Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
GaryC

Barack Obama's Higher Taxes Agenda

27 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Barack Obama's Higher Taxes Agenda

Obama Record of Voting for Higher Taxes Equals Failed Judgment

ARLINGTON, Va., June 9

"While hardworking families are hurting and employers are vulnerable, Barack Obama has promised higher income taxes, Social Security taxes, capital gains taxes, dividend taxes, and tax hikes on job creating businesses. In fact, during just three years in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has already voted 94 times for higher taxes. Barack Obama doesn't understand the American economy and that's change we just can't afford."

BARACK OBAMA'S PLATFORM OF HIGHER TAXES WILL FURTHER WEAKEN OUR ECONOMY

Barack Obama Has Proposed A Slew Of Tax Increases:

Barack Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As "Massive New Domestic Spending." "Obama's transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?" (James Pethokoukis, "Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?" U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)

· Barack Obama Also Called For A Tax On Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: "What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas." ("Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama," San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)

· Barack Obama Called For A Windfall Profits Tax On Oil Companies. Obama: "I think it is appropriate for us to impose a windfall profits tax on our oil companies." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Charlotte, NC, 5/2/08)

"[Obama] Wants To Raise Taxes Even Above The Levels Of The Clinton Era, Including A Huge Increase In The Payroll Tax." (Editorial, "The Obama We Don't Know," The Wall Street Journal, 6/4/08)

If Barack Obama Is Elected To The Presidency And Democrats Get A 60-Vote Majority In The Senate, Taxes Will Go Up. "What will happen to the U.S. economy if Barack Obama wins the presidency and he's backed by a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? Taxes will go up." (Rich Karlgaard, Op-Ed, "Where Will Taxpayers Hide?" Forbes, 6/16/08)

Barack Obama's Plan To Raise Taxes During An Economic Downturn Would Only Further Weaken Our Economy:

CNBC's Maria Bartiromo Asked Obama: "Why Raise Taxes At All In An Economic Slowdown? Isn't That Going To Put A Further Strain On People?" (CNBC's "Closing Bell," 3/27/08)

U.S. News & World Report's Michael Barone Said Obama's Fiscal Policy Is Akin To Herbert Hoover's -- Raising Taxes And Backing Protectionist Trade Policies During An Economic Slowdown. "On fiscal policy, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want higher taxes, at least on high earners. They want to let at least some of the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, as scheduled. On trade, they oppose new free-trade agreements and want to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico. As it happens, another president embraced such policies in a time of economic slowdown and financial market turbulence: Herbert Hoover raised taxes on high earners sharply and, ignoring a letter signed by 1,000 economists, signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930. The results were not pretty. Until now, his example has not commended itself to Democrats. One wonders whether voters will agree that tax increases will stimulate the economy." (M ichael Barone, Op-Ed, "Uncle Sam Pays? Sure, Whatever," U.S. News & World Report, 4/21/08)

In The United States Senate, Barack Obama Has Repeatedly Voted For Higher Taxes

Barack Obama Voted At Least 94 Times For Higher Taxes In The U.S. Senate. (RNC Research)

· To Date, Barack Obama Has Voted For A Tax Increase Approximately Once Every Five Days Congress Has Been In Session. (RNC Research; The Library Of Congress Website, thomas.loc.gov, Accessed 6/8/08)

Barack Obama Voted In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget, Which Would Raise Tax Rates For Americans Earning As Little As $31,850:

Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85, Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

The Democrats' Budget Would Raise Taxes On Individuals Earning As Little As $31,850. "Under both Democratic plans, tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent brackets. At present, the 25 percent bracket begins at $31,850 for individuals and $63,700 for married couples. The 35 percent bracket on incomes over $349,700 would jump to 39.6 percent." (Andrew Taylor, "Presidential Hopefuls To Vote On Budget," The Associated Press, 3/13/08)

In The Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama Had A Record Of Voting For Higher Taxes

In The State Senate, Barack Obama Supported "Hundreds Of Tax Increases." ABC's Terry Moran: "[O]bama was considered a reliable liberal Democratic vote in Illinois. For instance, voting for most gun control measures, opposing efforts to ban so-called partial birth abortions and supporting hundreds of tax increases." (ABC's "Nightline," 2/25/08)

In 2004, Barack Obama Voted For A $304 Million Tax Increase On Businesses In Creating The Tax Shelter Voluntary Compliance Act. (H.B. 848, Illinois Senate Floor Third Reading, Passed 30-28-1, 5/20/04, Obama Voted Yea; Dave McKinney, "Blagojevich Threatens Up To 5,000 State Layoffs," Chicago Sun-Times, 5/21/04)

· The Legislation "Triggered A Huge Outcry From Business Groups," Which Contended It Would "Drive Companies Out Of State" And Cost Jobs. "The governor's bid to raise taxes and fees by close to $400 million and reel in another $300 million-plus in corporate tax breaks has triggered a huge outcry from business groups, which contend the moves will drive companies out of state and cause Illinois to lose jobs." (Dave McKinney and Leslie Griffy, "Blagojevich Threatens Up To 5,000 State Layoffs," Chicago Sun-Times, 5/21/04)

