PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge up in smoke

Gibberish said:

You're reaching. In CONTEXT Obama was talking about not raising people's taxes at the federal and state/local levels on income, hence the distinction of salary levels.

Click to expand...

His words:

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "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."

He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Click to expand...

No reach at all.

Thus, my statement stands.

Gibberish said:

Again, he is speaking of income taxes which is why he is calling out salary levels specifically. There are no other taxes that can be controlled based on income level.

Click to expand...

Your sig:

When the facts change, I change my mind...

Click to expand...

Obviously, you don't.

Triad said:

Get used to that.
Next 4 years we'll be seeing alot of "well technically..."

Click to expand...

Yes. The Obamanistas will do whatever they can to defend Him.
This threat is proof positive.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Also, as far as I know, smoking cigarettes is still a choice.

Click to expand...

Irrelevant.

The types of taxes that, I believe, Obama was discussing during his campaign, are not, and are of a completely different type. This isn't even very convincing :spin:.

Click to expand...

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "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."

He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

Click to expand...

ANY of your taxes.
Please provide for me the stipulation within the term "any" that excludes taxes on tobacco.

Goobieman said:

ANY of your taxes.
Please provide for me the stipulation within the term "any" that excludes taxes on tobacco.

Click to expand...

Any doofus knows that he was talking about income taxes. But hey whine, cry, and throw a tantrum for all I care.

Maybe if you shed a tear some conservative may care. The rest of us don't.

TheNextEra said:

Any doofus knows that he was talking about income taxes. But hey whine, cry, and throw a tantrum for all I care.

Maybe if you shed a tear some conservative may care. The rest of us don't.

Click to expand...

Do you think people like Goobie genuinely believe what they're saying? Or are they just using an excuse to say negative things about Obama. Either way...*yawn*

It's going to be a long 4 (and hopefully 8) years for them. Bwahahahhahahahaha :lol:

CaptainCourtesy said:

Also, as far as I know, smoking cigarettes is still a choice. The types of taxes that, I believe, Obama was discussing during his campaign, are not, and are of a completely different type. This isn't even very convincing :spin:.

Click to expand...

Given your take on addiction, isn't this an amazing bit of doublespeak?

TheNextEra said:

Any doofus knows that he was talking about income taxes.

Click to expand...

ANY. Look up the definition.
You dont have to admit it to anyone else, but you should admit it to yourself.

Maybe if you shed a tear some conservative may care. The rest of us don't.

Click to expand...

It does not surprise me in the least that you do not care about The Obama saying whatever He needed to say to get elected, and that His actions represent no "change" whatseover from the typical liberal politician.

aps said:

Do you think people like Goobie genuinely believe what they're saying? Or are they just using an excuse to say negative things about Obama. Either way...*yawn*

Click to expand...

As I said:
It does not surprise me in the least that you do not care about The Obama saying whatever He needed to say to get elected, and that His actions represent no "change" whatseover from the typical liberal politician.

Goobieman said:

PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge up in smoke

Another example of a liberal politician lying to the people in order to get elected.

Some "change". :roll:

Click to expand...

No, he is making a "change" instead of just strait up taxing the poor he's doing it the round about way.

Dix said:

Obama is a liar.

Click to expand...

What is your definition of being a "liar"? How does it apply to this instance to say that he "lied"? Do you believe Bush is a liar or lied? I'm just wanting to understand this to see where you're coming from as far as a definition for it goes.

aps said:

THANK YOU! I was appalled at the number of people who couldn't distinguish the two.

If people don't want to pay the tax on cigarettes, they can jolly well STOP SMOKING!

Click to expand...

Aps, no offense, but I've never seen a thread concerning smoking that you exhibited anything close to rational behavior. I think if it was a tax of 100% of their income if they smoke we'd see you in here waving a banner going "**** yeah! Tax the hell out of them! They can just STOP if they don't want all their income taken away".

They DO pay taxes on cigarettes. The question is how much of a tax on something moves from a legitimate government interest to flat out over stepping their bounds.

