• 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!

PROMISES, PROMISES: Obama tax pledge up in smoke

While some of us here are holding Obama's feet to the fire by being facetious and taking his campaign promise literally, there are some that do see this as a broken campaign promise and is directly affecting their lives in a negative way.

What's troubling to me, is the fact that everytime the government tries to raise revenue, it targets tobacco, alcohol, firearms and/or gambling, and imposes additional taxes on these items/industries.

The last time I checked, tobacco wasn't illegal, so people can freely choose whether or not they want to partake in it's usage or not. The argument of health concerns is bs, because we can argue obesity, car emissions and a myriad of other causes in regard to health issues. We live in a free society, we should be able to choose without being taxed out of our freedoms.
 
Goobieman said:
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...)
Click to expand...

Of course it is, that is the EXACT CONTEXT of his statement.

What you are doing is saying Obama's statement about income taxes applies to all and any forms of taxes and not just income taxes. Which is absurd.
 
Zyphlin said:
For example...

Lets say this was something different. Lets say a random politician started going "Under my administration I promise we will have no new entitlement programs. We won't have new health care programs, we won't have new perscription programs, we won't have new daycare programs. We won't have any new programs".

If he then comes out and create a program that provides those that are unemployed a chance to attend a course where they learn a job skill and actually do said job while learning it (for example, normal trade skills), would he be lying?

While it is a government program, its not technically an "entitlement" program. However, he did say "any new programs" at the end of it. Do you say the person is lying, becuase he did create a new program and that goes against what he literally said, or do you say he wasn't lying but perhaps misspoke because the CONTEXT of it makes it clear he's talking specifically about entitlement programs?
Click to expand...
I believe I addressed this:

That depends. When he said it, did he know (or think there was a distinct possibility) that, if elected, he would create that program??

If so, then its a lie -- or, at best, it is a not-so-carefully crafted exceptionary statement -- and so, at BEST, it is a deliberately misleading statement.
 
Gibberish said:
Of course it is, that is the EXACT CONTEXT of his statement.

What you are doing is saying Obama's statement about income taxes applies to all and any forms of taxes and not just income taxes. Which is absurd.
Click to expand...

I asked for the stipulation within the term "any taxes" that excludes taxes on tobacco. I haven't received a response.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
How is that not an entitlement program? They are "entitled" to that course. :confused:
Click to expand...

haha, perhaps I myself misspoke there in trying to type something quick between work. I was thining of entitlement programs very much in a "we'll give you something and you do nothing for it". We'll give you health insurance, we'll give you daycare, we'll give you perscription drugs. You don't have to do anything specific for it.

The second program to me wouldn't really seem like an entitlement program from my definition of it. You're not giving them something for nothing; you're providing them an oppertunity to learn a trade while in exchange they are performing that trade for free and generating revenue through the process of it for those they are learning from.

Likely bad use of words on my part due to hastey typing up. If you really wanted to you could change it to a random ass program about subsidizing local police units, or repairing major highways. Essentially any "program". I was just trying for a type of "welfare" program, so that it'd be in the same realm as entitlement programs, without it truly being an "entitlement" program.

If that makes any sense (IE, entitlement programs = welfare programs, but welfare programs don't necessarily = entitlement programs)
 
Goobieman said:
I asked for the stipulation within the term "any taxes" that excludes taxes on tobacco. I haven't received a response.
Click to expand...

The fact that he was talking about INCOME TAXES and not all forms of taxes when he made that statement isn't stipulation?
 
Zyphlin said:
haha, perhaps I myself misspoke there in trying to type something quick between work. I was thining of entitlement programs very much in a "we'll give you something and you do nothing for it". We'll give you health insurance, we'll give you daycare, we'll give you perscription drugs. You don't have to do anything specific for it.

The second program to me wouldn't really seem like an entitlement program from my definition of it. You're not giving them something for nothing; you're providing them an oppertunity to learn a trade while in exchange they are performing that trade for free and generating revenue through the process of it for those they are learning from.

Likely bad use of words on my part due to hastey typing up. If you really wanted to you could change it to a random ass program about subsidizing local police units, or repairing major highways. Essentially any "program". I was just trying for a type of "welfare" program, so that it'd be in the same realm as entitlement programs, without it truly being an "entitlement" program.

If that makes any sense (IE, entitlement programs = welfare programs, but welfare programs don't necessarily = entitlement programs)
Click to expand...




