• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A tough new Obama ad that — surprise! — is accurate

OpportunityCost said:
The AHCA already foisted the largest tax increase in history and it will hit the low end of the middle class exceptionally hard. It will also make it harder to justify future hires because the cost per employee is going to go up. The middle class cannot continue to go on with the bottom half paying nothing. Bread and circuses only goes so far.
Click to expand...

That is total BS. "Largest tax increase in history" is a Rush Limbaugh talking point with no basis in fact.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/biggest-tax-increase-in-history/

ACA will be a major benefit for the lower end of the middle class.
 
Last edited:
Well, what can you say? Obama is just talking to the only kind of people who would vote foor him -- stupid people who would be confused by the phrase "greater percentage". I'm surprised the entire ad wasn't one syllable words.
 
AdamT said:
That is total BS. "Largest tax increase in history" is a Rush Limbaugh talking point with no basis in fact.

FactCheck.org : Biggest Tax Increase in History?

ACA will be a major benefit for the lower end of the middle class.
Click to expand...

Q: Is the new health care law “the biggest tax increase in history”?

A: In raw dollars, perhaps. But several tax increases just since 1968 were larger as percentages of the economy, or in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Click to expand...

It appears even FactCheck believes it has basis in fact.
 
Aberration said:
It appears even FactCheck believes it has basis in fact.
Click to expand...

... which they describe as "a useless yardstick". :lol:

It's just stupid and dishonest to make that kind of claim without adjusting for inflation or taking into consideration the size relative to GDP. In constant dollars it is the fourth largest tax increase ... since 1968. Obviously it would dwarfed by the tax increases following WWII. As a percentage of GDP it is the 7th largest tax increase ... since 1968.
 
Last edited:
specklebang said:
14% of 20 million is $2,800,000.00. So right off the top this is a bit of a stretch to say that you pay "more".

Now, is Romney chomping at the bit to award himself and his fellow super-rich a tax cut? Yeah, probably. On the other hand Obama has done some really nice things for his buddies.

Let's face it. Why do these guys want to be President? HINT: It's not the salary.
Click to expand...

The left says Romney hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years. Why's he need a tax cut for himself or his buddies? It seems like the status quo should suit him just fine. Unless of course Harry Reid's lying.
 
jerry7 said:
The left says Romney hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years. Why's he need a tax cut for himself or his buddies? It seems like the status quo should suit him just fine. Unless of course Harry Reid's lying.
Click to expand...

That's a wild and unsupported claim. Neither you nor them should take it seriously.

And yes, Reid can't be taken seriously without support.

That said, your logic doesn't follow. he hasn't claimed his buddies haven't paid taxes. :coffeepap
 
jerry7 said:
The left says Romney hasn't paid any taxes for 10 years. Why's he need a tax cut for himself or his buddies? It seems like the status quo should suit him just fine. Unless of course Harry Reid's lying.
Click to expand...

So one person saying something now represents what all of the left says? So all the right is respomnsible for bachmann and all christians for westboro?
 
Boo Radley said:
That's a wild and unsupported claim. Neither you nor them should take it seriously.

And yes, Reid can't be taken seriously without support.

That said, your logic doesn't follow. he hasn't claimed his buddies haven't paid taxes. :coffeepap
Click to expand...
Of course Hary Reid's a liar. We've all known that since he called General Petraeus a liar. And it's pretty obvious to that Reid created his lie after reading the interview that Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for President, gave to the Washington Times in which he stated that hadn't paid any income tax in several years because of all the money he had lost and he thought that maybe that was why Romney wouldn't make his records public. Bingo! A week later Reid told the Huffington Post that a "reliable source" told him that Romney hadn't paid any taxes in 10 years. That interview sparked the lie that Reid concocted to
help Obama avoid discussing his record as president.
 
jerry7 said:
Of course Hary Reid's a liar. We've all known that since he called General Petraeus a liar. And it's pretty obvious to that Reid created his lie after reading the interview that Gary Johnson, Libertarian candidate for President, gave to the Washington Times in which he stated that hadn't paid any income tax in several years because of all the money he had lost and he thought that maybe that was why Romney wouldn't make his records public. Bingo! A week later Reid told the Huffington Post that a "reliable source" told him that Romney hadn't paid any taxes in 10 years. That interview sparked the lie that Reid concocted to
help Obama avoid discussing his record as president.
Click to expand...

