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  
•       •       •

2484 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 11:47:16 AM  

skullkrusher: Holy shiat you people are pathetic.


3.bp.blogspot.com


I am going to eventually write a Perl script that searches the Fark boards for you insulting people and posts a quote of the insult and this pic. Is it possible for you to be civil? Try reading some of the other posters. You can learn quite a bit as to how to speak to other people, how to express your ideas in such a way that people will listen to you.

We're all equal here. Some of us make a lot of money and are in positions of power, some of us make next to nothing and can't afford $5 /month for TF. But our opinions of each other are based not on external factors of wealth or prominence, but on the content of our postings, whether you can be funny, articulate, and informative, whether you can back up your positions rationally, and whether or not you stoop to insulting people you disagree with, and discounting them as somehow inferior.

Grow up and try being civil, dude.
 
2012-07-05 11:48:01 AM  

PanicMan:

Oh man, I've seen that. That old money wealth is a strange kind of wealth. Did you know that there are castles in America? Honest to god castles on islands. With boat houses for 40 ft sailboats, mast and all. And people own them.

That kind of person will never be able to understand what it's like to be middle class, let alone poor.


At latest count, Rmoney has the following:
A beach house in La Jolla.
A lake house in New Hampshire.
Ski condo in Utah.
2 condos in Boston.

He needs to have a vacation home to get away from his vacation home.
 
2012-07-05 11:48:26 AM  

skullkrusher: 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.


You don't think that purchasing a house is more expensive than paying taxes? Since I don't have a huge pool of figures, I'll use my anecdotal evidence. I spend about $845 a month on principal and interest for my house, and last year, my interest was about $4,600. That reduced my taxes by about $1,100, or about a month and a half of my mortgage payment. That clearly shows that the behavior that was induced was more expensive than the taxes foregone by engaging in the behavior.
 
2012-07-05 11:49:50 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.


No, they are not. Romney has vowed to repeal Obamacare. Obama has not. That seems like a pretty big difference right there. If Romney is president chances are very high we will start yet another useless war. I'm fairly confident that Obama will not do that. Romney would have let the auto industry implode. Obama did not. There are a ton of other differences. Is Obama a Liberal's wet dream? No, but then no viable candidate is at this point.

But are there big differences between Obama and Romney? Yes. And maybe Obama would have been able to accomplish even more if this country weren't being held hostage by a bunch of tea bagger idiots and a Republican party whose primary goal is to keep the country from recovering because they hope people will be stupid enough to blame the current economic conditions on Obama instead of GOP obstructionism.
 
2012-07-05 11:50:07 AM  

Aldon: 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



He stated that a specific plan didn't raise taxes on some people. He made the same claim about a different plan. Therefore it applies to every plan.

This is why I like the Memorial Day example. He has stated that a specific day was memorial day. He has made the claim on several different days. By the logic of the folks saying that he broke his promise, everyday should be memorial day.
 
2012-07-05 11:50:16 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: 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.




"Under my plan". Wouldn't that have been the plan that let the Bush tax cuts for those above $250K expire? How did that work out?

So we're operating under 'his plan' right now, right?

No? Then how can his promise apply?
 
2012-07-05 11:51:15 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: 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?


Well, that is the best part.

But seriously, no, not forever. I had addressed that notion previously in the thread and pointed out the "under my [2008 tax] plan" context of the statement. I was just correcting the only income tax statement.
 
2012-07-05 11:51:42 AM  

ox45tallboy: 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?


I thought everyone who posts on Fark is married to a super model, drives an exotic sports car, was on the cover of People's "The most 50 beautiful people in the world" issue and makes well over $250,000/year?
 
2012-07-05 11:51:45 AM  
This semantic cockfight over "penalty" vs. "tax" is the perfect example of why our national political discourse is in the sh*tter. Nobody worthwhile cares whether it's called a penalty or a tax. It's a distinction without a difference. The only people who do care are the spinmeisters, who are using "tax" as a fearmongering tool, and the idiots getting spun by it.

Short version: Stupid argument is stupid.
 
