promise made as a canidate.

Which one's next?

As I believe all candidates are lairs. They do nothing more, than say the things they think will win them the election.

After elected, they just do the things their party says should happen.

He doesn't have to actively repeal the tax cuts, if he simply does not extend them when they are set to expire in 2010, that solves the problem.

ok, so in this case, to win an election he promised something that was going to happen anyway.

Got it thanks.

I'm going to say that's an overly simplistic view of things and leave it at that.

BnGhog wrote:As I believe all candidates are lairs.

I agree. I think a dragon lives in Obama.

Letting the current tax code expire and taking an active role in cutting or increasing taxes are two different things IMO.

"Whether that's done through repeal, or whether that's done because the Bush tax cuts are not renewed, is something that my economic team will be providing me a recommendation on."

What happened to "I have a tax plan to benefit the poor and middle class?" When he was campaigning, he made it seem like he had a plan laid out, but now that he has been elected he has to consult with his team whether or not to take an active role in tax relief or just let the Bush tax cuts expire? It seems as though the President is a puppet while a lot of people in the background pull the strings.

Cappster wrote:It seems as though the President is a puppet while a lot of people in the background pull the strings.

Ding ding ding ding ding. Tell him what he's won, Don!

Fios wrote:He doesn't have to actively repeal the tax cuts, if he simply does not extend them when they are set to expire in 2010, that solves the problem.

What we need in this environment of declining economic growth is CLEARLY for government to suck MORE money out of the economy to fund bureaucrisy to slow down what's left. And he gets to rationalize his lie he is going to cut taxes for 95% of a country in which 47% don't pay taxes by raising rates based on a technicality. Religion is a wonderful thing, beats thinking. Government, let me take you in my arms, look deep into your eyes, and believe in your greatness in complete rejection of all empirical data.

Don't mind me Fios, I just think that lawyers don't know anything about economics and when they come to me and say putting the economy in their hands and they will fix and provide for all even though they never have is at best naive and in reality idiotic. In other words, I'm a raving lunatic. I also think we should be responsible first for ourselves and not leave the job to bureaucrats.

Wow, until I wrote this down I never realized what a whack job I am. I really need to rethink this weird philosophy.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Wow, until I wrote this down I never realized what a whack job I am.

QFT

Fios wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Wow, until I wrote this down I never realized what a whack job I am.

QFT

Agreeing with me was a low blow? OK.

I read about a lady who was in the newspaper who had been scammed out of her life savings. She said she was admitting it publicly and in the article to help others. But here's the problem. People are Fox Mulder, they WANT to believe. Crooks almost always follow the same pattern, they lure people into scams out of their own greed. People want to believe they are going to make easy money collecting checks and wiring money overseas so in spite of all reason they do it out of greed. People want to believe they won a hundred thousand dollars so they click on the link. People want to believe the IRS is refunding money so they fill in their bank information. The woman warning about a scam isn't going to overcome the issue, the greed of the victims.

In politics, it's the same. Even though lawyers know nothing about economics or energy or pretty much anything else, they prey on the greed of the public that liberalism is a magic elixir. You will have a safe retirement by paying 20% of your income with no assets behind them (the government spends it now). You can oppose all energy policies and gas will be cheap AND usage will go down to reduce global warming. If government provides health care you will have better access even though socialized medicine is a disaster in every country that has it. You can tax the life out of the evil rich and we will have more jobs AND the stock market will go up moving your 401K higher.

Frankly, people are NOT that stupid. They believe it because of their greed. It's a scam that helps the lawyers who want to consolidate power using the exact same technique as every other con man. Greed. No matter that all facts belie their shallow lies and all common sense defies it, they are saying what the greedy sheep in this country want to hear. Liberalism is magic. Greed, greed, greed.

But given the election results and that the only real competition to the Democrats is just a notch below them in Socialism, it's proof positive that greed sells and I'm a raving lunatic in this country for recognizing that the politicians are the scam artists who rather then selling us out one by one simply sell greed to the majority and subjegate the rest with government guns. We are lost, I know that. The only sanity I have left, recognition of reality.

um, wow

Fios wrote:um, wow

On that we agree. You got me. Even "I" knew what a bunch of crap it was when I wrote it. Lawyers are highly intelligent saintly beings who possess all knowledge. They will create fair and competitive economic systems where the workers will have endless profit and unlimited jobs, we all will have easy access to ever greater medical care, it will be impossible for criminals to get guns, we can reject all energy policies causing endless cheap gas we will use ever decreasing amounts of, there will be no unemployment because everyone wants to work, government confiscated charity will solve all the causes of the world, the environment will be clean and the water pure.

