What Liberals do not want us to see.

[Avro]

:roll: I'd love for you to show me where I even remotely alluded to that?

I agree, somewhat. I was hoping for something akin to what we have here in Canada.

Fair enough.

The poor will have it handed to them?

Sounded a tad derogetory....perhaps I misread it...sorry if I misunderstood.

Further, the Yanks aren't paying enough tax for the things they need and far to much for the things they don't need.

Health and defense are perfect examples of this, people lose their minds when the poor may get better health coverage and at the same time don't complain about the military base in Germany....or the Philipines....or Iraq....or or or or or.

 

[CDNBear]

The poor will have it handed to them?

Yes, because they will.

Sounded a tad derogetory....perhaps I misread it...sorry if I misunderstood.

Cool, I accept. I was a tad derogatory, I admit. But they will have it handed to them. And it will be the middle class that foots the majority of the bill. Through taxation, while a fair portion of them, have to foot their own bills, including the new forced one, they may not be able to afford.

My issue isn't so much that the porr get a hand out, it is more that a single sector of the public keeps getting it in the ass. While on either side of them, people seem to skate along happily.

That's not to say that all the poor are lazy or all the rich are evading taxes.

But I know enough people from both spectrum's, to know that not everyone is the same. Both American and Canadian.

Further, the Yanks aren't paying enough tax for the things they need and far to much for the things they don't need.

Agreed.

Health and defense are perfect examples of this, people lose their minds when the poor may get better health coverage and at the same time don't complain about the military base in Germany....or the Philipines....or Iraq....or or or or or.

Again, I agree, but I do have a problem with the poor getting more then or better then those that pay for them to do so.

It removes the need to grow, struggle and move up. Some become far to comfy having life handed to them. And having done my fair share of sub contractor work in public housing. I don't think I'm stretching things.

 

[AnnaG]

What Liberals do not want us to see.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/01/025329.php

YouTube - America Rising: An Open Letter to Democrat Politicians

Cool. Another anti-O thread. Like there aren't a dozen or so threads about the guy now. :roll:

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Honestly, I think the right have lost their mind.

Tell me Ironsides, how much have taxes gone up under the Obama admin?

Where were all you nut bars when GWB was taking a giant crap all over the constitution and started illegal wars costing trillions in capital and thousands upon thousands of lives?

:roll:

when that happened they were all sleeping, and wanted to wake up when it was over. Now they bitch when in fact they missed the Giant Crap, and instead place the blame on Obama, who is looking to clean up the walls from the Giant Crap Bush left. ….. :roll:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I think Cliffy is right, this smacks of Fascist, Tea Party propaganda. I don’t know who produced the propaganda film, but I am willing to bet the farm that the person who produced it has never voted Democratic in his life, he is a life long Republican, an enthusiastic Tea party supporter.

 

[CDNBear]

I think Cliffy is right, this smacks of Fascist, Tea Party propaganda.

How is the tea party or this video fascist?

Funny, according to sources, it's been removed from YouTube twice because of pressure from somebody in Washington...:lol:

How is stifling free speech not fascist again?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Most did know he was a leftist, just didn't realize how left he was. Quite a lot of democrats are sorry they voted for him. It was do anything to get rid of the Bush gang. They got their change, much to their disappointment.

Democrats are sorry, really? Obama continues to enjoy high approval rating among democrats. Nationwide he is around 50%, which is about where Reagan and Clinton were at this point in their presidency.

This is just a propaganda piece produced by the Tea Party. Produced by those who have never voted Democratic in their life.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

1. often Fascism
2. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
3. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
4. Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Yup that is true also, Obama is trying for a number #4 now.

So obama is Fascist according to you? Well, he has been called much worse by the likes of you. He has been called a Nazi, a Socialist, a Communist, an illegal alien, a Muslim terrorist, a USSR spy etc., in addition to being called a Fascist.

 

[Icarus27k]

Anyone who thinks Obama is a Fascist/Nazi/Communist doesn't have a proper grasp of history. And is probably ready for the Maury Povich Show.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Honestly, I think the right have lost their mind.

Tell me Ironsides, how much have taxes gone up under the Obama admin?

Where were all you nut bars when GWB was taking a giant crap all over the constitution and started illegal wars costing trillions in capital and thousands upon thousands of lives?

:roll:

These same teabaggers, the right wing nuts blindly supported anything and everything done by Bush and the Republican Congress.

Republicans increased spending each and every year they were in power, they racked up huge budget deficits. The extreme right was ecstatically happy over that. But trashing of Obama began even before he came to office. Far right blamed Obama for the meltdown back in November 2008, when Bush still was the president.