In 2003, Barack Obama Voted For A Bill "That Raised A Huge Number Of Fees And Taxes" On Businesses And Licenses. "Obama voted for a bill during the 2003 Illinois General Assembly legislative session that raised a huge number of fees and taxes for businesses and licenses to cover day-to-day expenses of state government." (Terrence L. Barnich, Op-Ed, "4 Partisan Questions For Obama," Chicago Tribune, 7/29/04)

· The Legislation Negatively Impacted Illinois' Trucking Industry, Costing The State 25,000 Licensed Trucks In 2005. "Almost 17,000 fewer commercial trucks and 2,700 fewer trucking companies have been registered in Illinois for 2005, fueling the trucking industry's claim that Gov. Rod Blagojevich is driving businesses out of the state with his new fees and business taxes." (Brian Wallheimer, "Governor's New Fees Are Driving Trucking Firms Out Of Illinois, Industry Says," St. Louis Post- Dispatch, 5/5/04)

In 2003, Barack Obama Voted To Tax Natural Gas Purchased Outside Of Illinois. (S.B. 1733, Bill Status, www.ilga.gov, Accessed 2/11/08; S.B. 1733: Concurrence In House Amendment #4, Passed 31-27-00, 5/31/03, Obama Voted Yea)

· The Natural Gas Tax Made Natural Gas More Expensive For Industrial Buyers Such As Manufacturers. "The natural gas tax. A new policy under Blagojevich's budget will make natural gas more expensive to industrial buyers. Currently, Illinois offers an exemption on the sales tax paid for natural gas, but the new budget ends that exemption, a move that could become a major expense for steel mills and other factories that use large quantities of natural gas." (Kevin McDermott, "Area Dodged Legislative Hit On Schools, Roads," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6/8/03)

· Barack Obama Voted For The Natural Gas Tax, Which Threatened Jobs, At The Same Time That Illinois Was Leading The Nation In Jobs Lost. "Just as harmful to the state's economy are the large taxes on natural gas brought from out-of-state suppliers and the rolling stock sales tax. Both of these taxes will negatively affect important businesses as well as the employees who are dependent on these Illinois companies. I have received phone calls and letters from all sectors of the business community who reported that the projected loss of revenues due to these increased taxes and fees may well cause them to close their facilities in Illinois and move to a more business-friendly surrounding state while still serving Illinois customers. Illinois leads the nation in jobs lost. We cannot afford to drive more businesses from our state." (State Rep. Carolyn Krause, Op-Ed, "Increase Tax Incentives, Not Taxes For Businesses," Chicago Tribune, 6/13/03)

In 1999, Barack Obama Voted In Favor Of S.B. 1028 To Create The Illinois First Infrastructure Program, Which Raised 146 Taxes And Fees. (S.B. 1028: Senate Floor Third Reading, Passed, 58-0-0, 3/23/99, Obama Voted Yea; S.B. 1028: Senate Conference Committee Report, Passed, 42-17-0, 5/21/99, Obama Voted Yea; Editorial, "Jack Ryan Woefully Unprepared For Attack On Obama," The State Journal-Register, 4/18/04)

http://www.earnedmedia.org/jmcc0609.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline

Well this IS better than the half a hundred threads of manure that we've seen over the last week. IMO there's a saturation problem with this stuff - post enough anti-Obama threads (especially of the caliber of some of the recent ones) and eventually it turns people cold. Not to mention the pariah element of "Oh no - not another op-ed thread" - so you probably find that the articles of interest get lost amongst the guff.

Raising taxes at this point in time probably isn't the way to go - but then again I'm no expert on economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well this IS better than the half a hundred threads of manure that we've seen over the last week. IMO there's a saturation problem with this stuff - post enough anti-Obama threads (especially of the caliber of some of the recent ones) and eventually it turns people cold. Not to mention the pariah element of "Oh no - not another op-ed thread" - so you probably find that the articles of interest get lost amongst the guff.

Raising taxes at this point in time probably isn't the way to go - but then again I'm no expert on economics.

The inflammatory Op-Ed stories are the only thing that seems to get any traction. Whenever I try to post something about real issues it gets dismissed or ignored. People here b!tch about the hype and the lack of substance but then turn around and refuse to talk about anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah but its traction of the "this is so ridiculous" variety.

To me it just shows the lack of faith in the Obama camp. They know their candidate cannot stand up to a real discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline
Yeah but its traction of the "this is so ridiculous" variety.

To me it just shows the lack of faith in the Obama camp. They know their candidate cannot stand up to a real discussion.

I don't know Gary - from what I've seen there seems to be a general assumption that everyone who supports Obama is some kind of fanatic. While that element does exist - its always going to alienate and p*ss off everyone else who get lumped in with the extremist category.

