If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Romney says that since healthcare mandate is a tax, Obama broke his promise not to raise taxes on middle class. Which therefore means that Romney admits that he raised taxes while governor   (nytimes.com) divider line 815
    More: Dumbass, President Obama, health care mandate, Lake Winnipesaukee, Bill Burton, Fourth of July Parade, Anthony M. Kennedy, federalisms, governors  
•       •       •

2482 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Jul 2012 at 12:31 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



815 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-05 11:13:03 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, Sparky, you will briefly admit that both sides are the bad when directly questioned during one of your extensive examinations of Democratic Badness in a thread about Republican Badness. I admitted that you were completely and utterly non-partisan and radically independent. You just have a mission to remind everyone of Democratic Badness at any time Republican Badness arises.. Nothing biased about it at all.


you bring great shame to your family
 
2012-07-05 11:13:04 AM

NateGrey: Romney needs a strong VP to help shape his message, on this Healthcare fiasco.

Ann Romney says woman being eyed for husband's ticket

Oh god, please pick Sarah Palin.


newsjunkiepost.com

Bachmann said she was open to the offer a few days ago, and refused to confirm or deny being vetted.

If it is a woman I'm guessing Romney will go for someone with business credentials to complement his own like Carly Fiorina.
 
2012-07-05 11:14:40 AM
Romney are Obama are essentially the same candidate folks. Watching Obama folks rail on Romney is hilarious. I'm not sure we have ever have had similar candidates in a presidential election.
 
2012-07-05 11:16:02 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: If it is a woman I'm guessing Romney will go for someone with business credentials to complement his own like Carly Fiorina.


Since they both specialized in outsourcing/off-shoring jobs and laying off employees?
 
2012-07-05 11:16:11 AM

Shaggy_C: Republicans are against a large, overbearing federal government.


No, Republicans are opposed to a federal government used to help people. Provided the federal government is employed to squeeze tears out of poor people, its machinery can never be large enough to satisfy them.
 
2012-07-05 11:16:15 AM

GameSprocket: Whether you pay the new "tax" or not is entirely based on your behavior.


That doesn't make it not a new tax....

"I can make a firm pledge. 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.


It's a tax. If even one middle class family pays the penalty, what he said wasn't true, so his promise is broken.

The correct argument here is that the promise was broken for a good reason. It won't fly with most people because most people only deal in absolutes, but it's still the correct argument.
 
2012-07-05 11:16:29 AM

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: Yeah, Sparky, you will briefly admit that both sides are the bad when directly questioned during one of your extensive examinations of Democratic Badness in a thread about Republican Badness. I admitted that you were completely and utterly non-partisan and radically independent. You just have a mission to remind everyone of Democratic Badness at any time Republican Badness arises.. Nothing biased about it at all.

you bring great shame to your family


Your record on Fark is your family's proudest achievement. They will discuss it for generations.
 
2012-07-05 11:17:24 AM

NeoCortex42: Oh god, please pick Sarah Palin.

As many mistakes as the GOP has made in this election cycle, there is no way they would put Palin on the ticket again.


Agreed, but who the fark would it be? I mean, I'm certainly not dismissing the very real possibility that they're just blowing smoke, but it's hard to come up with any woman who they'd pair with him. Condoleezza Rice?
 
2012-07-05 11:17:37 AM

skullkrusher: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: skullkrusher: it's a farking tax increase

On you, Dog With Bone? On who else, precisely?

on anyone who doesn't have health insurance. I believe know there is an exemption from the tax below a certain income level


So, only on the freeloaders who can afford it. Fnck'em, better they pay than you and me.

And that's still not a tax increase for everyone or most, which is what you are trying to imply.
 
2012-07-05 11:17:46 AM

monoski: Philip Francis Queeg: If it is a woman I'm guessing Romney will go for someone with business credentials to complement his own like Carly Fiorina.

Since they both specialized in outsourcing/off-shoring jobs and laying off employees?


Yep.
 
2012-07-05 11:17:54 AM

skullkrusher: Serious Black: Question: do you believe that the mortgage interest deduction is a tax cut? Or the child tax credit? Or the employer-sponsored health insurance tax exclusion?

no. However, if we instituted a new tax with an accompanying tax deduction or credit - say a tax on not owning a house (for argument's sake) and all you had to do to avoid that tax is buy a house if you didn't already own one, would it not be a tax increase?


