May 10, 2012
"Obama is lying when he says he didn’t raise taxes on people making less than $250,000.”
An inherent implication, Jonathan Cohn concedes, after promoting the argument that the individual mandate is supported by the taxing power.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
36 comments:
First three words would have been sufficient.
Strangely, Cohn links to *Ann* Althouse's blog when citing John Althouse Cohen.
A minor mistake, but it still struck me as odd.
"Sadly, it’s one of the few elements of the law the public grasped, albeit with significant misunderstanding of the details."
"We have to pass it to find out what's in it" - Nancy Pelosi
So why is it the public's fault that it supposedly doesn't understand it?
"Strangely, Cohn links to *Ann* Althouse's blog when citing John Althouse Cohen."
I like that he linked to a post of mine that showed how bad his (Cohn's) argument was.
He also blatantly lied when he signed legislation to increase the taxes on cigarettes in early 2009. Most smokers make less than $250,000/year.
Toy
Better headline: Obama is lying.
"Obama is lying when his lips are moving."*
Fixed it.
* This makes him differenct from the vast majority of politicians not at all.
Shorter version:
Con Man.
It's not a tax. It's a penalty. Is a speeding fine a tax? Is a fine for not paying your taxes a tax?
He acts as if this is a surprise.
We knew this was coming the second Dictator Zero told us he would never do it.
He actually broke his tax pledge seven times with the ACA.
He also blatantly lied when he signed legislation to increase the taxes on cigarettes in early 2009. Most smokers make less than $250,000/year.
So that makes at least eight times Obama broke his “no tax increases on anyone making less than $250,000 a year” pledge.
Does he implicitly admit Obama breathes? Because that would be interesting.
The mandate hasn't even taken effect yet. So even if it is a tax on people who would otherwise not have insurance, the "raise" in taxes has not occurred yet.
Then there was the tanning salon tax.
Freder Frederson said...
The mandate hasn't even taken effect yet. So even if it is a tax on people who would otherwise not have insurance, the "raise" in taxes has not occurred yet.
Well, the Administration says it's a tax and he signed it.
And Freder's still weaseling.
The mandate hasn't even taken effect yet. So even if it is a tax on people who would otherwise not have insurance, the "raise" in taxes has not occurred yet.
You're calling Obama a liar?
Damned racist.
If Obama says it is a tax, I believe him.
Bur Republicans want to raise taxes on people earning less than 250K...why don't they own it. Getting rid of tax deductions is the same as raising taxes. the nominal rate might stay the same but the effective rate will rise, mainly for incomes below Republican Donor levels.
Republicans want to do more than just remove deductions.
elliot said...
It's not a tax. It's a penalty. Is a speeding fine a tax? Is a fine for not paying your taxes a tax?
5/10/12 1:58 PM
A fine for what? What infraction was committed? Not choosing the right not buy something you don't want as a condition of liberty? First they argue it's a penalty, then they argue it's a tax. They must be bi-polar. No matter what the court rules, next year it will be repealed.
The reason Cohn links to my blog is that he's quoting John's comment on his Facebook page, and John's comment links to my blog.
Bur Republicans want to raise taxes on people earning less than 250K...why don't they own it.
Did Republicans say they would never do it --- and then lie later when they, in fact, DID do that?
Heck, didn't Bush Sr get slammed by the Democrats for going along with their idea in 1990 to raise taxes?
Getting rid of tax deductions is the same as raising taxes.
Or, it's making people pay "their fair share".
Why do you oppose fairness?
the nominal rate might stay the same but the effective rate will rise, mainly for incomes below Republican Donor levels.
Yes, because Democrat donors are borderline beggers.
Heeey...isn't there about to a fundraiser in Hollywood that is likely to set records for money raised?
I bet it's conservatives who just happen to be in Hollywood donating to Republicans and not, in fact, really rich actors and movie producers giving to Democrats.
...you know, because Democrats aren't bankrolled by really, eally rich people with little education or self-control.
Pragmatist (yeah, right) purposefully ignores that the proposals which eliminate deductions also (substantially) lower the tax rates.
Why are you lying, Prag?
You lie!
Freder - own your President and his socialism.
After reading Cohn's piece (*shudder*), I find it baffling that he comments on how Obama was ALWAYS upfront about his desire for a mandate.
Apparently, even during the primaries when he specifically opposed it.
Also: the bill would have never passed had the "penalty" been called a tax. To ignore that is to ignore simple reality.
Apparently, even during the primaries when he specifically opposed it.
...repeatedly and stridently.
Also: the bill would have never passed had the "penalty" been called a tax. To ignore that is to ignore simple reality.
He didn't ignore it. He called it irrelevant. Much as he probably considers most reductions of liberty that don't garnish the Democrats more constituencies.
I love the whole "It shouldn't matter if they didn't call their power what it is in the legislation". mentality.
Why the heck should the SCOTUS bail out the Democrats for their proposal? They didn't just not say it was a tax --- they fervently argued it was NOT one. Obama was quite adamant about that, more than once.
Pragmatist spews: "... mainly for incomes below Republican Donor levels."
Forgetting that the reality was that in the last Presidential campaign cycle, the wealthy donated more to the Democrats than the Republicans. Its the guy in the White House now that is known as "President Goldman Sachs".
I'm sure such arguments are interesting when you are looking for a way to get the government into this very personal commerce, but it completely misses the point, which is liberty, especially the freedom to save myself from what will be the deadly cold incompetence of government medicine running it's hands over and through my body, and that of my loved ones. LEAVE US ALONE!
These Zero lies threads are getting tiresome...Zero's a politician, all politicians lie, Zero is lying. Is that a tautology?
Regardless, from now on, I will merely boilerplate Zero lies threads..."And in other news, Generallisimo Francisco Franco is dead" This will save everyone time and effort, much like "Ditto" does for the Rush Limbaugh Show.
"And in other news, Generallisimo Francisco Franco is dead"
I'm sure Hatman will be by briefly to explain that it's not really a lie, since no one ever believed that the president meant the words he was saying...
I find it curious that Cohn says the President "was always upfront about imposing the mandate". On the contrary, in 2008, Obama distinguished his health care plans from Senator Clinton's by rejecting her call for an individual mandate to carry health care insurance.
Now, clearly, the President is allowed to "evolve" his views on such things -- but his defenders should not attempt to rewrite history in order to defend the President's choices.
The President is raising taxes by borrowing so much money that an eventual tax increase is inevitable.
elliot said...
It's not a tax. It's a penalty. Is a speeding fine a tax? Is a fine for not paying your taxes a tax?
Yes it is.
Any money you are compelled to pay to any government entity either as penalty or to gain permission is a tax.
Your money going to government for any reason is a tax.
Post a Comment