That Obama campaigned against an individual mandate but then accepted it into the final bill is certainly true. If one wants to claim that any time a President ultimately accepts into legislation ANY provision that he has personally opposed in the past, he is "breaking a promise" you guys have a "Gotcha" moment.
Originally posted by no1marauder
I repeat: If you can show me a promise by Obama to NEVER raise ANY type of taxes except on those making over $250,000 a year, you win.
You won't be able to and we both know it.
I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase; not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd I repeat, Numb nuts! YOU show me where OBAMA said this only applies to the first fiscal year of his administration.
I repeat: If you can show me a promise by Obama to NEVER raise ANY type of taxes except on those making over $250,000 a year, you win.
You won't be able to and we both know it.
At about this point in his first term, Ronald Reagan was no more popular than Obama for pretty much the same reason i.e. there was a recessio ...[text shortened]... moved it's very doubtful the party will nominate anyone who is likely to beat Obama in 2012.
Originally posted by sh76for no1marauder:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U
[b]I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase; not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.[/b]
http://www.google.com/products?q=diaper+rash+ointment&aq=f
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I already saw it. You regard the phrase "Under my plan" as meaning a never ending commitment to keep the same policies in place regardless of situational changes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U
[b]I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase; not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.[/b]
I find that an unreasonable interpretation. I note that he did not say "I'll never propose raising any tax that has any incidence on people making less than $250,000 a year" which is essentially what right wingers are disingenuously claiming (in effect).
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are freaking out to lunch!
I already saw it. You regard the phrase "Under my plan" as meaning a never ending commitment to keep the same policies in place regardless of situational changes?
I find that an unreasonable interpretation. I note that he did not say "I'll never propose raising any tax that has any incidence on people making less than $250,000 a year" which is essentially what right wingers are disingenuously claiming (in effect).
Your just making this crap up as you go along.
Where the hell do you get that implies to the first fiscal year?
🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Originally posted by sh76Fulfilling a campaign promise, President Barack Obama signed the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill into law this week; the measure will expand healthcare coverage for children using funds from a 62-cent-per-pack increase in the federal cigarette tax.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8erePM8V5U
[b]I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase; not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.[/b]
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2009/obama-signs-schip-law-with.html
This was about two weeks after he was inaugurated. An interpretation of his campaign "Under my Plan" wording consistent with what you right wingers are claiming would make his promise to sign SCHIP (which had been vetoed twice by GW) in conflict with his no tax increase for those making under $250,000 a year. Rather clearly there's something wrong with said interpretation.
Originally posted by no1marauder"Rather clearly there's something wrong with said interpretation."no1 moron
[b]Fulfilling a campaign promise, President Barack Obama signed the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill into law this week; the measure will expand healthcare coverage for children using funds from a 62-cent-per-pack increase in the federal cigarette tax.
http://www.jointogether.org/news/headlines/inthenews/2009/obama-sig ...[text shortened]... king under $250,000 a year. Rather clearly there's something wrong with said interpretation.[/b]
Yes he lied! And I had a thread about it. Then the smoking tax,etc etc.
you are full of crap trying defend this. He freakin lied more than once because he knows he can get away w/ it because he thinks the American Public is stupid. And all you do is encourage him.
Originally posted by utherpendragonI think you're projecting when you say the "American public is stupid".
[b]"Rather clearly there's something wrong with said interpretation."no1 moron
Yes he lied! And I had a thread about it. Then the smoking tax,etc etc.
you are full of crap trying defend this. He freakin lied more than once because he knows he can get away w/ it because he thinks the American Public is stupid. And all you do is encourage him.[/b]
I'll leave to some rational right winger (if such a beast exists) to actually deal with the logical implications of the argument in my last post. Obama made both promises in his campaign often in the same speech and/or discussion. Your interpretation that he was "lying" by openly doing so is pretty untenable.
Originally posted by no1marauder"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase; not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
I think you're projecting when you say the "American public is stupid".
I'll leave to some rational right winger (if such a beast exists) to actually deal with the logical implications of the argument in my last post. Obama made both promises in his campaign often in the same speech and/or discussion. Your interpretation that he was "lying" by openly doing so is pretty untenable.
Originally posted by DrKFJust saw your reply. You are absolutely correct re: math.
Simple maths does not mean that, because you have two figures the same, they cancel each other out to make 0.
If unemployment now is at 20%, the economy generates X in taxes.
If unemployment remains at 20% and there is a 20% increase in taxes, of course the tax revenue will increase.
I have no reason for being so sloppy, only an excuse that even I don't want to hear. Just my assurance I will try not to repeat such casual-ness with future posts. 😳 Sorry all.