2012-07-05 11:53:06 AM  
How did Mitt Romney get a $101 million IRA? Link
 
2012-07-05 11:53:57 AM  

shower_in_my_socks: AverageAmericanGuy: It's a terrible law. Romney is an idiot, but so is the President for signing such a lousy compromise.


Yes, because we must get everything we want in one go, or NOTHING. Historically, progress usually happens incrementally.


DADT sucked, but it was improvement over the previous policy, which was "Ask, Investigate, Imprison, Dishonorably Discharge."
 
2012-07-05 11:54:57 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: How did that work out?


Pretty good for the rich - considering they had their puppets in the Senate filibuster an extension of Unemployment Insurance until they got their precious unnecessary tax breaks.

Recent history is tough for all Americans, it seems.

Vlad_the_Inaner: So we're operating under 'his plan' right now, right?


The parts that survived the republicans gutting every single thing because black guy president.

Vlad_the_Inaner: No?


No.
 
2012-07-05 11:55:28 AM  
Yeah...

Yeah. That's a weak-sauce counter argument. The Obama campaign is not going to effectively counter-act the "he raised your taxes!" attacks with yet another "b-b-but the other guy".

Also, I heard a Dem proxy this weekend making the argument that it's not really a tax because it really doesn't apply to anyone anyway. (The "freeloader tax penalty" counter). What caught my attention was that she argued that it would affect virtually no one because "90% of Americans already have health insurance anyways, and since most of those that don't are lower income and qualify for government subsidies for insurance, this penalty will probably never get applied to anyone."

Which made me wonder... if 90% of Americans already HAVE insurance, WTF is the point of this whole monstrous garbage bill anyway?
 
2012-07-05 11:55:50 AM  
I have health insurance through my employer. My household income is (way) less than 250k a year.

Righties: Obama is raising your taxes!--Ok, show me where? Not that tanning bed taxes are increasing, or health insurance might maybe possibly get more expensive because there are new people to cover, or taxes on medical equipment. I know about all that but I don't get all frothy about being taxed for shiat I don't use (tanning beds) or care about (health insurance costs might go up? You mean like they do every year?). Show me, in the ACA, where exactly it says that someone in my situation will experience some increase in my taxes. It would be nice if there was number figures attached too...YOUR TAXES ARE GOING UP by 1% would be informative as to how concerned I should be about it. But generic YOUR TAXES ARE GOING UP SOME UNIMAGINABLE AMOUNT THAT WE DON'T KNOW YET...not as useful.

I have relatives that are uninsured due to pre-existing conditions or simply because they are unable to afford insurance. The ACA would seem to rectify those situations. What plan is Romney offering (specifically now, I heard his repeal and replace whargarble) that will lead to my relatives having insurance in 2014?

Lefties: You're all good, you can keep your insurance and you won't have to pay anything extra!--Ok, but if my insurance plan doesn't meet the requirements of the ACA I'll have to get new insurance right (or pay the penalty I suppose)? If my employer drops my insurance, or shiat, drops me, won't I then be in fact paying a tax that did not exist before?

The Supreme Court thinks (for now...) that it is a constitutional exercise of the taxing power to levy a penalty, fine, tax, on someone who refuses to buy health insurance because it is a market that everyone will use at some point. There are a lot of markets that people are guaranteed to be involved in at some point (funeral costs for example). Is Obama and his cult here on Fark in favor of extending this power to include things like that or was this a one time thing we swear? Is there any left leaner that is troubled by the idea of the government attempting to force you into purchasing a service or product you may not want, even if it is a product you will inevitably need? It bugs me, sorry, call me crazy.

I cautiously support the ACA. I don't expect it to solve all of our health care issues because our health care system is beyond quick fix repair, so maybe that's why I can't find myself supporting the "it doesn't go far enough camp". At least someone is doing something.

If it turns out that I will pay some increased taxes but as a result people like my relatives will be able to either get or afford health insurance and have access to health care I would very likely be OK with that. But I hear "IT'S A TAX ON THE MIDDLE CLASS!" from one side and "YOU WON'T PAY ANYTHING EXTRA!" from the other, and I suspect the truth, as usual is somewhere in the middle.