I see what you are attempting. I can't see how you can apply it though. If one made a statement such as you said, then built up the roads, it would still be it....


Now if I said, I am going to play everyone on my hockey team equally.... If one player ends up at the end of the game with more or less ice time by a minute or so, Would I be lying? I would say no.....
 
Gibberish said:
The fact that he was talking about INCOME TAXES and not all forms of taxes when he made that statement isn't stipulation?
Click to expand...
Nope. "Any" is an all-encomapssing term.
Just like "all" and "never".
 
GottaHurt said:
While some of us here are holding Obama's feet to the fire by being facetious and taking his campaign promise literally, there are some that do see this as a broken campaign promise and is directly affecting their lives in a negative way.

What's troubling to me, is the fact that everytime the government tries to raise revenue, it targets tobacco, alcohol, firearms and/or gambling, and imposes additional taxes on these items/industries.

The last time I checked, tobacco wasn't illegal, so people can freely choose whether or not they want to partake in it's usage or not. The argument of health concerns is bs, because we can argue obesity, car emissions and a myriad of other causes in regard to health issues. We live in a free society, we should be able to choose without being taxed out of our freedoms.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with your premise here. To me this "tobacco tax" is a terrible idea and on it's face is simply a lower measure of illegalization. Instead of making tobacco illegal they are going to jack the price so high that it becomes financially inconvenient to purchase. That's plain manipulation.
 
Gibberish said:
The fact that he was talking about INCOME TAXES and not all forms of taxes when he made that statement isn't stipulation?
Click to expand...



I can ALMOST see it... However. when he stated "not one dime" that to me was "all encompassing" no?
 
Gibberish said:
The context is still towards Income taxes.
Click to expand...





Nah. if I heard anyone say that, I would think he was trying to suggest that we wont be paying more period....

He may have meant that, and at the same time led us to believe what I am suggesting, no?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Nah. if I heard anyone say that, I would think he was trying to suggest that we wont be paying more period....

He may have meant that, and at the same time led us to believe what I am suggesting, no?
Click to expand...

He may have if we assume he went from context to generalizations with the last few words of his statement. Personally, I like to take all words of a statement in context and don't force my own interpretation out of context to meet an agenda.
 
Gibberish said:
He may have if we assume he went from context to generalizations with the last few words of his statement. Personally, I like to take all words of a statement in context and don't interpret my own to meet an agenda.
Click to expand...




Seems like you are trying to meet an agenda.... ;)




saying "not one dime" means to me, not one dime is coming out of my pocket.
 
Gibberish said:
It is all encompassing of the the item it it referring to. In this case INCOME taxes.
Click to expand...
Nice try.

The language used was:

"...not any of your taxes", and then, ""you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

If I pay tax on tobacco, I will see my taxes raised more than a single dime.
No way around it.

Any" is an all-encomapssing term.
Just like "all" and "never".
 
Goobieman said:
Nice try.

The language used was:

"...not any of your taxes", and then, ""you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."

If I pay tax on tobacco, I will see my taxes raised more than a single dime.
No way around it.

Any" is an all-encomapssing term.
Just like "all" and "never".
Click to expand...

This is what I am talking about with context. You purposefully leave out the beginning of his statement. Why? Because it disproves your conclusion and puts the statement in context.

Here I'll use your logic below...
Goobieman said:
...I will see my taxes raised more than a single dime.
Click to expand...
OMG you are going to see taxes raised more than a single dime on everything.
 
Gibberish said:
In terms of the topic, which was income taxes.
Click to expand...



So if I get the money a different way, its not dishonest?


See this is where we differ. By saying "not one dime" that means I keep my money, because he gets it another way, demonstrates to me, dishonesty....



If I say, I won't punch you, would you be concerned that I may shoot you in the next few minutes? :confused:
 
Gibberish said:
This is what I am talking about with context. You purposefully leave out the beginning of his statement. Why? Because it disproves your conclusion and puts the statement in context.
Click to expand...
What you fail to understand:
The term ANY doesn't allow for context.
 
Goobieman said:
What you fail to understand:
The term ANY doesn't allow for context.
Click to expand...

The term ANY requires context. If I say "any growth" how do you know what I am not talking about? I could be referring to a person, plant, or revenue.