Greed, what was I thinking? It's about faith. Faith in lawyers. What a great country we would be if we only put our unquestioning faith in the Great Liberal God's gift to man. Lawyers. Speakers of truth, solvers of problems, servants to mankind. God's gift. Thank you, oh great liberal God for bestowing us with lawyers.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

Fios wrote:um, wow

On that we agree. You got me. Even "I" knew what a bunch of crap it was when I wrote it. Lawyers are highly intelligent saintly beings who possess all knowledge. They will create fair and competitive economic systems where the workers will have endless profit and unlimited jobs, we all will have easy access to ever greater medical care, it will be impossible for criminals to get guns, we can reject all energy policies causing endless cheap gas we will use ever decreasing amounts of, there will be no unemployment because everyone wants to work, government confiscated charity will solve all the causes of the world, the environment will be clean and the water pure.

Greed, what was I thinking? It's about faith. Faith in lawyers. What a great country we would be if we only put our unquestioning faith in the Great Liberal God's gift to man. Lawyers. Speakers of truth, solvers of problems, servants to mankind. God's gift. Thank you, oh great liberal God for bestowing us with lawyers.

Since this is the lounge, I'll just leave it as wow...

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Even though lawyers know nothing about economics or energy or pretty much anything else, they prey on the greed of the public

Do you even have the faintest understanding that when you post dreck like this, it is both incredibly insulting and incredibly ignorant?

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Even though lawyers know nothing about economics or energy or pretty much anything else, they prey on the greed of the public

Do you even have the faintest understanding that when you post dreck like this, it is both incredibly insulting and incredibly ignorant?

Wow, being thin skinned is no way for a lawyer to go through life.

Obviously I was referring to the lawyers who chose to run for government power. What has Obama done that makes you want to turn over the economy, energy, health care, retirement and all the other areas he wants to control over to him? Or more specifically what QUALIFICATION does he have to control all those? Doesn't anyone ever think about that? His desire for all that power is so completely self serving and yet no one asks what he actually KNOWS about any of those subjects.

BTW, I would also include ambulance chasing tort lawyers as feeding on greed. But did you hear about the terrorists who hijacked a plane load of lawyers? They threatened to release one every hour until their demands were met.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Obviously I was referring to the lawyers who chose to run for government power.

I must have missed when you limited your broad sweeping generalizations to this subset of lawyers.

What has Obama done that makes you want to turn over the economy, energy, health care, retirement and all the other areas he wants to control over to him? Or more specifically what QUALIFICATION does he have to control all those?

What qualification does anyone running for President really have? They all start with zero experience with being President. One of the things that Obama has, in droves, is a piercing intellect (if you've read either of his books, you'd understand he's a very, very bright man). No one man or woman knows everything about everything, and no President controls ALL policy made by the federal government; that's why the most important thing to look at is who are the people the President appoints to the Cabinet and to head the different departments.

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Obviously I was referring to the lawyers who chose to run for government power.

I must have missed when you limited your broad sweeping generalizations to this subset of lawyers.

Given that I've been making endless references to the all knowing lawyers becoming politicians and telling us that giving them power is the solution to all our problems, that wasn't an easy thing to miss. Then again if you want to take my reference as an insult to all lawyers that's fine too.

PulpExposure wrote:

What has Obama done that makes you want to turn over the economy, energy, health care, retirement and all the other areas he wants to control over to him? Or more specifically what QUALIFICATION does he have to control all those?

What qualification does anyone running for President really have? They all start with zero experience with being President. One of the things that Obama has, in droves, is a piercing intellect (if you've read either of his books, you'd understand he's a very, very bright man). No one man or woman knows everything about everything, and no President controls ALL policy made by the federal government; that's why the most important thing to look at is who are the people the President appoints to the Cabinet and to head the different departments.

OK, but my question was "What has Obama done that makes you want to turn over the economy, energy, health care, retirement and all the other areas he wants to control over to him? Or more specifically what QUALIFICATION does he have to control all those?"