/Have at it shills on both sides...I suspect that when the smoke clears neither side will have satisfactory answers
 
2012-07-05 11:55:53 AM  

someonelse: This semantic cockfight over "penalty" vs. "tax" is the perfect example of why our national political discourse is in the sh*tter. Nobody worthwhile cares whether it's called a penalty or a tax. It's a distinction without a difference. The only people who do care are the spinmeisters, who are using "tax" as a fearmongering tool, and the idiots getting spun by it.


I've started calling it a "Blue elephant" just to confuse and annoy the anti-tax farkwagons.

Of course, they're confused and annoyed by fire, but hey.
 
2012-07-05 11:56:30 AM  

ox45tallboy: Grow up and try being civil, dude.


That's not really his thing.
 
2012-07-05 11:56:45 AM  

Pincy: 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.

No, they are not. Romney has vowed to repeal Obamacare. Obama has not. That seems like a pretty big difference right there. If Romney is president chances are very high we will start yet another useless war. I'm fairly confident that Obama will not do that. Romney would have let the auto industry implode. Obama did not. There are a ton of other differences. Is Obama a Liberal's wet dream? No, but then no viable candidate is at this point.


THIS. Romney has the same curse that McCain did. This argument that Romney and Obama are the same was true back when Romney was MA governor Romney. He's teabagger Romney now, and that all goes out the window. He became a different person in order to win the primary, and that person no longer looks anything like Obama OR Romney.

I had some respect for McCain before he became 2008 McCain as well. He sold his reputation for a ticket to the top of the primary heap, and he got spanked. People blame Palin for his defeat, but McCain flew that jet into the ground all on his own; Palin was just a trunk-load of nitroglycerine.
 
2012-07-05 11:57:53 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: I heard a Dem proxy this weekend making the argument that it's not really a tax because it really doesn't apply to anyone anyway.


People believe you more if you provide proof for direct assertions.

BojanglesPaladin: Which made me wonder... if 90% of Americans already HAVE insurance, WTF is the point of this whole monstrous garbage bill anyway?


Because percent is a 100 scale, and 90 is not 100.
 
2012-07-05 11:57:58 AM  

Coelacanth: How did Mitt Romney get a $101 million IRA? Link


100 mil IRA?

Seems legit.
 
2012-07-05 11:58:53 AM  

fracto73: Aldon: 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


He stated that a specific plan didn't raise taxes on some people. He made the same claim about a different plan. Therefore it applies to every plan.

This is why I like the Memorial Day example. He has stated that a specific day was memorial day. He has made the claim on several different days. By the logic of the folks saying that he broke his promise, everyday should be memorial day.


Yep, what I like is that they are so desperate to call President Obama a liar they will throw Romney under the bus in a second to do it (then vote for Romney of course).

Romney said in almost every speech about his record that he didn't raise taxes in Mass. now he has been personally silent since the SCOTUS ruling on the mandate, and using attack ads calling the President a liar because the mandate is a tax.

Somehow the conservative mind will be able to call the President Obama a liar because healthcare mandates are really taxes, but say Willard Mitt Romney is not being a hypocrite....both sides are the same so vote Republican!
 
2012-07-05 11:58:59 AM  

ox45tallboy: 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?


the mandate is a tax increase on people under $250k who don't have insurance. Period. That's it.
 
2012-07-05 11:59:29 AM  

js34603: Lefties: You're all good, you can keep your insurance and you won't have to pay anything extra!--Ok, but if my insurance plan doesn't meet the requirements of the ACA I'll have to get new insurance right (or pay the penalty I suppose)? If my employer drops my insurance, or shiat, drops me, won't I then be in fact paying a tax that did not exist before?



Yup, the 'you can keep your insurance' claim was stupid. There is no requirement that the company continue to sell it. Though in terms of your employer though, they get to decide if they like their insurance. They are the customer. The system sucks, but that is the way America has decided to do things for now.
 
2012-07-05 11:59:41 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: Which made me wonder... if 90% of Americans already HAVE insurance, WTF is the point of this whole monstrous garbage bill anyway?


10% of Americans not having health insurance is a bad thing for everyone. It certainly makes our claims to having the "Finest healthcare system in the world" nonsense.
 