The right wingnuts enthusiastically supported the Bush stimulus package. There was no talk fo excessive spending, ballooning debt and deficit when Bush did it. But when Obama did it, of course the civilization as we know it came to an end.

The video displays a visceral hatred of Obama, which is so typical of the far right. A lot of it is racially motivated.

Besides, what is the hidden message in the video? Why, elect the Republicans, of course. The same Republicans who caused the meltdown in the first place, who increased spending every year, who racked up astronomical deficits, who converted 100 billion $ plus Clinton surplus into 550 billion $ plus Bush deficit.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Anyone who thinks Obama is a Fascist/Nazi/Communist doesn't have a proper grasp of history. And is probably ready for the Maury Povich Show.

Icarus, the most amusing epithets of them all was USSR spy. Not spy of Russia, but spy of the former USSR. I remember reading an article in Town Hall, the extreme right wing publication. One columnist claimed that Obama was trained by USSR to become the president, he was hand picked by USSR when he was going to school.

The video presented here is on par with that accusation.

 

[CDNBear]

Anyone who thinks Obama is a Fascist/Nazi/Communist doesn't have a proper grasp of history. And is probably ready for the Maury Povich Show.

Agreed. Similarly, anyone who likens anyone who disagrees with him as a rightwingnut, is guaranteed a top spot on said sideshow.

The video presented here is on par with that accusation.

As is the majority of your posts...

 

[Bar Sinister]

Utter right wing nonsense, and somewhat misdirected as the Democratic Party in the US is hardly liberal or left wing by international standards. Like the Republicans the Democrats are a party that long ago sold out to big business and the wealthy elite. I did not expect dramatic changes in the USA after the November 2008 election and I haven't seen any. Voting Republican won't improve the situation it will just get the US several more years of really bad government.

 

[Cliffy]

Utter right wing nonsense, and somewhat misdirected as the Democratic Party in the US is hardly liberal or left wing by international standards. Like the Republicans the Democrats are a party that long ago sold out to big business and the wealthy elite. I did not expect dramatic changes in the USA after the November 2008 election and I haven't seen any. Voting Republican won't improve the situation it will just get the US several more years of really bad government.

Bingo! Imagine what they think of center of the road pols. They must think Harper is a left wing, commie loony from where they stand.

 

[ironsides]

Honestly, I think the right have lost their mind.

Tell me Ironsides, how much have taxes gone up under the Obama admin?

Where were all you nut bars when GWB was taking a giant crap all over the constitution and started illegal wars costing trillions in capital and thousands upon thousands of lives?

:roll:

Obama and Pelosi have set us up for major tax increases as well as major cuts in health services. All these begin next year right after the elections. So you are another Bushy hater, big deal is that all you have.

 

[Avro]

Obama and Pelosi have set us up for major tax increases as well as major cuts in health services. All these begin next year right after the elections. So you are another Bushy hater, big deal is that all you have.

How much have federal taxes gone up for the majority of Americans since Obama was elected?

Just answer the question.

....and yes, I am a Bush hater but that dosen't address my comments about his admin which you avoided.

 

[ironsides]

So obama is Fascist according to you? Well, he has been called much worse by the likes of you. He has been called a Nazi, a Socialist, a Communist, an illegal alien, a Muslim terrorist, a USSR spy etc., in addition to being called a Fascist.

Nah. Just put me in the Socialist column. He only qualified for #4 in the Fascist definition.

 

[Icarus27k]

Obama and Pelosi have set us up for major tax increases as well as major cuts in health services. All these begin next year right after the elections. So you are another Bushy hater, big deal is that all you have.

I believe what you are talking about is the expiration of the so-called Bush tax cuts which became law in 2001 and 2003. Expiration at the end of 2010 was how a Republican-led Congress and a Republican president set them up. What you're really criticizing is Pelosi's/Reid's/Obama's decision not to extend them.

Apart from that, there have been some tax increases since Election Day 2008, but there have also been tax cuts.

Examples of tax increases: increased sin taxes on tabacco and indoor tanning salons to help fund, respectively, the expansion of the SCHIP program and the health care reform bill. Also, the excise tax (or so-called Cadalliac tax) or employers' expensive health insurance plans for their employees.

Examples of tax cuts: That list of 25 tax credits in the stimulus package.

 

[ironsides]

Were not talking about Canadian liberals at the moment, plus you guys have to many parties.