Sure. That said, we should consider WHY most people don't own health insurance. Is it really because they don't want it and feel like freeloading? Or is there a factor with the price being too much for them to afford it?

Personally, I don't see anything semantically different between using a tax exemption to induce people into doing certain behaviors and using a tax penalty to induce people into doing certain behaviors. They're both pretty clearly social engineering feats. It's ludicrous to suggest that one is kosher and the other isn't merely because one will result in an increase of federal revenues while the other reduces them. Just like the health insurance penalty could be implemented instead by raising everyone's taxes and then providing a corresponding tax deduction/credit/whatever, you could implement the mortgage interest deduction by lowering everyone's taxes and then instituting a corresponding tax penalty on people who aren't paying mortgage interest. It's a stupid semantic difference that people hinge on because they really like dog whistles.
 
2012-07-05 11:18:42 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: GameSprocket: Whether you pay the new "tax" or not is entirely based on your behavior.

That doesn't make it not a new tax....

"I can make a firm pledge. 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.

It's a tax. If even one middle class family pays the penalty, what he said wasn't true, so his promise is broken.

The correct argument here is that the promise was broken for a good reason. It won't fly with most people because most people only deal in absolutes, but it's still the correct argument.



Your english is pretty good, one thing to remember is that the part before the comma is part of the same sentence. Keep trying, I'm sure you'll get it.
 
2012-07-05 11:19:23 AM

Sock Ruh Tease: You can sort of do this with Romney, too, but all you have to ask is "Does a set of all sets contain itself?"




grist.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-05 11:19:41 AM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Condoleezza Rice?


She's already said that she'd rather shave her own eyeballs than be Romney's VP, so I doubt it.
 
2012-07-05 11:21:38 AM

xtragrind: Romney are Obama are essentially the same candidate folks. Watching Obama folks rail on Romney is hilarious. I'm not sure we have ever have had similar candidates in a presidential election.


Both sides are the same? I thought this thread was finished with the unique analysis of the situation but you stroll in here with this rare gem.

Thank you for contributing.
 
2012-07-05 11:22:33 AM

fracto73: "You said you would't ground me"
"That was when you missed curfew by 10 minutes. We are talking about you punching your brother"
"You always break your promises!"


"You said you wouldn't ground me for missing curfew."
"Oh, yeah, that promise was part of our plan for last year. It doesn't apply anymore. You were silly to believe it was a promise that extended beyond that very specific period of time."

BO seem rather intent on insisting this isn't a tax increase.
 
2012-07-05 11:22:42 AM

martissimo: quizzical: It isn't a tax on the middle class. It is a tax on anyone who can afford insurance and chooses not to carry any.

In most situations ok yeah, what about this situation though, you live on unemployment at the moment, but it ran out, so you stay with your sister her husband and your mom. Both of the first collect a paycheck, mom gets Social Security.

Any aid you are eligible for is based on household income, if you have NONE in this spot you still don't qualify for a farking thing because the others drive you over the limit easily, nothing for you unless you beg for more than a room to crash in from them, gov will not give you shiat. Lots of people could get medicaid and shiat if they didnt live with family I bet

/I was in this spot for a bit, pretty sweet
//fixed now , but...


Are you being claimed as a dependent on any of your relatives' taxes? I'm no tax expert, but it seems like you might be unnecessarily broad on the definition of the term "household".
 
2012-07-05 11:22:49 AM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: The correct argument here is that the promise was broken for a good reason. It won't fly with most people because most people only deal in absolutes,


Wrong. Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
 
2012-07-05 11:24:49 AM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: And that's still not a tax increase for everyone or most, which is what you are trying to imply.


skullkrusher: NeoCortex42: That's my point. The ad (and the GOP as a whole) are spinning it as a tax for everybody regardless of whether it's true or not.

that is a bullshiat Fox lie.


it's not even like these quotes are in other threads. Holy shiat you people are pathetic.
 
2012-07-05 11:24:57 AM

ox45tallboy: Is it wrong to believe that Laffer is correct about the existence of the curve, but a total moron when it comes to figuring out exactly where we are on the curve?


The laffer curve is a good tool to explain economics to drunk people at a party on the back of a napkin. Beyond that, it's worse than useless.
 
2012-07-05 11:26:07 AM
www.thegatewaypundit.com

"I repeat: not a single dime."