I know a fair few people in CA who voted for Bush who weren't war-mad Neocons. Most of those people have now come to the conclusion that the man is an oaf - but again you still have the fanatical element that still support him vociferously regardless of anything.

Edited by Number 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline
I see, any real look at Obama and his agenda is ignored.

obamabots are too busy with their head in the sand......


* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see, any real look at Obama and his agenda is ignored.

obamabots are too busy with their head in the sand......

I notice that the Op-Ed stories are still getting replies while no one wants to discuss real issues. I guess it's true then. Obama's supporters are aware that his policies cannot withstand a discussion. It proves that his whole appeal is nothing but personality because that is all they are willing to discuss. Ok then, I will find more Op-Ed stories to post then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline
I see, any real look at Obama and his agenda is ignored.

obamabots are too busy with their head in the sand......

Those that think that the Republican borrow-and-spend-and-let-the-next-generations-worry-about-our-lack-of-responsibility mentality are the one with their heads in the sand. The only way to curb spending is have people see in real terms what the cost is. As long as we fund spending by running up more debt, there'll be no momentum building up to change a thing. To stay on the current irresponsible course will ultimately bankrupt this nation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see, any real look at Obama and his agenda is ignored.

obamabots are too busy with their head in the sand......

Those that think that the Republican borrow-and-spend-and-let-the-next-generations-worry-about-our-lack-of-responsibility mentality are the one with their heads in the sand. The only way to curb spending is have people see in real terms what the cost is. As long as we fund spending by running up more debt, there'll be no momentum building up to change a thing. To stay on the current irresponsible course will ultimately bankrupt this nation.

So bankrupt the people instead. Nice plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline
I see, any real look at Obama and his agenda is ignored.

obamabots are too busy with their head in the sand......

Those that think that the Republican borrow-and-spend-and-let-the-next-generations-worry-about-our-lack-of-responsibility mentality are the one with their heads in the sand. The only way to curb spending is have people see in real terms what the cost is. As long as we fund spending by running up more debt, there'll be no momentum building up to change a thing. To stay on the current irresponsible course will ultimately bankrupt this nation.

So bankrupt the people instead. Nice plan.

:thumbs:


* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline
I see, any real look at Obama and his agenda is ignored.
obamabots are too busy with their head in the sand......
Those that think that the Republican borrow-and-spend-and-let-the-next-generations-worry-about-our-lack-of-responsibility mentality are the one with their heads in the sand. The only way to curb spending is have people see in real terms what the cost is. As long as we fund spending by running up more debt, there'll be no momentum building up to change a thing. To stay on the current irresponsible course will ultimately bankrupt this nation.

So bankrupt the people instead. Nice plan.

You didn't read what I said. But yes, at the end of the day, I don't appreciate politicians and their supporters that feel that they can unload the cost of their actions onto my children. My children can't defend themselves yet. It's my job to do that for them. I believe in a very simple principle: You can only spend what you make. Republicans have not shown to be capable of following this very simple and sound principle.

Imagine, if you will, that people could just spend, spend, spend and not worry about paying back any debt but rather borrow more and more all the time with there seemingly being no consequence to it. Do yuo think that this would foster fiscal responsibility in any given household? You think that people would restrain their spending under such circumstances? The answer is, no they would not. And that's essentially what the Republican leadership has done for the better part of the last 3 decades - pretend that we can just spend, spend, spend without there being any consequence. The truth is, though, that there are ultimately grave consequences and we start seeing them. More of the same isn't going to accomplish the course correction we desperately need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't frame a response that is based on a comprehensive knowledge of American economics but I will say this. Raising taxes isn't automatically a bad thing any more than sending out millions of dollars in 'stimulus' checks is automatically a good thing for the economy.

Simply raising taxes isn't an answer to anything though. Raising taxes has to be directly linked to a benefit for it to make sense, at least to me. A simple example I can think of, California is facing a huge budget crisis at the moment. Schwarzenigger, quite rightly in my opinion, is trying to balance the books. However, currently the only thing he is advocating is slashing budgets. Now, I have nothing against slashing budgets if the budget is funding something unecessary or if that will create greater efficency but when it comes to slashing education budgets that are already pared to the bone the direct result of which is going to be reducing the number of teachers and increasing the class sizes that are already above acceptable levels then in that instance raising more taxes to specifically spend on education is the right thing to do.

I presume one of the difficulties with these decisions is that it's often a matter of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater.


Refusing to use the spellchick!

I have put you on ignore. No really, I have, but you are still ruining my enjoyment of this site. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well this IS better than the half a hundred threads of manure that we've seen

yes like a majority of your posts..

Edited by Boo-Yah!

According to the Internal Revenue Service, the 400 richest American households earned a total of $US138 billion, up from $US105 billion a year earlier. That's an average of $US345 million each, on which they paid a tax rate of just 16.6 per cent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...