 

[ironsides]

I believe what you are talking about is the expiration of the so-called Bush tax cuts which became law in 2001 and 2003. Expiration at the end of 2010 was how a Republican-led Congress and a Republican president set them up. What you're really criticizing is Pelosi's/Reid's/Obama's decision not to extend them.

Apart from that, there have been some tax increases since Election Day 2008, but there have also been tax cuts.

Examples of tax increases: increased sin taxes on tabacco and indoor tanning salons to help fund, respectively, the expansion of the SCHIP program and the health care reform bill. Also, the excise tax (or so-called Cadalliac tax) or employers' expensive health insurance plans for their employees.

Examples of tax cuts: That list of 25 tax credits in the stimulus package.

Volcker: Taxes likely to rise eventually to tame deficit

Tue, Apr 6 2010
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The United States should consider raising taxes to help bring deficits under control and may need to consider a European-style value-added tax, White House adviser Paul Volcker said on Tuesday.
Volcker, answering a question from the audience at a New York Historical Society event, said the value-added tax "was not as toxic an idea" as it has been in the past and also said a carbon or other energy-related tax may become necessary.
Though he acknowledged that both were still unpopular ideas, he said getting entitlement costs and the U.S. budget deficit under control may require such moves. "If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes," he said.
(Reporting by Steven C. Johnson and Leah Schnurr; editing by Carol Bishopric)
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6355N520100406

Moneynews

Obama Plans 'Backdoor' Tax to Pay for Health Plan


Thursday, March 11, 2010 02:13 PM


By: Dan Weil
A stealth provision in President Obama’s latest healthcare proposal dramatically increases taxes on the wealthy — extending Medicare taxes for the first time to “unearned” investment income.

The new 2.9 percent tax would apply to interest, dividend, annuity, royalty, and rent payments.

Under current law, Medicare payments come from salaries alone.

But Obama wants a Medicare tax to be paid on the investment income accrued by individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000.

The plan doesn’t make it clear if capital-gains income is subject to the 2.9 percent tax. If it is, the wealthy would face a capital-gains tax rate of 22.9 percent. That’s because the rate already is slated to increase to 20 percent next year from 15 percent currently.

In addition, households with income above $250,000 would see another 0.9 percent added to their Medicare tax on their normal working income. It would put their rate at 2.35 percent.

The new healthcare overhaul is expected to cost $950 billion.

Obama and congressional Democrats are under pressure to prove they can pay for it without adding to the country’s debt. Yet, they also must appear not to raise taxes — at least not on likely Democratic voters.

The tax idea is a split of sorts: Senate Democrats want to tax generous, so-called “Cadillac,” health plans, the kind often held by unionized workers. House Democrats want to tax the wealthy instead.

Meanwhile, Obama at a recent town-hall meeting plainly stated that healthcare reform would be “easy” to pay for — simply by changing the Medicare tax to raise more money from wealthy taxpayers.

The new proposal would radically change the nature of the tax, too. It is now at a flat rate so that everyone pays into the system at the same rate and then receives equivalent levels of medical benefits in old age.

The moves allow Democrats to raise taxes on the wealthy without calling it an income-tax increase, since in theory investment earnings are not “income” the same as a paycheck from an employer.

The Democrats’ tactics leave experts of all political stripes uneasy.

"You can certainly make the argument that (payroll is) really not appropriate anymore, and we may as well tax all income," Howard Gleckman, a senior research associate at the liberal Urban Institute, told Fortune magazine.

"But this is kind of a back-door way to do it."

The Obama administration says a tax on unearned income makes sense because people who live off their dividend and interest income should see that money treated as wages.

But Gleckman challenges that idea.

"Usually we have tax brackets rather than this cliff, where suddenly if you make a dollar more you're subject to this additional tax," he said.

The liberal Center for Tax Justice says the new taxes would affect 2.3 percent of taxpayers in 2014.

But the change would put a huge part of the burden for financing healthcare reform on the backs of the wealthy.

The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the proposal would create $183.6 billion in revenue during the next 10 years. That would account for 44 percent of the total amount needed to pay for healthcare reform.




http://moneynews.com/Headline/Obama-Tax-Wealthy-Healthcare/2010/03/11/id/352396

Obama's 95% Illusion

It depends on what the meaning of 'tax cut' is.

• Article
• Comments

One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

AP


It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit." Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.
Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.
The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.
The total annual expenditures on refundable "tax credits" would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as "tax credits," the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.
The political left defends "refundability" on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.
It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit -- his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We've written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain's proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don't now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn't create a new one.
There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.
Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122385651698727257.html


I was referencing these comments about taxes that Obama and crew want.