/lol
 
2012-07-05 11:26:19 AM

AngryPanda: Where did this line of thinking come from anyway?


The same place other Republican Talking Points come from.

Karl Rove's Ass.

4.bp.blogspot.com

"NNNNNRRRRRRRRR...Hang on Bill, I'm about to drop another one! HRNNNNNNN!!!"

i.ytimg.com

"HHRRRRRRRNNNNNNNN!"

video.foxnews.com

"Obamacare will result in rationing of care! Lines out the doors of every hospital!"
 
2012-07-05 11:26:58 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Condoleezza Rice?

She's already said that she'd rather shave her own eyeballs than be Romney's VP, so I doubt it.


Isn't that always the way it is, though? I seem to remember hearing that everybody denies any willingness to be VP before getting the official invite. No idea why it's so important, but they do it. I'm not denying that Rice (or anyone else) wouldn't want to keep a safe distance from the Hindenburg that is the Romney 2012 campaign, btw.
 
2012-07-05 11:27:35 AM

Serious Black: Sure. That said, we should consider WHY most people don't own health insurance. Is it really because they don't want it and feel like freeloading? Or is there a factor with the price being too much for them to afford it?


of course cost is the factor for the majority aside from those with pre-existing conditions

Serious Black: Personally, I don't see anything semantically different between using a tax exemption to induce people into doing certain behaviors and using a tax penalty to induce people into doing certain behaviors. They're both pretty clearly social engineering feats. It's ludicrous to suggest that one is kosher and the other isn't merely because one will result in an increase of federal revenues while the other reduces them. Just like the health insurance penalty could be implemented instead by raising everyone's taxes and then providing a corresponding tax deduction/credit/whatever, you could implement the mortgage interest deduction by lowering everyone's taxes and then instituting a corresponding tax penalty on people who aren't paying mortgage interest. It's a stupid semantic difference that people hinge on because they really like dog whistles.


there's quite a difference in reality. One is an increase in taxes that people are able to avoid by doing some behavior. The other is a decrease in existing taxes as an incentive to do some behavior. One is a tax increase with the possibility to offset it (in this case by engaging in behavior which is more expensive than the tax) and the other is the potential to pay less in existing taxes. They aren't even close in practice.
 
2012-07-05 11:28:04 AM

GoodyearPimp: theknuckler_33: You got a citation for that?

The IRS. http://www.irs.gov/retirement/participant/article/0,,id=211358,00.html

The logical limit is the one you stated. Since there's a limit on how much you can contribute while getting a deduction and a tax for excess contributions, I'll suggest that it happens rarely. And Romney is many things, but he (or his wellpaid tax lawyers) is not dumb with numbers.


I don't think you are reading that right. There are contribution limits regardless of whether those contributions are deductible or not. Roth IRA (which are not tax deductible) have the same contribution limits as traditional IRAs, if you could contribute more to IRAs just without getting a tax deduction fro those 'excess contributions' then there wouldn't be a limit on Roth IRA contributions. The administrator of your IRA will not allow you to contribute more than is legally allowed (or possibly 'excess contributions' in one calendar year will be applied to the following year's limit).
 
2012-07-05 11:29:26 AM

skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: skullkrusher: chuckufarlie: you have insurance? The what is your problem? You are not going to be taxed.

are you poor? Are you able to look at a cut to a food stamp program and say "that's a cut to a food stamp program"?

no, I am not poor.

ok so are you able to look at a cut to a food stamp program and say "that's a cut to a food stamp program"?


that has nothing to do with this subject. I realize that you are not very intelligent but try to focus.
 
2012-07-05 11:29:50 AM

Ball Sack Obama: [www.thegatewaypundit.com image 502x323]

"I repeat: not a single dime."

/lol


funny how the "conservative" image memes always have branding and web addresses all over them.
 
2012-07-05 11:29:56 AM

skullkrusher: BO seem rather intent on insisting this isn't a tax increase.


I disagree with him on that. I don't however see that as evidence that he had promised to not raise taxes on the middle class. I see a difference between making a plan that does something and saying all future plans will do that thing.
 
2012-07-05 11:31:17 AM

Ball Sack Obama: [www.thegatewaypundit.com image 502x323]

"I repeat: not a single dime."

/lol


i0.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-07-05 11:32:25 AM

fracto73: skullkrusher: BO seem rather intent on insisting this isn't a tax increase.

