Teeing up the middle Class

[striperman36]

Good Article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...le_wsj_gadgv1&

It’s looking more and more like Mr. Obama’s no-middle-class-tax pledge was one of the greatest confidence tricks in American political history.

[fishbones]

I'd love to say that I'm shocked about this, but I've been expecting it. It is a little sooner than I was predicting, though.

[justplugit]

Before it's over, Every American citizen will pay a lot more in taxes for his programs.

On top of his programs, social security and medicare will need an infusion to stay alive.

Then you have the loss of taxes from the unemployed and low corporate
profits which will also reduce the taxes taken in.

Finally people are waking up.

[Fishpart]

..............and when the social programs fail it will not be because of flawed reasoning but because "we didn't have enough money."

[JohnnyD]

Bad Article that is selective in its reporting.

What the article leaves out is that Obama came out almost immediately after the Advisers made their comments and reiterated his stance on not raising taxes.

I like this line;
"Democrats have already taxed the middle class by raising cigarette taxes to pay for the children’s health-care expansion."

There was widespread support by Republicans for the cig tax increase, yet the author of the article (rather, the *Opinion* article) puts the emphasis on Democrats. This is aside from the ridiculousness that stating increasing the cig tax is "taxing the middle-class".

Misinformation at its best.

[saltfly]

3 1/2 YEARS TO GO.ALL WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IS "CHANGE".

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Bad Article that is selective in its reporting.

What the article leaves out is that Obama came out almost immediately after the Advisers made their comments and reiterated his stance on not raising taxes.

I like this line;
"Democrats have already taxed the middle class by raising cigarette taxes to pay for the children’s health-care expansion."

There was widespread support by Republicans for the cig tax increase, yet the author of the article (rather, the *Opinion* article) puts the emphasis on Democrats. This is aside from the ridiculousness that stating increasing the cig tax is "taxing the middle-class".

Misinformation at its best.

As you stated, it is an "opinion" piece. But the context of it is correct in stating that he more than likely lied when he unequivocally said he wasn't going to raise taxes on the middle class. His own people are already saying that they can't rule out tax increases for the middle class.

Hell, it's only been about seven months since he took office and he's spending money like a sex addict at the bunny ranch on half price day. Now it's $2.4 billion for electric cars? WTF. When will he just sit down with some experts and evaluate things? It's like he's afraid if he doesn't keep rushing things through and throwing money around, someone might find out that he has no idea what's he's doing.

[striperman36]

Germany actually did the 'cash' for clunkers first.

[JohnnyD]

Listen, I'm not defending the fact that money seems to be flying out the window. About 70% of the programs on the table, I disagree with - including the health care proposals on the table. I think the cash for clunkers could have been executed more effectively to benefit the US economy. On the other hand, I think there are many aspects where the snowball was already halfway down the hill when he took office and now the brunt of the damage is being pinned on him.

The stock market tanking was pinned as 100% Obama's fault by many on this forum. I guess that must mean the market having one of the best July's ever is also due to him?

What I will defend is a blatant display of misinformation and selective representation of 'facts' to further a political agenda. I pisses me of when the Dems do it as well concerning their policies, same with the Obama praisers.

The issue with media now a days is that there is no longer neutral reporting. Opinion articles are perceived by many as fact and that's why I always emphasize that they are opinions. "Reporters" have decided that as long as they put 'Opinion' at the top of the page, they can say whatever they want to.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

The issue with media now a days is that there is no longer neutral reporting.

"now a days" ....what? ... did you just wake up Rip Van Winkle????

[stcroixman]

there are cracks forming everywhere in the media's "love" of Obama

[buckman]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

a blatant display of misinformation and selective representation of 'facts' to further a political agenda.

You nailed it JD

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by fishbones

When will he just sit down with some experts and evaluate things? .

Between his Cabinet and 36(?) czars he must have enough of the brightest to sit down with.

Last week it was reported on the news that his Green Czar was still trying to define what a "green job" is.

Who are these Czars who have not been vetted by anybody but the Pres. himself?

[Fishpart]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Between his Cabinet and 36(?) czars he must have enough of the brightest to sit down with.

Last week it was reported on the news that his Green Czar was still trying to define what a "green job" is.

Who are these Czars who have not been vetted by anybody but the Pres. himself?

I am purely specualting, but I am sure that if you check the backgrounds a significant number of them are the very "Lobbyists" your good president vowed to throw out of Washington. Why doesn't he attack that with the same energy he is using to spend our money???

[scottw]

if you check the background of his czars you will be frightened...

"So...apparently Obama has quietly appointed a Communist to a government position. The position of "Green Jobs Czar" is now held by admitted Communist Van Jones. Yes, this is news to us too. The media has more important things to concentrate on, like Michael Jackson.

From East Bay Express:

Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, “I met all these young radical people of color — I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, ‘This is what I need to be a part of.’” Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. “I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary.” In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. “I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th,” he said. “By August, I was a communist.”

1. Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra.
2. Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske
3. Copyright Czar: Not appointed yet.
4. Energy Czar: Carol M. Browner
5. Car Czar: Ed Montgomery.
6. Terrorism/WMD Czar: Gary Samore.
7. Health Care Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle.
8. Education Czar: Not appointed yet.
9. Economic Czar: Paul Volcker.
10. Mortgage Czar: Not appointed yet.
11. Urban Affairs/Housing Czar: Adolfo Carrion.
12. Guantanomo closure Czar: Danny Fried.
13. Great lakes Czar: Cameron Davis.
14. Stimulus accountability Czar: Earl Devaney.
15. Cyberspace Czar: Not appointed yet.
16. Border Czar: Alan Bersin (Former US attorney).
17. Intelligence Czar: Admiral Dennis Blair.
18. Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein.
19. Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg
20. Iran Czar: Not appointed yet.
21. Tarp Czar: Herb Allison.
22. Middle-East peace Czar: George Mitchell.
23. Science Czar: John Holdren.
24. Green jobs Czar: Van Jones.
25. Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke.
26. Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration.
27. Mideast policy Czar: Dennis Ross.
28. Information Czar: Vivek Kundra.
29. AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley.
30. Faith-based Czar: Joshua Dubois.
31. Climate Czar: Todd Stern.

[Fly Rod]

Why R U complaining?

U voted for him.

Get use to it.

Give up fishing, get a second or third job and pay your extra taxes.

U deserve it.

U voted for him.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>LOL

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Bad Article that is selective in its reporting.

Now that's an understatement!

Democrats already plan to repeal the Bush tax cuts, but that won’t raise enough money.

Ummm, actually...Bush had the tax cuts set to expire in 2010 so he wouldn't have to declare their full cost when the GOP made the proposal under his watch. This is more a lie than misinformation.

Democrats have already taxed the middle class by raising cigarette taxes to pay for the children’s health-care expansion.

Because only the middle class smoke?

The language used in this piece is below usual WSJ standards.

-spence

[fishbones]

Spence, I'd expect that you would know the difference between an opinion piece and a regular news article in the WSJ.

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Spence, I'd expect that you would know the difference between an opinion piece and a regular news article in the WSJ.

The issue is that many people take an opinion piece as fact. When the opinion piece blatantly excludes information to further a political agenda and twists facts almost to the point of lies, that is when an issue arises.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Ummm, actually...Bush had the tax cuts set to expire in 2010 so he wouldn't have to declare their full cost when the GOP made the proposal under his watch. This is more a lie than misinformation.


-spence

another Spence Whopper..do you just make this stuff up?
the democrats demanded a sunset provision for the tax cuts,

Bush wanted permanent tax cuts
.......their "full cost"??.. that's hilarious...the full cost of tax cuts is record revenues flowing to the treasury.....what's the "full cost " of Obama's insane spending going to be ??? When will his spending increases have to sunset so that he can aviod declaring the actual cost?

Spence, you are spreading lies and misinformation and I'm reporting you to flag.whitehouse.brownshirtobama.gov

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by scottw

another Spence Whopper..do you just make this stuff up?
the democrats demanded a sunset provision for the tax cuts,

Similarly to the current situation with the Dems, the Republicans had a significant majority in Congress and at the time that the tax cuts were enacted, the Dems did not have enough support to "demand" anything.

Your post is just a long-winded version of the Pot calling the Kettle black.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=JohnnyD;704327]Similarly to the current situation with the Dems, the Republicans had a significant majority in Congress and at the time that the tax cuts were enacted, the Dems did not have enough support to "demand" anything.]

Not similar at all. At the time of the Bush tax cuts, there were 49 Democrat Senators, 49 Republican Senators, and 2 Independents. The sunset provision was structured into the tax cuts in order to avoid the Byrd Rule which allows Senators to block a bill if it creates budget deficits past ten years. The Byrd Rule requires 60 Senate votes to overide it, which the Republicans DID NOT HAVE. The only way to get the bill passed with enough votes on board was to include the sunset povision.

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Your post is just a long-winded version of the Pot calling the Kettle black.

Actually, your post is what Spence would call a deke. Spence was trying to call out Bush, not the Republican Senators. Scott defended Bush, WITH CORRECT INFORMATION, and you dodged that parry by deflecting, INCORRECTLY ( is that, precisely, a blatant lie?), the burden to those Senators.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence
Ummm, actually...Bush had the tax cuts set to expire in 2010 so he wouldn't have to declare their full cost when the GOP made the proposal under his watch. This is more a lie than misinformation.

Are you saying that Bush did not want the tax cuts to be permanent? Are you saying that he, though being the most stupid President, tricked everyone again by inserting a sunset clause (I think the Congress did that) in order to avoid blame for their full costs(?) even though the Dems would obviously blame him for all bad things? Are you saying that the tax cuts would have been passed without the sunset clause? And you have proof of this and that the WSJ LIED.

[QUOTE=Spence] Because only the middle class smoke?

So, if others besides the middle class smoke, then it is not a tax on the middle class (as well as others)?

Originally Posted by Spence

The language used in this piece is below usual WSJ standards. -spence

What standard of language accuses someone of lying without proof and dodges a direct accusation with a tricky "deke"?