Additionally, any new or updated programs that we created based on the supposed money taken in from a cigerette tax is flawed and should not happen. By tieing it to a program, politicians are doing one of two things.

Taking advantage of the fact that cigerette's are addictive, exploiting those that are addicted to it to bilk them for as much moeny as possible. Now, last I checked, politicians are supposed to be fighting for the rights and well being of smokers as well.

OR

The tax ends up causing many people to stop smoking, thus decreasing the revenue stream, thus showing their original premise that the tax would pay for a program to be false, and thus shifting the burden of said program on all the rest of us tax payers.

Utlimately though, I agree with CC. It was obvious through his statement he was speaking of taxes specific upon a tax bracket. While it may affect the poor MORE, cigerette taxes are NOT taxes based specifically on the amount of money one makes.

Zyphlin said:

Aps, no offense, but I've never seen a thread concerning smoking that you exhibited anything close to rational behavior. I think if it was a tax of 100% of their income if they smoke we'd see you in here waving a banner going "**** yeah! Tax the hell out of them! They can just STOP if they don't want all their income taken away".

They DO pay taxes on cigarettes. The question is how much of a tax on something moves from a legitimate government interest to flat out over stepping their bounds.

Additionally, any new or updated programs that we created based on the supposed money taken in from a cigerette tax is flawed and should not happen. By tieing it to a program, politicians are doing one of two things.

Taking advantage of the fact that cigerette's are addictive, exploiting those that are addicted to it to bilk them for as much moeny as possible. Now, last I checked, politicians are supposed to be fighting for the rights and well being of smokers as well.

OR

The tax ends up causing many people to stop smoking, thus decreasing the revenue stream, thus showing their original premise that the tax would pay for a program to be false, and thus shifting the burden of said program on all the rest of us tax payers.

Utlimately though, I agree with CC. It was obvious through his statement he was speaking of taxes specific upon a tax bracket. While it may affect the poor MORE, cigerette taxes are NOT taxes based specifically on the amount of money one makes.

Click to expand...

Hee hee hee No offense taken. If they increased tax on gasoline, I would support that because I support people driving less.

The first part of my post was my true response to the allegations about Obama. The second part was just my pointing out that if people (particularly poor people) think the tax is too high, they can actually do something about it, which would include reducing their cigarette intake. I have no sympathy for people crying poor when they purchase things like cigarettes, which are not necessities.

Zyphlin said:

What is your definition of being a "liar"?
How does it apply to this instance to say that he "lied"?

Click to expand...

Read My Lips: No New Taxes.
-GHWB, 1988

Obama said he would not raise any taxes -- and now, this.
If he did not lie, then he clearly misled.

I think the question really comes down to whether you want to interpret Obama's words from an originalist perspective, or whether you believe that we have living, breathing, campaign promises.

But he didn't say "No new taxes" and left it at that

"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 would put this much more in the "misspoke" category (and as a note, I've put George W. Bush statements in a similar category) than "lied" category. Also note I HAVE came out and actually acknowledge portions where I believe that Obama likely lied. This is not the case.

His intent there is clear. No new taxes based on the amount one earns if they're under $250,000 a year. This fits that. The "not any of your taxes" is the mispeak there, as it was clear what his INTENT was, but the literal interpritation is that any tax hike at all...on food, on electricity, on gasoline, on cigerettes...could be considered as him "lieing".

This is trying to crucify a man because you want to completely ignore context and hang him for the sake of it. Which, for many of you, simply isn't surprising.

Are net taxes being raised?


Yes it is mispeak, but its also true.

Zyphlin said:

But he didn't say "No new taxes" and left it at that

"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 would put this much more in the "misspoke" category (and as a note, I've put George W. Bush statements in a similar category) than "lied" category. Also note I HAVE came out and actually acknowledge portions where I believe that Obama likely lied. This is not the case.

His intent there is clear. No new taxes based on the amount one earns if they're under $250,000 a year. This fits that. The "not any of your taxes" is the mispeak there, as it was clear what his INTENT was, but the literal interpritation is that any tax hike at all...on food, on electricity, on gasoline, on cigerettes...could be considered as him "lieing".

This is trying to crucify a man because you want to completely ignore context and hang him for the sake of it. Which, for many of you, simply isn't surprising.

Click to expand...

I think no matter how brilliantly you analyze the facts here, those who do not like/support Obama with a passion won't buy it. Nice job, by the way. You should be a lawyer.

Zyphlin said:

"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."

Click to expand...

Yes. "any".
If he did not mean 'any' He should not have said 'any'.

I would put this much more in the "misspoke" category (and as a note, I've put George W. Bush statements in a similar category) than "lied" category.

Click to expand...

And to criticise 'misspeak' isnt valid?
Especially goiven the bill of goods regarding Himself that He was selling?

This is trying to crucify a man because you want to completely ignore context and hang him for the sake of it. Which, for many of you, simply isn't surprising.

Click to expand...

You yourself admit that "the literal interpritation is that any tax hike at all...on food, on electricity, on gasoline, on cigerettes...could be considered as him "lieing".". Not sure how you can say that and then make the claim, above.

If he did not lie, then he clearly misled.

aps said:

I think no matter how brilliantly you analyze the facts here, those who do not like/support Obama with a passion won't buy it.

Click to expand...

Conversely, people such as yourself, who see The Obama as The Secular Messiah, regardless of how brilliantly anyone analyzes the facts here, will never consider the possibility that He is going back on the promise that He so clearly made.
:roll:

My point is a misspeak, aka the words you say if taken literally can possibly mean different then the intent and context of them, constitute someone "lieing" automatically?

He was talking about potential taxes to other things during the campaign that could, in theory, cause a "tax" on people under $250,000 a year...not DIRECTLY targetting them, but could effect them. So why would he say two extremely opposite things if that was ACTUALLY his intent? I'd guess, he wasn't.

His intent was pretty clear. Now, that being said, I think eventually he will end up breaking that campaign promise. However, I imagine that will be closer to Bush I's "no new taxes" or GWB's "No Nation Building" promise...it will come about due to the situations in office that cause him to feel that it is in the best interest of the nation despite it going against what he previously said.

Goobieman said:

And to criticise 'misspeak' isnt valid?

Click to expand...

Criticizing a misspeak as "lieing" isn't valid. And frankly, the opinions of hypocrites that criticize Obama about "lieing" for a misspeak that never made a peep about Bush's promises of no nation building and no world policing or the issues with WMD's and other things in regards to Iraq are also invalid.

Zyphlin said:

My point is a misspeak, aka the words you say if taken literally can possibly mean different then the intent and context of them, constitute someone "lieing" automatically?

Click to expand...

That depends. When He said it, did He know (or think there was a distinct possibility) that, if elected, He would raise taxes other than income taxes?

If so, then its a lie -- or, at best, it is a not-so-carefully crafted exceptionary statement, so that when He DOES raise those taxes, He can say 'well, I promised not to raise INCOME taxes -- and this isnt an income tax".

(Note how this is EXACTLY the argument used for His defense...)

And so, at BEST, it is a deliberately misleading statement.

Zyphlin said:

Criticizing a misspeak as "lieing" isn't valid.

Click to expand...

And the critisim of misspeak, in and of itself?
Escpecially in the context of The Obama as Wunderkind?

And frankly, the opinions of hypocrites that criticize Obama about "lieing" for a misspeak that never made a peep about Bush's promises of no nation building and no world policing or the issues with WMD's and other things in regards to Iraq are also invalid.

Click to expand...

False.
No matter how many packs someone smokes each day, their statement that 'smoking is bad for you' is still valid.

Goobieman said:

Your sig:

Obviously, you don't.

Click to expand...

Did the FACT that he was speaking in context of income based taxes change? No it didn't. Thanks for playing.

Goobieman said:

No reach at all.

Thus, my statement stands.

Click to expand...

Your statement stands if you ignore the rest of his statement and only read the bolded. If you want to cherry pick words out of a sentence can claim statements that's your problem. The rest of us take the entire statement in context, as it is meant to be.