I disagree with him on that. I don't however see that as evidence that he had promised to not raise taxes on the middle class. I see a difference between making a plan that does something and saying all future plans will do that thing.


"In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you'll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut - that's right, a tax cut - for 95% of working families. And these checks are on the way."

How many times can he swear not to raise taxes on people under $250,000 and have the fine print say promise not valid in conjunction with anything else I might talk about or do in the future?
 
2012-07-05 11:33:08 AM

NateGrey: Ball Sack Obama: [www.thegatewaypundit.com image 502x323]

"I repeat: not a single dime."

/lol

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 470x570]


you forgot "/vote Republican"

that's your thing and it is hilarious
 
2012-07-05 11:33:11 AM

Ball Sack Obama: [www.thegatewaypundit.com image 502x323]

"I repeat: not a single dime."

/lol


My taxes didn't go up. What's that? Oh, you mean this tax you are referring to applies to something like only 2% of households? Why would you call something like that a "tax on the middle class" if it doesn't apply to the entire middle class?
 
2012-07-05 11:34:36 AM

Headso: Ball Sack Obama: [www.thegatewaypundit.com image 502x323]

"I repeat: not a single dime."

/lol

funny how the "conservative" image memes always have branding and web addresses all over them.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-07-05 11:34:57 AM

Philip Francis Queeg: If it is a woman I'm guessing Romney will go for someone with business credentials to complement his own like Carly Fiorina.


F*ck that f*cking b*tch with a three-pronged claw hammer. That woman f*cked over the tech industry in this company so hard its ass is still sore. She couldn't even do her own job right and increase shareholder value! At least Mitt, as immoral as some of these things he did were, actually made money for his shareholders. That b*tch couldn't even do that! She farked over all of the tech support in the United States, shipped all the jobs off to call centers in India, and still managed to drop the share price by half.

That woman does not need to be put in charge of anything bigger than a HOA with all Republican members, and that's only because they'll keep voting for her all the while their property values drop.

She f*cked over millions of people in the tech industry in the US and walked away with millions, bragging about what a great job she did. And she honestly believes it.

F*ck Carly Fiorina.
 
2012-07-05 11:35:46 AM
Romney said he opposed tax increases when he ran for governor in 2002, and even said he would cut taxes in Massachusetts. But then he passed the largest tax increase of any kind whatsoever in world history when he passed Romneycare.

Sounds like Mittens and Osama Hussein have the same problem on this issue.
 
2012-07-05 11:36:02 AM
Just so you know the entire quote in context when the Conservatives try to lie about it by using only a few words out of context.

This is the larger quote:
President Obama: "And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime."

Citation


I've said it before, if President Obama was bad, the Republicans wouldn't have to lie about him.
 
2012-07-05 11:36:24 AM

skullkrusher: Holy shiat you people are pathetic.


jordanrosenfeld.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-05 11:37:40 AM

skullkrusher: fracto73: skullkrusher: BO seem rather intent on insisting this isn't a tax increase.

I disagree with him on that. I don't however see that as evidence that he had promised to not raise taxes on the middle class. I see a difference between making a plan that does something and saying all future plans will do that thing.

"In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you'll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut - that's right, a tax cut - for 95% of working families. And these checks are on the way."

How many times can he swear not to raise taxes on people under $250,000 and have the fine print say promise not valid in conjunction with anything else I might talk about or do in the future?


That quote in context is more about the specific budgetary issues he was talking about...
 
2012-07-05 11:38:26 AM

skullkrusher: How many times can he swear not to raise taxes on people under $250,000 and have the fine print say


And how many times can you say "tax increases" and not accept the fact that your taxes will only go up if you make more than $250,000 / year, just like he said?
 
2012-07-05 11:38:31 AM

Headso: Ball Sack Obama: [www.thegatewaypundit.com image 502x323]

"I repeat: not a single dime."

/lol

funny how the "conservative" image memes always have branding and web addresses all over them.


That's because it to them it matters who gets credit.
 
2012-07-05 11:38:58 AM

skullkrusher: NateGrey: Ball Sack Obama: [www.thegatewaypundit.com image 502x323]

"I repeat: not a single dime."

/lol

[i0.kym-cdn.com image 470x570]

you forgot "/vote Republican"

that's your thing and it is hilarious


Thank you for the compliment my Freeper friend.

