Obama lowered the bar for tax cuts again
By Ted Belman
I can’t listen to Barack Hussein Obama. After a couple of minutes I’ve had it. But one excerpt caught my attention in his address last night.
He promised a “tax cut for every working family making less than $200,000.” I guess $250,000 is history.
But more important he said “family”. That suggests $100,000 per spouse.
What does this say about what he will set the bar for single taxpayers?
Besides how can anyone trust the most dishonest and secretive candidate for President the US has ever seen?
But today he repeated that he will lower taxes for 95% of all working Americans. How does this jib with yesterday’s statement. And why does he give cuts only to working Americans. What about unemployed Americans? That’s where help may be warranted.
Is the media reporting on this?
Comment by Michael Ejercito — October 30, 2008 @ 11:01 am
Are you joking?
Comment by Ed D — October 30, 2008 @ 11:38 am
I reported on it 3 days ago:
An Obama presidency with a Congressional rubber stamp is certain to implement the following new taxes or increases:
1) an increase in the marginal tax rate for individuals and small companies earning $250,000 — almost certain to creep into lower income levels due to persistent and growing public deficits
2) an increase in capital gains tax — almost certain to be extended to dividend income to prevent tax-advantaged distributions to investors
3) a return of the death tax at a minimum rate of 55%
4) a tax on 401k contributions
5) a carbon emissions tax to please the Greens in the Democratic party and his Comrades in Europe
6) a $65 billion/year tax funding the Global Poverty Act tax to be passed early in his administration
And these represent only the tip of the iceberg, i.e., those tax increases embedded in the Obama platform or supported in previous bills. Once the anointed one becomes
Messiahpresident, we will see the full litany of that which he has been careful not to reveal.Comment by Charles Martel — October 27, 2008 @ 8:22 am
Obama is already preparing the electorate for higher taxes down to income levels as low as $100,000.
Welcome to France.
Comment by Charles Martel — October 30, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
RNC TV ad on this.
Comment by Shy Guy — October 30, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
Charles Martel:
If you think that America can wage 2 wars for what might be forever- bail out banks and other entities to the tune of trillions- continue funding health and social security programs costing trillions -and do all of that without a tax increase, you must be either crazy or nuts or both crazy and nuts.
Supply side economics won’t do the trick. Chas what kind of Cockamanie economist are you?
Comment by h peskin — October 30, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
I didn’t support the Iraq war. If I were King of the Forest, I would lock the door, throw away the key, and leave the Sunni and the Shia barbarians to slaughter each other. America should only sacrifice blood and treasure if al-Qaeda or similar regroups and attempts to use the country as a base to attack our vital interests.
I didn’t support the bailout. If I were President of the Fed or Secretary of the Treasury, I would have allowed Bear Stearns and AIG to fail along with Lehman. I certainly wouldn’t be printing trillions of dollars to save the greedy shmucks — here and abroad — who bought the toxic paper.
Having lived in London for 11 years and been subjected to (or should I say tortured by) the NHS, I certainly don’t support a national healthcare system which will almost certainly be implemented by Obama and a Democratic Congress. I’m all for an increase in social security taxes to guarantee the system will still be solvent by the time I retire but remember peskin, that tax will fall hardest on Obama’s main constituency.
No supply-side economics needed based on the above; just the common sense of a housewife balancing the family budget.
Comment by Charles Martel — October 30, 2008 @ 9:01 pm