Obama to the right of Romney on taxes for first 60%


About seascraper


  1. 1. Barack Obama is notorious for using bad data to formulate budgets.  Time and again he has used bad, or misleading data to create economic models that look good on paper, but are worthless in reality.  We know this because he claimed his stimulus package would keep unemployment under 8 percent – and it didn’t.  

    From House Speaker John Boehner’s official economic report:

    The claim has its roots in a pre-inauguration report called “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan” from two of Obama’s top economic advisers. It was a projection, not a promise — one that came with heavy disclaimers, with warnings of a high margin for error, and was built on government data that turned out to have underestimated the severity of the economic contraction.

    Obama also claimed by the end of his first term he would have cut the budget deficit in half.  That did not happen!  In fact, the deficit has skyrocketed based on his insane spending programs aimed at lining the pockets of union bosses and public employee unions.  There have been 4 years of trillion dollar plus deficits – unprecedented in US history.

    Obama recently stated in a personal interview:

    “So, the die had been cast, but a lot of us didn’t understand at that point how bad it was going to get. That increases the deficit because less tax revenues come in, and it means that more people are getting unemployment insurance, we’re helping states more so they don’t teachers, etc.

    I could find numerous other examples of Obama’s unfortunate analytical abilities resulting in worsening economic conditions, but we all get the point!  The guy is a community organizer – not a businessman or economist.

    The second point:

    2. The Democrats Senate has not, and will not, vote on a budget.  We have been well over 1000 days since they actually passed a budget, which is a requirement of the constitution.  Why Harry Reid has not been called out for this I do not know…  So the best budget in the world means nothing if Harry Reid won’t vote on it….  You would think with all the mainstream media looking for a big story that the Democrat led Senate not voting on a budget would be a good one to cover?

  2. Just remember 58% of all Federal Taxes are paid under the current system by the top 5%. If you lower taxes, its going to effect them the most. (IE. Estate Tax and Corporate Tax). That doesn’t suggest we shouldn’t do away with these onerous taxes. First of all, they are proven to be job-killers. Second of all, the estate tax is immoral.

    Here’s what they used to deduce the “Romney Tax Plan”:

    Under a Romney presidency, most of the current tax system would remain intact, although he would permanently do away with the estate tax and lower the corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent.

    He would also make permanent the George W. Bush-era tax cuts that are scheduled to expire at the end of the year.

    While millions of households would see tax cuts, thousands of poor Americans would see their tax bills rise, by an average of $1,000, because of changes to child and earned income credits.

    Not sure how this would be different than the Simpson-Bowles plan, which eliminated deductions, and lowered rates. Sounds like the bipartisan Simpson-Bowes plan would have done even more to raise rates on lower income Americans, considering the bottom 60% of earners aren’t really paying much at the moment, and it just removes their benefits under the current tax code. (Not saying they really need to pay much)

    The Obama Tax Plan on the other hand gives out more goodies in the form of tax exemptions to lower income Ameriacans, while repealing the Bush Tax Cuts on upper-income Americans.

    It’s your call, give out more goodies so that the government is the source of revenue for Americans on the backs of a few, or build a powerful economic engine that will produce jobs and levy lower amounts of taxes on all Americans. If you tax success, you will get less of it, that’s how incentives work, and government is doing far too much of that lately.  

  3. …then even if Romney raised taxes one dollar he would be to the left of Obama?

    I’m sure the 13% of people who are effected by this who actually do pay taxes would love to see those who are draining them dry pay something.

  4. Most people leave nothing and figure that if someone is leaving something, eff them (at least get a few bucks from them).

    Even now you can leave a considerable sum without paying, so a knowledgable person might still not see the current situation as a problem.

    Of course I know small business, blah blah blah, but I don’t think the voters can’t distinguish.

    Obama has the edge on this as long as he stays above the $250K mark for increases, while at the same time he can say he cut the FICA, which reaches down to the little guy.

    Not saying any of this is right, but that’s how it’s going to play in the election, which I would predict at this juncture is going to be won safely (I was predicting a closer win a month ago) by Obama.

  5. Absolutely Romney would be taking a chance to endorse Simpson-Bowles.

    As with Romney’s “poor people” remark, he does not see, or does not articulate, how the current tax code hurts the unemployed the most.

  6. Taxing dead people is not immoral? Does the federal government really need to take money out of the cold dead hands of the duly departed? Really? Isn't there a point when the federal government says – 'gee, maybe we should cut him a break, seeing as his body is cold and lifeless and he can't fight back'.

    Obama: “Gee, look at the tax possibilities!!”

  7. But the Estate Tax is immoral. It’s a double tax, and the “eff them” mentality is certainly immoral.

    You are certainly jaded about the views of the voters, and are under the impression that the class warfare mindset has won. You may be right on both accounts.

    I’d rather fight for freedom and equality than give in to the small-mindedness of class warfare. It’s a fight worth having, and I’d like to think we could get a majority of Americans together in that effort. It may not be this election, but we’ve certainly won before.

    People are getting really skeptical about November very quickly, as the media and the candidates themselves have been savaging each other very badly. January had some illusionary job growth numbers, and of course the media ate it up for Obama. Just as you have changed your mind about the fall in one month, we are still nine months away from election day, a lot can change.

    First of all, this is a time in the nominating process in which the incumbent party tends to build a lead, as the opposition fights it out amongst itself. The GOP will come back together, just Obama re-united the Democrats in 2008. McCain had taken a lead on Clinton and Obama during the end of their protracted primary fight, and Obama built back up over the summer.

    Second, OWS and January’s economic news have improved the political climate for the Democrats as of today. However, the budget problems which sparked the Tea Party, and the real news about the economy could hit Obama at anytime. The budget battles appear to be starting up again, which could be good news for the fiscally responsible Republicans, and just remember, McCain was leading before the stock market tanked in Sept 2008. This time its the Democrats in charge, and the trend of the economy is still very much up in the air.

    And of course, the Middle East looks more like a ticking time bomb than ever before, and while Obama has done a reasonable job handling the situation, we have no clue what is going to happen with Israel and Iran.

    Anything can happen, but its definetly too early to throw in the towel and accept bad arguments from the Democratic Left.  

    Personally, I think Romney needs to put out a tax reform plan, he has plans for the estate tax and corporate rates, but he needs to embrace something like Simpson-Bowles, and replace the Bush Tax system. It not only makes good government sense, but would bring in a lot more revenue in a predictable, pro-economic way, and would help his reputation as a budget balancer.  

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *