• 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!

Stephanopoulos points out Merriam-Webster definition of taxes to president

Agent Ferris

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
4,324
Reaction score
915
Location
Past the edge of the universe, through the singula
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stephanopoulos points out Merriam-Webster definition of taxes to president in interview

Asked how that could not be considered a hike, Stephanopoulos inquired, "Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?"

President Obama responded “ No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase.” Stephanopoulos then gave the dictionary definition – “I don't think I'm making it up. Merriam- Webster's dictionary: Tax, "a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes."


Stephanopoulos points out Merriam-Webster definition of taxes to president in interview Row 2, Seat 4 FOXNews.com

Can you say maximum pwnage? Words mean things Mr. President, the healthcare bills would require an across the board tax increase, the middle lower class which is already tightening their belts will have to do so again, this combined with his cap and trade initiative will only further hurt folks who are already seriously hurting due to this administration mismanagement of the economy. But after all that is what the Radical in Chief really wants IE to bring the bourgeois middle class down to the level of the proletariat because he knows that's the only possible way they would ever accept his revolutionary socialist agenda and initiatives.
 
Last edited:
Quit making up definitions! Just because taxes will be forced to go up doesn't mean that it is a tax increase! You and your little dictionary can go to hell!
 
I didn't know Steph had the courage or even the inclination to ask a liberal president such a tough line of questioning. Maybe the media isnt quite dead, yet.

And about Obama.. what a hack. Hope and change indeed. What, forcing people to pay more money to the government so that it can be distributed to other parties is a TAX, now? When did that happen? :shock:
 
Quit making up definitions! Just because taxes will be forced to go up doesn't mean that it is a tax increase! You and your little dictionary can go to hell!

You're joking right? Taxes going up isn't a tax increase? You're arguing with the text book definition of tax increases? Wow. I hope you were being sarcastic.
 
I didn't know Steph had the courage or even the inclination to ask a liberal president such a tough line of questioning. Maybe the media isnt quite dead, yet.

If not dead it's certainly on the respirator, Obama refused to go on Fox so the only tough questioning he got at all was from Steph during his media propaganda tour over the weekend.
 
You're joking right? Taxes going up isn't a tax increase? You're arguing with the text book definition of tax increases? Wow. I hope you were being sarcastic.

I really wish there was a special sarcasm font for the Internet.:mrgreen:
 
If not dead it's certainly on the respirator, Obama refused to go on Fox so the only tough questioning he got at all was from Steph during his media propaganda tour over the weekend.

Yeah, I love how during the elections people like McCain and Palin were forced to go through dozens of "hostile" interviews with the likes of CNN, NBC, ABC and MSNBC, but Obama just to ignore them entirely by ignoring Fox. It's a real disadvantage for Republicans; they must do tough interviews but democrats have plenty of safe-havens.
 
the media want health care

the media want results

they want a political win, too

he goes on all their shows on a sunday with no answers

no answers possible, none exist

what's he gonna do, the same poetry bit---roses are red, violets are blue, i love health care, and you do too?

and stephy, gregory, king and schieffer are gonna continue to say---damn, this guy is so inspirational?

the media want health care, they too have been waiting their entire lives for this

he has no answers, it can't be done

so what are stephy, king, gregory and schieffer gonna do?

blame liberalism?

blame the party?

they want results

he's been a disaster

they naturally cannot continue to accept his nothingisms and persist in pretending

they asked him real questions

cnn's king asked---i talked to 20 people and 18 said the same thing, jobs

king also asked:

is the recession over; baucus is attacked from left and right so can you sign it; what about taxing cadillac benefits which pisses off rockefeller and unions; is exclusion of illegals an "adamant red line;" critics say afghanistan is "obama's war;" you promised during the campaign you would crush al q and kill obl, is it harder than you thought; you called for a timeline in iraq, what about afghanistan; did karzai steal the election; what about the 7 cia chiefs who said call off the prosecutor; what about carter's complaint about racism; what about pelosi and clyburn's worry about "political violence?"

a lot of pretty real questions, there

no wonder the prez entertained each for 12 minutes only, barely time to get their hair wet

in and out---NEXT!