2012-07-05 12:00:17 PM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: McCain flew that jet into the ground all on his own


*snerk*
 
2012-07-05 12:00:40 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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.


aren't you getting dizzy from all the spinning? Seriously, you're not on the payroll. This is sad.
 
2012-07-05 12:02:15 PM  

ox45tallboy: skullkrusher: Holy shiat you people are pathetic.

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 600x369]

I am going to eventually write a Perl script that searches the Fark boards for you insulting people and posts a quote of the insult and this pic. Is it possible for you to be civil? Try reading some of the other posters. You can learn quite a bit as to how to speak to other people, how to express your ideas in such a way that people will listen to you.

We're all equal here. Some of us make a lot of money and are in positions of power, some of us make next to nothing and can't afford $5 /month for TF. But our opinions of each other are based not on external factors of wealth or prominence, but on the content of our postings, whether you can be funny, articulate, and informative, whether you can back up your positions rationally, and whether or not you stoop to insulting people you disagree with, and discounting them as somehow inferior.

Grow up and try being civil, dude.


yes, I should respond civilly to people who lie and mischaracterize what I say. To blatantly lie about a person's position when there is no ambiguity as to that position as evidenced by quotes in the same thread is pathetic. I am sorry if that upsets you so. You might consider lying less or growing thicker skin if you don't like people calling you out
 
2012-07-05 12:03:01 PM  

js34603: There are a lot of markets that people are guaranteed to be involved in at some point (funeral costs for example). Is Obama and his cult here on Fark in favor of extending this power to include things like that or was this a one time thing we swear?


If you didn't pay for a funeral, but you suddenly decide you want one anyway, do I have to help pay for it?
 
2012-07-05 12:03:05 PM  

Epoch_Zero: BojanglesPaladin: I heard a Dem proxy this weekend making the argument that it's not really a tax because it really doesn't apply to anyone anyway.

People believe you more if you provide proof for direct assertions.

BojanglesPaladin: Which made me wonder... if 90% of Americans already HAVE insurance, WTF is the point of this whole monstrous garbage bill anyway?

Because percent is a 100 scale, and 90 is not 100.


So,apparently the new argument is: are there no prisons? Are there no work houses?

Dickension economics is now the ideal?
 
2012-07-05 12:03:10 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: skullkrusher: Holy shiat you people are pathetic.

[jordanrosenfeld.files.wordpress.com image 361x480]


is this how they do mea culpas in the Ass house?
 
2012-07-05 12:04:21 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: 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 any specific person in the middle class.


FTFY
 
2012-07-05 12:04:28 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: Yeah...

Yeah. That's a weak-sauce counter argument. The Obama campaign is not going to effectively counter-act the "he raised your taxes!" attacks with yet another "b-b-but the other guy".

Also, I heard a Dem proxy this weekend making the argument that it's not really a tax because it really doesn't apply to anyone anyway. (The "freeloader tax penalty" counter). What caught my attention was that she argued that it would affect virtually no one because "90% of Americans already have health insurance anyways, and since most of those that don't are lower income and qualify for government subsidies for insurance, this penalty will probably never get applied to anyone."

Which made me wonder... if 90% of Americans already HAVE insurance, WTF is the point of this whole monstrous garbage bill anyway?


Many of those Americans have insurance that is effectively garbage. The following chart represents the percent of enrollees of various individual insurance plans by their actuarial value, or the share of an individual's health care costs that the insurance plan covers in aggregate:

theincidentaleconomist.com

In contrast, here's the actuarial value of group plans offered through employers:

theincidentaleconomist.com

Big difference, huh? And the number of people being covered under group plans has been going down for years now as companies decide it's no longer worth it to offer health benefits to their employers, so they're increasing going from a great situation with awesome tax breaks to a crappy situation with no tax break. That's one major area ObamaCare is helping to fix.
 
2012-07-05 12:04:48 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

aren't you getting dizzy from all the spinning? Seriously, you're not on the payroll. This is sad.


Yeah, there is no worse spin than pointing out the obvious facts is there, Sparky?
 