I look forward to more of your whining about taxes in the thread.

/Vote Republican
 
2012-07-05 11:39:50 AM

Thrag: That's not correct. He was talking about all federal taxes. From the quote "Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."


FOREVER?
 
2012-07-05 11:39:54 AM

skullkrusher: fracto73: skullkrusher: BO seem rather intent on insisting this isn't a tax increase.

I disagree with him on that. I don't however see that as evidence that he had promised to not raise taxes on the middle class. I see a difference between making a plan that does something and saying all future plans will do that thing.

"In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you'll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut - that's right, a tax cut - for 95% of working families. And these checks are on the way."

How many times can he swear not to raise taxes on people under $250,000 and have the fine print say promise not valid in conjunction with anything else I might talk about or do in the future?


Yeah, it's criminal how vague and non-specific he was in making that statement. A man of deep intelligence like you can see that he was clearly making a hard pledge that no policy of his administration would ever raise the tax burden on the middle class.
 
2012-07-05 11:40:34 AM

skullkrusher: fracto73: skullkrusher: BO seem rather intent on insisting this isn't a tax increase.

I disagree with him on that. I don't however see that as evidence that he had promised to not raise taxes on the middle class. I see a difference between making a plan that does something and saying all future plans will do that thing.

"In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you'll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut - that's right, a tax cut - for 95% of working families. And these checks are on the way."

How many times can he swear not to raise taxes on people under $250,000 and have the fine print say promise not valid in conjunction with anything else I might talk about or do in the future?



Again, that is talking about a specific, already crafted plan. He is touting the features of a plan, not making a statement on other plans.


How about this one.
"Today is Memorial Day"

Today is absolutely not memorial day, Obama is a liar!
And before you try to defend him, he has previously claimed it was memorial day.
 
2012-07-05 11:43:47 AM

fracto73: skullkrusher: fracto73: skullkrusher: BO seem rather intent on insisting this isn't a tax increase.

I disagree with him on that. I don't however see that as evidence that he had promised to not raise taxes on the middle class. I see a difference between making a plan that does something and saying all future plans will do that thing.

"In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2% of Americans. But let me perfectly clear, because I know you'll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime. In fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut - that's right, a tax cut - for 95% of working families. And these checks are on the way."

How many times can he swear not to raise taxes on people under $250,000 and have the fine print say promise not valid in conjunction with anything else I might talk about or do in the future?


Again, that is talking about a specific, already crafted plan. He is touting the features of a plan, not making a statement on other plans.


How about this one.
"Today is Memorial Day"

Today is absolutely not memorial day, Obama is a liar!
And before you try to defend him, he has previously claimed it was memorial day.


so vote for romney and see what that gets you
 
2012-07-05 11:44:08 AM
Well shiat, I'm voting McCain now.

/yawn
 
2012-07-05 11:44:53 AM
www.bartcop.com

Winning!
 
2012-07-05 11:45:38 AM

chuckufarlie: How about this one.
"Today is Memorial Day"

Today is absolutely not memorial day, Obama is a liar!
And before you try to defend him, he has previously claimed it was memorial day.

so vote for romney and see what that gets you



Romney has also said it was memorial day, how can he be trusted! Both sides are the same!
 
2012-07-05 11:46:14 AM

monoski: Philip Francis Queeg: If it is a woman I'm guessing Romney will go for someone with business credentials to complement his own like Carly Fiorina.

Since they both specialized in outsourcing/off-shoring jobs and laying off employees?


And we'll all be fitted with special 'health ink' cartridges that will expire and need replacement even when we don't get sick?

/with DRM chips in them to prevent home refills
 
2012-07-05 11:46:16 AM
President Obama said "Not a single dime" one other time I could find when he was talking about a specific stimulus plan and rollback of the Bush tax breaks for the rich ONLY... not a general statement about all taxes anytime.

"In order to save our children from a future of debt, we will also end the tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Now, let me be clear--let me be absolutely clear, because I know you'll end up hearing some of the same claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, a quarter million dollars a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: Not one single dime. In fact--not a dime--in fact, the recovery plan provides a tax cut--that's right, a tax cut--for 95 percent of working families. And by the way, these checks are on the way"

citation

Btw: that specific recovery plan did in fact cut taxes for those earning less than $250,000
 
Displayed 50 of 815 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report