he'd've cancelled all his sunday's, after baucus belly flopped, if he could

stephy asked: rockefeller says there are tax increases in baucus; merriam webster defines taxes thus; will those on medicare lose what they have; ben nelson says folks will lose what they have; nelson wants a shield against folks losing what they have; does racism/carter frustrate you; do you give critics ammunition with stuff like acorn; will you unfund acorn; afghanistan; no final decision on afghanistan; jfk was sized up by kruschev as a neophyte at vienna, what moment made you think you need to step up your game; have you lost control of the health care debate

again

the CHIN no longer works its wonders

the media, the democrats, liberals---all want health care, results and political victory

instead, this idiot has led them here

they can't blame the movement, they won't blame the party (and they shouldn't, it's not their fault)

the president is the most inept politician at the national level america has ever seen

they will soon throw him under their bus, they are already well along in the process

it's all very predictable

health care's dead, like cap and trade, like the prosecution of the cia, like closing gitmo, like ending detention and rendition and don't ask don't tell and the patriot act, like personal diplomacy with iran, like the stimuli and the bailouts and the bonuses and the clunkers, like cutting the deficit in half...

someone has to take the fall
 
Very good analysis. It truly is inevitable, after all. Combine a political novice like Obama, wildly inept and unpopular congressional leaders like Ried and Polosi, and an agenda (most of it, such as gitmo, healthcare, prosecute the CIA, immigration amnesty, etc) that was NEVER supported by a majority of voters...and the result was never in doubt. Failure.

So they'll put the blame where it does the least harm to their cause - on the President, because he's replaceable. Let the GOP have their time from '12 to '16, then try it again.
 
You're joking right? Taxes going up isn't a tax increase? You're arguing with the text book definition of tax increases? Wow. I hope you were being sarcastic.

If income goes up by 3% and taxes go up by 1.5%....well you do the math
 
Did you take math in school?

No, he's trying to justify the Messiah's tax increases.

"But look!! You're making more money!!! it's only a little bit of taxes in comparison!"
 
No, he's trying to justify the Messiah's tax increases.

"But look!! You're making more money!!! it's only a little bit of taxes in comparison!"

Nevermind that the 1.5% increase will kick you into a higher bracket and you'll be paying all of the 3% increase in salary, plus another 2%.
 
If your rate goes up, then your taxes go up. Stop trying to argue otherwise.
 
Nevermind that the 1.5% increase will kick you into a higher bracket and you'll be paying all of the 3% increase in salary, plus another 2%.

So you are trying to tell me people in the highest tax bracket would not be willing to pay 1.5% more in taxes if their income went up by 3%? Plese note they are 1.5% ahead and maybe some pot holes on the roads can get fixed as well.
 
The fact that their taxes would go up by 1.5% would act as a disincentive to making their income go up by 3%.
 
So you are trying to tell me people in the highest tax bracket would not be willing to pay 1.5% more in taxes if their income went up by 3%? Plese note they are 1.5% ahead and maybe some pot holes on the roads can get fixed as well.

I'm sorry, but Obama is campaigning again on the fact that noone's taxes will go up.. at least that's what this article looked like.


A raise of 1.5% in anyone's taxes is a raise in taxes...

It doesn't matter how you try and spin it.
 
I'm sorry, but Obama is campaigning again on the fact that noone's taxes will go up.. at least that's what this article looked like.


A raise of 1.5% in anyone's taxes is a raise in taxes...

It doesn't matter how you try and spin it.

Ill still take my 1.5% and pot holes fixed so my rolls royce doesn't get a flat
 
I'm sorry, but Obama is campaigning again on the fact that noone's taxes will go up.. at least that's what this article looked like.


A raise of 1.5% in anyone's taxes is a raise in taxes...

It doesn't matter how you try and spin it.

Yep, remember what happened to the last president that promised no new taxes.
 
So you are trying to tell me people in the highest tax bracket would not be willing to pay 1.5% more in taxes if their income went up by 3%? Plese note they are 1.5% ahead and maybe some pot holes on the roads can get fixed as well.

Your math is a little fuzzy here. Lets assume that, as you say, its ok to follow a raise in income with a raise in taxes. Lets say that income goes up 3, so 1.5 in tax is acceptable.

Well, now lets say that income, over a few years, has gone up 50 percent. So by your logic, a raise in tax of 30 percent would be ok...right? Well, if a person was already had about 40, they are now at 70... and, by your math, in a few more years, they'll be at a 100 percent.

Raising taxes along with inflationairy raises in income (which is all the increases really are) is just not possible.
 
Back
Top Bottom