Friday, September 19, 2008

Obama is NOT going to raise your taxes. He wants to lower them.

I am sick and tired of hearing people say "I'm not going to vote for Barack Obama because he is going to raise taxes," especially when they sound like GOP sound bites. You don't like Obama, fine. But if you want the real dirt on Obama's tax plans, read Obama's tax plan -- and stop listening to the fear- and tax-mongers.

Don't have the time or desire to go through the six-page tax plan right now? Fine. Here are some of the highlights, taken from http://origin.barackobama.com/taxes/:

* Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.

* Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.

* Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.

Want to know how Obama's tax plan stacks up to/with McCain's? Here you go.

While the bit about asking the wealthiest 2% of Americans to give back a portion of their tax cuts is probably a pipe dream and unrealistic -- and has caused some of those folks to support McCain as a knee-jerk reaction -- the bottom line is that a vote for Obama is NOT is not going to mean, should he be elected, that the richest of us are suddenly going to find ourselves paying 40% or 50% of our incomes in taxes.

Rather (well, should Obama get elected and his tax measures be passed by Congress), the vast majority of Americans will get a tax break or see no change in their taxes, which, considering the tab the U.S. government has been running up the past eight years in Iraq and Afghanistan and here at home with all these bailouts is pretty incredible.

Here's the real bottom line, folks, when it comes to tax policy: No matter who gets elected, there is no way that Congress, even if the Democrats get a larger majority, is going to sign off on an enormous tax increase for individuals and/or families (or even businesses), despite how much the government needs our money.

A slight tax increase may be inevitable (even George H.W. "no new taxes" Bush had to raise taxes as part of a 1990 budget agreement) -- to cover all this excess spending. But to believe all the tax smack talk being put out there by some commentators, supposed journalists, and opinionators and bloggers is wrong.

Before you vote, for anyone, study the issues and get the facts -- and stop listening to those 30-second sound bites.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

the tellers of lies
love the 30 second spot
truth rarely fits there

Anonymous said...

Thank you for speading honesty. Who can tell these days. Maybe this isn't really honesty, excuse my cynicism. Now, what about that Freddy/ Franny - Dodd/Obama connection. As long as you are fishing for truth, justice and the American way, can you please shed some light on that? Thanks in advance, I'm just getting too tired listening to all the bickering between MSNBC, CNN and FOX. Pretty funny to see how slanted networks can be. Even reading the stories on different websites, it's interesting to observe which network runs with what angle of what story.
Love,
Still hopelessly non-partisan. (not bi-partisan, that's non-partisan)
Viva la revolution! (which ever side of the pendulum it should swing)

J. said...

Another great haiku, Larissa.

As for you, Anonymous, here is a link to a fact-check story on Obama's supposed Fannie Mae connection. As for other connections, real or imagined, I suggest you do a Google search and trust only those stories backed by hard facts. (I am not a big fan of CNN or Fox and prefer non-partisan fact-checking organizations or newspapers like the Washington Post.) Hope that helps.

Anonymous said...

Are you suggesting that The Washington Post doesn't lean left? Do you think they have as many cloumns dissing Obama and Biden as they do McCain or Palin? Again, I am undecided but I personally don't trust The New York Times or Washington Post and more than I would the National Review or the Limbaugh Letter. John Stewarts hypocrite piece was great but he only targeted Republicans. Are there no Hypocrites on the left? hmmm...
Love,
Indy-Anna Jones

J. said...

I am suggesting nothing except that I believe the Washington Post places a premium on research and fact checking -- i.e., backs up claims/articles with facts, and has http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/. If you want a non-partisan fact check go to one of fact-checking sites, like factchecker.org. You can also read each candidate's position papers and check their voting records in the Senate.

The truth is out there, and not that difficult to find. You just need to do a little work.

And yes, I am sure there is plenty of hypocrisy on the left (or lying and trying to cover it up), though I think the GOP has cornered the market on whoppers of late, even when caught flat out lying.

Thanks for the love...

Anonymous said...

Great points. I agree that the news sources are compromised; any organization run by human beings will be biased in one direction or another. However, as you pointed out, some have a greater desire to uphold a reputation for fact-based reporting, and some don't.

That's why most people can recognize a difference between Weekly World News and the Washington Post. That's not to say tabloids don't get a story right every now and then (just ask John Edwards) or that the mainstream media outlets don't allow themselves to be bamboozled (just ask Iraq). But there are differences.

It's the responsibility of each citizen to weigh the information available and reach a conclusion. The net certainly helps since it allows all candidates to put their plans online for review. It takes a little effort to sift through it all, but such is the price of living in a democracy.

Anonymous said...

And the actual, clear and unambiguous tax rate of the 1990s that we will NOT go past is exactly what? (The only acceptable answer is two digits and a % sign!) The so called wealthiest 2% deserve to know how much their Obama vote will cost them.