If I say "will not see any plant growth" when referring to an Oak tree in context does that mean that all plants in the entire world will see no growth or that the oak tree will not see growth?
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
This is what I am talking about with context. You purposefully leave out the beginning of his statement. Why? Because it disproves your conclusion and puts the statement in context.
Click to expand...


Except..
you come from the party that is so careful not to say Muslim terrorists, the logic being (I guess) that people somewhere, somehow might think all Muslims are terrorists.
AND
your party didn't like Bush posing in front of that "mission accomplished" sign because people somewhere, somehow might mistake it to mean that the whole war was over (I guess was the thinking?? I have a hard time following liberal logic) instead of just the ship's mission being accomplished.
AND
your party believes people should be bailed out from paying their mortgages because maybe the contracts they signed weren't explained to them properly, never mind that they were adults just like everyone else who has to pay their mortgages :roll:

SO - I think it's fair to hold you to the same standard you have set yourself. Obama should have been more clear. If not, if you trust people to get things from context than relax your standards for the Right. Speak the truth. Say Muslim terrorists. Trust that people will understand from *context* that saying Muslim terrorists implies all by itself that not all Muslims are terrorists. Mission Accomplished! Navy ships put up those banners all the time! They celebrate victories large and small, lol.

If Obama says no new taxes on the lower and middle classes, it should mean just that. I've been watching the debates in this thread and I'm not sure which side is right, frankly.

I don't know why we're focusing on peanuts like cigs anyway. He's proposing nearly one TRILLION in new taxes over the next 10 years. That's going to hit everyone.
 
Gibberish said:
The term ANY requires context.
Click to expand...
You can continue with your "any doesn't REALLY mean 'any' it means 'someting other than 'any', but in a way that the meaning of 'any' still applies'" argument if you want -- it clearly illustratres that you're one of the people that will argue the meaning of 'is' in order to avoid being wrong..

Enjoy!
 
Last edited:
Goobieman said:
You can continue with your "any doesn't REALLY mean 'any' it means 'someting other than 'any', but in a way that the meaning of 'any' still applies'" argument if you want -- it clearly illustratres that you're one of the people that will argue the meaning of 'is' in order to avoid being wrong..

Enjoy!
Click to expand...

Only if it's being interpreted improperly. :2wave:
 
Dix said:
Except..
you come from the party that is so careful not to say Muslim terrorists, the logic being (I guess) that people somewhere, somehow might think all Muslims are terrorists.
Click to expand...
Many people believe that muslim=terrorist. View some of McCain campaign attendee interviews.
Dix said:
AND
your party didn't like Bush posing in front of that "mission accomplished" sign because people somewhere, somehow might mistake it to mean that the whole war was over (I guess was the thinking?? I have a hard time following liberal logic) instead of just the ship's mission being accomplished.
Click to expand...
Bush's administration even admitted it was a bad move.
Dix said:
AND
your party believes people should be bailed out from paying their mortgages because maybe the contracts they signed weren't explained to them properly, never mind that they were adults just like everyone else who has to pay their mortgages :roll:
Click to expand...
No, they should be bailed-out because having tens of millions of home go into foreclosure will destroy our housing economy. They should also not be "bailed out", they should have to pay for their choice but with the ability of not losing their home. Why not lose their home? Because that will negatively affect me, the responsible home buyer.

Dix said:
SO - I think it's fair to hold you to the same standard you have set yourself. Obama should have been more clear. If not, if you trust people to get things from context than relax your standards for the Right. Speak the truth. Say Muslim terrorists. Trust that people will understand from *context* that saying Muslim terrorists implies all by itself that not all Muslims are terrorists. Mission Accomplished! Navy ships put up those banners all the time! They celebrate victories large and small, lol.
Click to expand...
He was perfectly clear. Those people under the specific income levels will not have to have any tax increase based on their income level. Tobacco, is not an income level based tax.

Dix said:
If Obama says no new taxes on the lower and middle classes, it should mean just that. I've been watching the debates in this thread and I'm not sure which side is right, frankly.
Click to expand...
If he said that then he should live up to. The fact is he didn't say "no new taxes". He said no tax increase based on income level, thus taxes associated to income level.

Dix said:
I don't know why we're focusing on peanuts like cigs anyway. He's proposing nearly one TRILLION in new taxes over the next 10 years. That's going to hit everyone.
Click to expand...
According to the plan he proposed it will not. I assume your total also includes the non-new additional taxes once Bush's self-expiring tax cut runs out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom