Here Comes the Tax Increase

[guido911]

I am implying that Guido is lying

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/24/AR2008022401995.html

"The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation," Obama answered. But, he added: "No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives."


Now you show me where he said he would never use signing statements.

I have been trying to find the specific signing statement to comment on that.  Unfortunately I am reduced to replying to your lie that Obama stated he would never use signing statements.  I would like to however discuss the contents of the signing statement to see in what context in use.  This is exactly why Picard hates the threads.

Did you not watch the video I posted wherein he unequivocally promised he would not use signing statements. Well, here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc&eurl=http://www.conservativepunk.com/articles/2042/

[we vs us]

This is exactly why Picard hates the threads. 

I like what you're saying, but . . . who's Picard?

[Cats Cats Cats]

Did you not watch the video I posted wherein he unequivocally promised he would not use signing statements. Well, here it is again:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seAR1S1Mjkc&eurl=http://www.conservativepunk.com/articles/2042/

Will you not use signing statements to "Get your way"?  "No"  And he will not "use signing statements to do an end around on congress" as he stated.  Cmon man!  You are a lawyer!  It depends on what the statement was.  Which I don't know, maybe the signing statement was an end around on congress and changed the bill.  I of course know he made other statements about not using signing statements the same way but he still used them.  And he also stated it wasn't signing statements themselves but the way they were being used he had a problem with.  I guess if I didn't know anything else was said before the election then I would say that he lied in that statement.  Reading the other information from the debates I do not find that this says he would never use signing statements.  If the question is, will you never use signing statements and that was the end of it then he lied.  The to "get your way" adds a level of interpretation that depending on who you are and what your goal is can be defined a multitude of ways.  I can use it to weasel my way out of saying Obama lied and did signing statements.

[Cats Cats Cats]

I like what you're saying, but . . . who's Picard?

From page 7

[nathanm]

Since Obama never promised to never use signing statements, I can't make a blanket condemnation of his use of one here. In fact, according to the AP, part of the cause was regarding Congress attempting to legislate "who performs specific functions in military missions." That seems like a valid use to me.

However, "provisions that Obama said would 'unduly interfere' with his authority in the foreign affairs arena by directing him how to proceed, or not to, in negotiations and discussions with international organizations and foreign governments," is more iffy. Without reading the statement and the provisions of law which he objected to, I can't make a determination one way or the other. Congress may well have been overstepping their bounds, but they may not have been.

I do agree that it's generally better to avoid these situations by having Congress write bills that are constitutional on their face rather than an attempt to exercise more authority than they actually have rather than using signing statements, which Obama has said he will do.

And the earmark thing? I think we're already doing better on that front, what with only 1% of the bill being comprised of earmarks. That's a damn sight better than some other bills in the last couple of years. Let's hope that discipline can be maintained or even improved in the future.

[we vs us]

From page 7

Oh. 

That Picard.

[Cats Cats Cats]

Oh. 

That Picard.

That Picard?!?!?!

Its The Picard!

[guido911]

On September 12, 2008, who said this:

"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."

Emphasis added.

Well, for you smokers out there earning under $250K, your taxes went up  today:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1

This is one lie I am not too upset about. Make them smokers pay.

[rwarn17588]

On September 12, 2008, who said this:

"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."

Emphasis added.

Well, for you smokers out there earning under $250K, your taxes went up  today:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D979POSG0&show_article=1

This is one lie I am not too upset about. Make them smokers pay.

I wouldn't be upset at all. The health-care costs associated with smoking are astronomical. It also makes sense to heavily tax something like that, defray some of the health-care costs, and make smoking more cost-prohibitive.

[Gaspar]

Remember, he is eliminating the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001.  This brings up everyone's effective tax rate by 3% to 5%.  Eliminating this act will also eliminate many of the tax deferred retirement vehicles within your 401(K) and 403(B) plans, increasing dependence on Social Security.

Yes the President has stated that he would not RAISE taxes, and most of us understand this is a play on words, because we also understand that he intends to do away with the EGTRRA, which, technically, is not raising taxes.  So what is the EGTRRA?