2012-07-05 12:04:59 PM  

skullkrusher: To blatantly lie about a person's position when there is no ambiguity as to that position as evidenced by quotes



Now this is just ironic considering your mischaracterization of Obama's quotes.
 
2012-07-05 12:05:26 PM  
Romney's mandate was constitutionally sound. Obama's mandate pissed all over the Constitution so scotus could only allow it by redefining his scheme as a tax.
 
2012-07-05 12:05:55 PM  

skullkrusher: yes, I should respond civilly to people who lie and mischaracterize what I say.


Your arguments are dismantled. No one is mischaracterizing what you say - we don't need to.

skullkrusher: You might consider lying less or growing thicker skin


A mischaracterization. In the same paragraph.


So what's your real problem? This is just me, but it seems like you aren't getting your way and are very upset by your inability to change the circumstances.
 
2012-07-05 12:06:30 PM  

skullkrusher: Philip Francis Queeg: 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.

aren't you getting dizzy from all the spinning? Seriously, you're not on the payroll. This is sad.


So you are saying that the "not one dime" thing was NOT in direct relation to a specific discussion about the Bush tax cuts?
 
2012-07-05 12:06:35 PM  

someonelse: js34603: There are a lot of markets that people are guaranteed to be involved in at some point (funeral costs for example). Is Obama and his cult here on Fark in favor of extending this power to include things like that or was this a one time thing we swear?

If you didn't pay for a funeral, but you suddenly decide you want one anyway, do I have to help pay for it?


I think we pay for John Doe's funeral (well you know, incineration) right now. We pay for prisoners' funeral (...incineration) too, when they have no one to step up for the costs. So yeah, we're all paying for funerals for people who didn't participate in the life insurance market.
 
2012-07-05 12:06:44 PM  

someonelse: js34603: There are a lot of markets that people are guaranteed to be involved in at some point (funeral costs for example). Is Obama and his cult here on Fark in favor of extending this power to include things like that or was this a one time thing we swear?

If you didn't pay for a funeral, but you suddenly decide you want one anyway, do I have to help pay for it?


You're looking at this particular example wrong. Treat it like "If life hands you a lemon, open a lemonade stand"

www.thinkgeek.com
 
2012-07-05 12:06:49 PM  
This could of made for a interesting thread, but it feels like it's being shiat all over now and just a running argument between one person and everyone else telling them they're a farking idiot.
 
2012-07-05 12:08:13 PM  

Pincy: ox45tallboy: 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?

I thought everyone who posts on Fark is married to a super model, drives an exotic sports car, was on the cover of People's "The most 50 beautiful people in the world" issue and makes well over $250,000/year?


No, apparently only skullkrusher and his alter ego, studman69.
 
2012-07-05 12:08:30 PM  

skullkrusher: Satanic_Hamster: I already have health insurance; not going to pay anything. And he was talking about income taxes.

Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of income tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll income tax, not your capital gains income taxes, not any of your income taxes.


You realize that capital gains taxes are income taxes right?
 
2012-07-05 12:09:03 PM  

Serious Black: skullkrusher: Serious Black: Personally, ...

You don't think that purchasing a house is more expensive than paying taxes? Since I don't have a huge pool of figures, I'll use my anecdotal evidence. I spend about $845 a month on principal and interest for my house, and last year, my interest was about $4,600. That reduced my taxes by about $1,100, or about a month and a half of my mortgage payment. That clearly shows that the behavior that was induced was more expensive than the taxes foregone by engaging in the behavior.


You left out deductions for real estate tax and also in some cases energy tax credits for improvements that you can now get (granted this is speculative). BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY you have a place to live. Home ownership should not be solely for investment (i.e. flipping) but for providing yourself with a place to live.
 
2012-07-05 12:09:47 PM  

Epoch_Zero: So what's your real problem? This is just me, but it seems like you aren't getting your way and are very upset by your inability to change the circumstances.


He gets like that. I put him on ignore after he admitted to me that he was only pretending to disagree vehemently with me because he personally doesn't like me. Despite the fact that he agreed with my argument, he went all tard-parade on me anyway because, and I quote, "he [meaning me] deserves everything he gets".
 
