# Good for Obama



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bet you thought you would never see me say that. I admire a fellow who will change his mind when presented with the facts. I wonder if our on site liberals can do that? 

I was just watching FOX news  and they say that today Obama is meeting with head democrats, and that his recovery plan includes huge tax cuts. Well, finally he is getting it. Remember our debates on here with liberals who practically worship Obama that taxes had to be raised? Remember how foolish they thought conservatives were when we said taxes had to be lowered?

So what do you liberals think now? 

Please don't construe this to mean I trust Obama on anything. Until he leaves our second amendment alone he deserves little respect. However, I will give him credit when credit is due, and support him when he is right. I'll do that for anyone.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

I was just about to call you and make sure you were feeling OK, untill I read your post. 

Maybe he will do something right, but I won't count on it.


----------



## TK33 (Aug 12, 2008)

I could have swore I heard him say he was going to do this during his campaign 

There was a clip on the web the other night that the super libs (moveon.org) are up in arms over some of Obama's cabinet appointments, policies, and how he is ignoring the extreme left. moveon.org's hired guns are supposedly already hounding Obama's advisors and reminding them who raised 80 million during the 08 elections.

Still unsure about the weapons bans.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

He talked about a tax cut for a specific group, but he said over all he would raise taxes. His way of calming the masses about the tax increase was to tell us it would come from the rich and 95% of us would be getting tax breaks. Remember him saying that it would be a tax break for anyone making less than $250,000? If you looked at his figures however, it looked like a tax increase for anyone making more than $41,500.

I hope his tax break plan isn't the same smoke and mirrors he was handing out during the campaign. If it is most of us will pay more taxes. Maybe I jumped the gun on assuming he had become educated after facing the facts.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

I think the "tax cut" includes a huge transfer of wealth from those who pay taxes to those who don't. research it

He is going to provide a 500.00 / person "tax cut" IE welfare check, to the approximately 50% of the country that now pays NO income tax.

FACT: If you don't pay taxes you cannot get a TAX cut.

Of course they are using the fact that everyone pays social security ect as the basis for this.

FICA = federal income *contribution *ACT its supposedly a insurance program but now that they want to reward all the folks that voted for them its a "tax". Convienent isn't it

Theres your smoke and mirrors


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Ya know, this could possibly suck.

For quite some time now, ive been one of the "50%" of this country that hasnt paid taxes, I just didnt make enough being in college.

Now, that im in the "real world" this may be the first year ill have to pay taxes.

DOH! Should have stayed in school longer!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

College kids should not be able to vote unless they have enough income to pay taxes infact no one should vote if they don't pay taxes or are retired after a life long pattern of paying taxes.

College kids unless they are totally self supporting dont know anything about real life. I was one once so dont take it personal.


----------



## barebackjack (Sep 5, 2006)

Haha, dont worry Bob, I was COMPLETELY self supporting. Hence the not having enough adjusted income to pay taxes.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

me too paying taxes was a real upgrade in my life style in those days, I didn't have to hunt to eat anymore :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bob, I'm afraid your right. I was getting my hopes up, without throwing liberal into the equation. I should know enough by now to expect no good from any politician, and the worst from liberals.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Here is a good article explaining this issue

TYRANNY OF THE TAX-EXEMPT

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on January 6, 2009

It now looks like half of President-elect Barack Obama's stimulus package will take the form of "tax cuts" for 95 percent of all Americans. Yet this wouldn't so much boost the economy as trigger a massive, unhealthy shift in American politics.

Under Obama's plan, the majority of American voters would pay no federal income taxes, but would get money from the government instead. That is, these "refundable tax credits" are basically welfare checks - and Obama's plan would leave the most of us collecting, not paying.

A $200 billion giveaway won't do much to get a $14 trillion economy rolling again. But the plan would leave any future taxpayer revolt no hope of majority support.

Today, the bottom 50 percent of US taxpayers pays a total of $30.6 billion in federal income taxes on a combined income of about $1 trillion. So about 3 percent of all federal income-tax payments come from the poorest half of the country. (The top 1 percent pays 40 percent; the top 25 percent pay 85 percent of the federal income tax.)

Obama's plan - he'd give all couples a $1,000 refundable tax credit and all single people $500 - would funnel more than $50 billion to the lowest half of the country, thereby completely wiping out their total federal tax liability. In most cases, it would trigger a "refund" welfare check.

In one stroke, this would transform the majority of voters from taxpayers into tax eaters - and leave an increasingly small minority to pay the bill. Whether or not this is good economics, it is very dangerous politics.

Essentially, it would put those who actually pay the taxes that fund our government into much the same situation as landlords in New York City - hopelessly outvoted by their tenants, who use their political clout to limit rents and landlords' profits.

Since Ronald Reagan, the anti-tax movement has been based on a blue-collar revolt against high taxes; it would lose that constituency under the Obama plan. Taxpayers would be politically helpless and the tax-eating majority would have free reign to impose any levies it wished.

Almost all of the 68 million tax filers in the country's bottom economic half would get a check from Washington at tax time. Some would be among the 22 million who get money from the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). Others would get a $500 check through the (Bush-passed) Child Tax Credit - and all would get funds through the new Obama tax credit.

Welfare would no longer be only for the poor - the majority of the voters would depend on government handouts. This very system is what makes European social democracies so resistant to change.

In 1980, the bottom 50 percent of the nation paid 7 percent of the national tax bill, after refund and credits. It now pays 3 percent; under Obama's plan, it would pay less than nothing (that is, it would net a profit from the IRS). In 1980, the top 1 percent paid 19 percent of the income-tax burden; now it's 40 percent. Taxes have become the province only of the rich.

Of course, the shift in tax burden also mirrors the incredible increase in incomes of the wealthy in the last 30 years - the top 1 percent earned only 8 percent of the total national income in 1980; now it earns 22 percent. And the poorest half has seen its share of national income fall from 17 percent in 1980 to only 12.5 percent today.

So it is both fair and sensible to give the poor a tax break and to draw the bulk of federal revenues from the rich. But to exempt the bottom half - a majority of the voters - from paying any taxes and to award them refund checks instead would dangerously alter the fundamental balance of national politics. For the economically well off, it could effectively become taxation without representation - which, as the founders of our nation warned, leads to tyranny.


----------