We have heard the EGTRRA branded as "Bush's Tax Cuts for The Wealthy."  Call it what you like, this was what it is.  You decide what it means to you:

The largest break in taxes under the EGTRRA was for people in the 15% bracket at 5%.  All other tax payers saw a reduction in taxes of 3% to 4.5%.
Capital gains was reduced from 10% to 8%.
It eliminated dividend taxes on everyone in the 15% bracket and below.
It increased the per-child tax credit, dependent care credit, and phased out limits on itemized deductions.
It increased the exemption for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and allowed individuals and businesses to depreciate taxes payed on property such as vehicles and office equipment.
It allowed employer contributed money from a 401(K) to be rolled over into another 401(K) with a new employer (without a tax hit) if you switch jobs (this is huge).
It allowed you to create a Deemed IRA (Roth IRA) attached to your regular IRA.
It dropped the estate tax from 55% to 50% (to be eliminated completely in 2010, but perhaps never now).
It dropped the gift tax rate from 55% to 35% (not to take effect until 2010, but perhaps never now).

So by eliminating this act in 2010, the code will look like this:

Those who make $6,000 or less will pay no taxes at all (this is the big sale).  Clap and faint.
Those in the 10% bracket will be raised to the 15% bracket (a 50% increase in taxes paid, by far the biggest hit)
Those in the 25% bracket will be in the 28% bracket.
Those in the current 28% bracket will now be in the 31% bracket.
If you are in the 33% bracket you will now be at 36%.
And everyone in the 35% bracket will be paying nearly 40%.
The $3,500 child tax credit will be reduced or eliminated altogether (that really sucks).
Those of you who still have IRAs and 401(K)s will be responsible for more tax liability.
If you die, the government gets 55% of your stuff (hide gold now).
If you give grandma a check for $12,000 to help pay for rent, President Obama will want $6,600 of it.


So, while not "technically" increasing taxes, President Obama promises that everyone's taxes will increase.  Very clever.  But the most important thing is that those evil rich folks (everyone in the 15% to 40% brackets, LOL) will be paying all of the taxes for the poor. 

So no matter if you think you pay too much or too little, is beside the point.  No matter if you approve or disapprove of the EGTRRA, no matter whether you are a Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian.  No matter what you think about politics or taxes, there is no way anyone with reasonable intelligence can view President Obama's "changes" to the tax code as anything except an increase in taxes.  No amount of words or explanation recited off a reflected screen can change that.

So unless I am wrong and President Obama does not intend to do away with the "Evil Bush Tax Cuts,"  or the "Tax Cuts for The Wealthy,"  or the "Tax Cuts for Murdering Child Molesters," or what ever you would like to brand them.  Your taxes will go up, unless you make less than $6,000 a year (in that case please disregard and continue to celebrate, you get one more month of rent next year). End of story. 

And Guido, don't worry about what President Obama said, it is inconsequential.  Taxes will go up "Because it's the right thing to do."

[guido911]

And Guido, don't worry about what President Obama said, it is inconsequential.  Taxes will go up "Because it's the right thing to do."

Oh, in that case, nevermind. Raise my taxes even more.

[guido911]

Still think the average American citizen won't see a tax increase? Obama's own people are now saying that his cap and trade policy, if enacted, will cost the average family AT LEAST $800 more per year in energy costs. However, that's with "fuzzy math":

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/412cwueq.asp?pg=2

As the article explains, its more like nearly a $4000/year increase energy costs per family because certain investment factors by homeowners, assuming of course they can be afforded, has been factored in. In any case, I'm sure that huge bump in your paychecks from the stimulus will cover it. 

How many of you average citizens earning less than 250K are happy now or is $800 ($67/month; $333/month without fuzzy math) just a drop in the bucket to you? Suckers.

[Red Arrow]

I don't like or agree with it but.....

One way to reduce our Carbon Footprint is to make carbon based energy so expensive that most Americans have no choice but to reduce their energy useage (and standard of living).  It would help progress toward the direct goal of reduced carbon dioxide emissions but I don't think I will like the unintended side effects.

[guido911]

I don't like or agree with it but.....

One way to reduce our Carbon Footprint is to make carbon based energy so expensive that most Americans have no choice but to reduce their energy useage (and standard of living).  It would help progress toward the direct goal of reduced carbon dioxide emissions but I don't think I will like the unintended side effects.

While I do not accept the premise of man-made global warming, I do agree with you that taxing the crap of the energy that causes CO2 emissions will ultimately price it out. I think you and I agree that average Americans of all financial means will be paying more to heat/cool their homes, refrigerate their food, and wash their clothes. I guess the poorer folks could move into caves on a short term basis, then after the carbon emissions are reduced, the folks working in the fossil fuel business can replace them.

[nathanm]

the folks working in the fossil fuel business can replace them.

Oh, the poor poor buggy whip makers.