Or more specifically to your point, what makes you want to turn those things over to ANYONE! Which is probably why none of those powers are authorized to the Federal government in the Constitution, barring them from the Federal government by the 9th and 10th Amendments. The Constitution, a document Lawyers have consistently demonstrated they are unable to read. I always thought you had to get a high score on the LSAT. Apparently you need a low one.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Obviously I was referring to the lawyers who chose to run for government power.

I must have missed when you limited your broad sweeping generalizations to this subset of lawyers.

Given that I've been making endless references to the all knowing lawyers becoming politicians and telling us that giving them power is the solution to all our problems, that wasn't an easy thing to miss. Then again if you want to take my reference as an insult to all lawyers that's fine too.

PulpExposure wrote:

What has Obama done that makes you want to turn over the economy, energy, health care, retirement and all the other areas he wants to control over to him? Or more specifically what QUALIFICATION does he have to control all those?

What qualification does anyone running for President really have? They all start with zero experience with being President. One of the things that Obama has, in droves, is a piercing intellect (if you've read either of his books, you'd understand he's a very, very bright man). No one man or woman knows everything about everything, and no President controls ALL policy made by the federal government; that's why the most important thing to look at is who are the people the President appoints to the Cabinet and to head the different departments.

OK, but my question was "What has Obama done that makes you want to turn over the economy, energy, health care, retirement and all the other areas he wants to control over to him? Or more specifically what QUALIFICATION does he have to control all those?"

Or more specifically to your point, what makes you want to turn those things over to ANYONE! Which is probably why none of those powers are authorized to the Federal government in the Constitution, barring them from the Federal government by the 9th and 10th Amendments. The Constitution, a document Lawyers have consistently demonstrated they are unable to read. I always thought you had to get a high score on the LSAT. Apparently you need a low one.

Isn't that the whole purpose of Congress. Technically, he can't do jack really without a vote approving it, right? No one person is actually the be-all-end-all here. That's why he has his cabinet. Call me dumb, but he may succeed or fail based on his appointed cabinet who should be his advisors to these critical issues. One man may be able to influence by appointing like-minded people, but he still has to convince the majority of those 500+ people...

I know this strays from the lawyer debate... you may ignore and continue to throw insults.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Or more specifically to your point, what makes you want to turn those things over to ANYONE! Which is probably why none of those powers are authorized to the Federal government in the Constitution, barring them from the Federal government by the 9th and 10th Amendments.

You should really read the Constitution, and not just the Amendments. Start with taking a look at Article I, Section 8.

The Constitution, a document Lawyers have consistently demonstrated they are unable to read. I always thought you had to get a high score on the LSAT. Apparently you need a low one.

I suppose this is reserved only for government lawyers, too? And please. Tell me what the LSAT has to do with the Constitution. When I took it, it had reading comprehension, a logic games section, and a legal reasoning section (which did not involve the Constitution or Bill of Rights). Or is this yet another example of you not knowing what you're talking about?

PulpExposure wrote:Or is this yet another example of you not knowing what you're talking about?

We have a winner!

Fios wrote:

PulpExposure wrote:Or is this yet another example of you not knowing what you're talking about?

We have a winner!

I haven't seen who or what you're referring to but this still made me laugh.

Rich keep on getting rich.
While the poor keep getting poor!

JeanPassepartout1974 wrote:Rich keep on getting rich.
While the poor keep getting poor!

I don't think I can get much poorer (knocks on wood).

VetSkinsFan wrote:Isn't that the whole purpose of Congress. Technically, he can't do jack really without a vote approving it, right? No one person is actually the be-all-end-all here. That's why he has his cabinet. Call me dumb, but he may succeed or fail based on his appointed cabinet who should be his advisors to these critical issues. One man may be able to influence by appointing like-minded people, but he still has to convince the majority of those 500+ people...

Well, "running" the economy is what the "purpose of Congress" has become. They were never granted that power by the Constitution and for good reason. The Constitution was set up by checks and balances. So are the free market. I don't trust companies, I trust competition. In the end ANYONE making dictatorial choices will make choices in their own favor. Only "choice" keeps us free so we can make the ones in our own favor. The least choice of all is socialism. Power driven lawyers convince the majority to empower them to impose their will on the minority with the power of government guns. The politicians then control them with government money (social security, health care, ...). In the end no one is free. The minority is slave to the majority who are slave to the power brokers controlling their government checks.