2012-07-05 12:09:52 PM  

Epoch_Zero: People believe you more if you provide proof for direct assertions.


I'm not concerned with asserting "belief", and I am comfortable if you choose to believe that I made the whole thing up though I have no idea why you find it hard to believe. But if it helps you in some way, I was listening to one of the POTUS programs mid-afternoon on Saturday to the (Flacks?) program where they have a white girl Democrat and a Black guy republican who calmly and respectfully discuss current events and the speaker was some lady whose name and organization I forget but was on for the whole segment.

Because percent is a 100 scale, and 90 is not 100.

No shiat. But this is a whole lot of bad legislation (and some good) to massively overhaul a double digit segment of our economy to address a private shortfall of a small percentage of the population. And it does nothing to reduce costs, and the CBO calculates that it will actually be MORE expensive to the average American than if we had done nothing.

We could have just said "No pre-existing condition exemptions or lifetime caps "and added 30 million people to Medicaid for a fraction of the money and disruption.

This is just bad law. Even the Democrats understand this, but for partisan reasons can't abandon it and so they are arguing that we MUST keep the dirty bathwater to avoid losing the baby. And Republicans want to throw the baby and the bathwater out and get a smaller baby.
 
2012-07-05 12:10:11 PM  

fracto73: 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!


and how many years did it take you to realize that?
 
2012-07-05 12:10:14 PM  

Noam Chimpsky: Romney's mandate was constitutionally sound. Obama's mandate pissed all over the Constitution so scotus could only allow it by redefining his scheme as a tax.


Yes. The argument is that government is inefficient and it cannot Federally mandate that a person buy something. Only states have the power to do that. So because the federal government is too inefficient and broken, what we need to do is have all the state houses and senates of all 50 states ratify the provision individually.
 
2012-07-05 12:12:17 PM  

js34603: someonelse: js34603: There are a lot of markets that people are guaranteed to be involved in at some point (funeral costs for example). Is Obama and his cult here on Fark in favor of extending this power to include things like that or was this a one time thing we swear?

If you didn't pay for a funeral, but you suddenly decide you want one anyway, do I have to help pay for it?

I think we pay for John Doe's funeral (well you know, incineration) right now. We pay for prisoners' funeral (...incineration) too, when they have no one to step up for the costs. So yeah, we're all paying for funerals for people who didn't participate in the life insurance market.


Well, I specifically said "funeral" because that's the word you used. I realize taxpayers pay for the cremation of John Doe's, or when nobody in the family steps up. But that's different than a funeral, which generally costs big $$. I suppose you could make the comparison that everyone dies, but not everyone is required to pay a penalty if they don't have a pre-paid funeral plan. But that's a pretty weak comparison, imo.
 
2012-07-05 12:12:52 PM  

skullkrusher: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: skullkrusher: Holy shiat you people are pathetic.

[jordanrosenfeld.files.wordpress.com image 361x480]

is this how they do mea culpas in the Ass house?


Dude, you're just waving around what amounts to a semantic argument like it's some kind of devastating proof of OMGSOCIALISMTYRANNYSLAVERY!11ELEVENTY!1!

Might as well put on a tricorn hat.
 
2012-07-05 12:13:51 PM  

BojanglesPaladin: We could have just said "No pre-existing condition exemptions or lifetime caps "and added 30 million people to Medicaid for a fraction of the money and disruption.


In what parallel universe does this plan get through Congress?
 
2012-07-05 12:14:22 PM  

theknuckler_33: So you are saying that the "not one dime" thing was NOT in direct relation to a specific discussion about the Bush tax cuts?


"There is, of course, another responsibility we have to our children. And that is the responsibility to ensure that we do not pass on to them a debt they cannot pay. With the deficit we inherited, the cost of the crisis we face, and the long-term challenges we must meet, it has never been more important to ensure that as our economy recovers, we do what it takes to bring this deficit down.

"Long term challenges" which he just enumerated. Energy, Healthcare and education.

"...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."

sure sounds to me like he plans on addressing the crisis and long term challenges while "saving our children from a future of debt" while not increasing taxes on people under $250k. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. He broke a promise. It's ok guys, he'll still win
 
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