Obama’s 95% Illusion – WSJ.com — Definitely an argument worth reading in its entirety to see how you are going to deal with a new order of things.
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:
Found by Matt Duvall.
#38 “That’s a mighty generous definition of a “small business””
SMB means small & medium businesses. I know that you have ZERO executive experience but I’m still shocked that you didn’t know that def.
#66 “I mean, don’t the Dems control Michigan and California….how are their economies going?”
The liberal motto is: Pay no attention to the lawmakers behind the curtain.
I think what people are missing is that with the elimination of taxes, we must cut spending as well.
I keep hearing people ask, “How can we afford these programs if we don’t raise taxes?” Well, duh! Kill the programs!
I know, I know, it’s hard to stomach not spending money but we can do it if we try.
#64 “BTW, I thought a liberal tax cut was defined already as “not raising taxes as much as we planned.””
In CA libs define spending cuts as, “spending more than the last budget.”
fuck the top 5%. They are lucky they aren’t mugged nightly.
Dvorak, your political gullibility is pretty profound. Stick to the tech news…
#70 – Liberty Loser
>>I think what people are missing is that with the
>>elimination of taxes, we must cut spending as well.
Why? Our current Chickenhawk-in-Chief cut taxes, then went on to spend like a drunken sailor. Just ratchet up the debt another couple of trillion, like he did.
Of course, Obama is more responsible than that case of arrested development, and he’ll probably be as wise a financial steward as Bill Clinton was, leaving office in 8 years with a healthy budget surplus.
Let’s just hope we’re wise enough, as a nation, not to elect a f&cktard spend-and-spend financial imbecile like Bush.
#74
If we take Clinton’s policies and remove the Internet boom, the 90’s would have shown pedestrian growth if not decline. There won’t be an Internet boom to save Obama. When Bush cut taxes, tax revenue went up. However, Congress proceeded to then take that increase and spend it plus a whole lot more. The Federal government does not have a revenue problem. It has a spending problem. Until spending on both sides of the aisle is reigned in, fiddling with the tax rate will do nothing at best or more likely make things worse.
#75 – Thomas
>>If we take Clinton’s policies and remove the
>>Internet boom, the 90’s would have shown pedestrian
>>growth
So you say. There was a lot more going on in the 90’s than the internet boom.
But even accepting your premise (which I don’t), most citizens would be falling to the ground praying towards Washington five times a day for “pedestrian growth”, compared to the highway to hell we’ve been on for the past eight years. Frittering trillions away on waste-product nonsense, a total dissolution of faith that America is headed in the right direction, vain, posturing “leaders” pissing away everything Americans have been working for.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.