What are you going on about? I said Reid couldn't be taken seriously. But your logic isn't any better. Either in the first post I responded to or this. Now you're reading Reid's mind?
 
Redress said:
So one person saying something now represents what all of the left says? So all the right is respomnsible for bachmann and all christians for westboro?
Click to expand...

You never answered my question about who had been invited to testify against the same sex marraige plank going into the Democratic party platform. Remember when you told me how the big tent DP voted on issues before a consensus was reached? How can you have an informed vote if only one side of an issue is presented? If I'm wrong correct me but I couldn't find evidence of a single speaker against. Those invited to speak in favor of same sex marraige included Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry, Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights campaign, Army Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan, a lesbian New Hampshire guardsman with stage-four incurable breast cancer and a plantiff in Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's lawsuit against the Defense of Marraige Act; Michael Macleod-Ball, the American Civil Liberties Union chief of staff for the Washington Legislative office; and Aaron Zellhoefer, a homosexual delegate to the Democratic National Convention representing the National Stonewall Democrats. But I couldn't find a single speaker in defernse of traditional marraige.
How about you answer my question and then I'll answer yours.
 
Boo Radley said:
What are you going on about? I said Reid couldn't be taken seriously. But your logic isn't any better. Either in the first post I responded to or this. Now you're reading Reid's mind?[/QUOTE]

Sure. In a campaign where the msm has successfully decoded Romney's secret messages to his base and uncovered his secret technique of "dog whistle" language I feel qualified to read Reid's mind.
Click to expand...
 
jerry7 said:
You never answered my question about who had been invited to testify against the same sex marraige plank going into the Democratic party platform. Remember when you told me how the big tent DP voted on issues before a consensus was reached? How can you have an informed vote if only one side of an issue is presented? If I'm wrong correct me but I couldn't find evidence of a single speaker against. Those invited to speak in favor of same sex marraige included Marc Solomon, national campaign director for Freedom to Marry, Allison Herwitt, legislative director for the Human Rights campaign, Army Chief Warrant Officer Charlie Morgan, a lesbian New Hampshire guardsman with stage-four incurable breast cancer and a plantiff in Servicemembers Legal Defense Network's lawsuit against the Defense of Marraige Act; Michael Macleod-Ball, the American Civil Liberties Union chief of staff for the Washington Legislative office; and Aaron Zellhoefer, a homosexual delegate to the Democratic National Convention representing the National Stonewall Democrats. But I couldn't find a single speaker in defernse of traditional marraige.
How about you answer my question and then I'll answer yours.
Click to expand...

I have no clue what you are talking about and it has nothing to do with this thread.
 
jerry7 said:
Boo Radley said:
What are you going on about? I said Reid couldn't be taken seriously. But your logic isn't any better. Either in the first post I responded to or this. Now you're reading Reid's mind?
Click to expand...

Sure. In a campaign where the msm has successfully decoded Romney's secret messages to his base and uncovered his secret technique of "dog whistle" language I feel qualified to read Reid's mind.
Click to expand...

More mind reading? I stand by my claim your logic is no better. :coffeepap
 
Fletch said:
I would prefer an honest discussion by politicians, and an honest decision by the public. Look, if you want European-style welfare state programs and state run health care, and state run schools, and state controlled enterprise then you have to be prepared to bare the cost of that sort of thing.
Click to expand...

Sentence one: lets have an HONEST DISCUSSION.
Sentence two: and lets frame it in over the top hyperbole.

Amazing!!!!
 
"You pay more" is only misleading when taken out of context. It follows the discussion that tax rates for millionaires are going to go down while the middle class will pay up to $2,000 more. Hence, "he pays less, you pay more." There is nothing misleading about that. The add does not say "he pays more in taxes than you." The closest line to that is "chances are, you pay a higher tax rate than him." Again, not misleading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom