Posted on 10/20/2008 9:22:55 AM PDT by andrew roman
Hey, Senator Obama, three words … wrong, wrong, wrong!
On Saturday, one-tenth of a million faithful Obama-maniacs gathered in St. Louis, Missouri to hear their man claim that his proposed tax cuts for ninety-five percent of American working families are not welfare payments, as correctly asserted by Senator John McCain.
Said The One:
I'm not giving tax cuts to folks who don't work, I'm giving tax cuts to people who do work. John McCain is so out of touch with the struggles you are facing that he must be the first politician in history to call a tax cut for working people 'welfare’.
The words “blah, blah, blah” come to mind.
They are very chantable. Try it.
By definition, a tax cut is a reduction of taxes. When someone is allowed to keep more of their earnings by virtue of lowering a tax rate, it is a tax cut, period. Whether one is cutting a lawn, cutting their hair or cutting taxes, the word “cut” has a very specific meaning. It can mean to divide, to trim, to pare, to purge, to take away or to otherwise eliminate from – none of which are applicable under Obama’s characterization.
Assuming that Obama will extend the already existing Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000, it is imperative to understand that Democrats are not defining or portraying the phrase “tax cuts” truthfully.
Obama is famously proposing a “tax credit” - called the “Making Work Pay Tax Credit” - of $500 for each worker and $1000 to couples. He calls it a “tax cut.”
It is not. Rather, it is a “refundable tax credit.” The difference – which is infinitely significant - matters.
If married citizen John Smith, for example, completes his tax forms and discovers that he and his wife owe $150 in federal income taxes (assuming they earn less than $250,000 a year) they will receive a “refundable tax credit” of $850. Accordingly, if Smith and his wife owe no federal income taxes at all, they will receive the full “refundable tax credit” of $1000.
Notice that nothing has been cut. Tax rates weren’t trimmed. Mr. Smith is not keeping more of his own money. All that happened there was that a payment from the federal government - that may or may not have offset federal taxes Mr. Smith owed - was issued.
And where did this money come from?
From collected taxes, of course.
Thanks to Senator Obama, Mr. Smith suddenly (magically) had more money to put toward his taxes (assuming he owed federal income tax), add to his refund, or spend as he wished - all because he and his wife didn’t earn more than $250,000 a year. The kicker is, those “collected taxes” came from those who did earn more than $250,000 – the richest five percent of wage earners in America.
Nifty plan, eh?
Indeed, Senator Obama has a whole bunch of these “refundable tax credits” on his drawing board, including a FOUR THOUSAND DOLLAR “credit” for college tuition, a 10% “mortgage interest credit,” and an expansion of the “earned-income tax credit” (among others).
Understanding that “refundable credits” are simply “payments” to tax payers that either counteract taxes already owed or wind up as “wow-I-don’t-really-deserve-this” money in the pockets of “American working families” (and taking into account that according to the Congressional Budget Office, the bottom forty percent of income earners do not pay any income tax at all), where does the funding for these payments come from?
You guessed it – from the richest five percent of wage earners in America.
The fact is taxes on ninety-five percent of “working families” will not go down. Instead, these people will be getting undeserved, unearned money – under the guise of “tax credits” – that will ultimately adjust their income “net,” creating the appearance of tax cuts. They will have more money than they would have had otherwise, thanks to Barack Obama and his “tax cut” tag.
Supporters of the Obama tax plan like to thwart conservatives by saying the proposed “cuts” are not undeserved – even to those who have no federal income tax liability – because of other tax burdens on the middle and lower class, such as Social Security payroll taxes and Medicare (among others). As Obama campaign chief economist Jason Furman wrote in an e-mail to Washington Times chief political correspondent:
The tens of millions of families working hard and paying payroll taxes do not think that tax cuts are a form of “welfare” or “redistribution” – they think it is only fair to reward work.”
Rewarding work?
(That sound you heard was me falling off my chair).
The way to reward work in this country is to punish work in this country?
How on earth does someone come to the conclusion that work is fairly rewarded by taxing those who have more money and redistributing those taxes to those who have less?
On top of that, to try and cleverly shift the focus of these so-called “tax cuts” from federal income tax to the “other” federal taxes workers pay in an attempt to justify calling these government payouts “tax cuts” is remarkably disingenuous on two levels.
First, go back to the John Smith example alluded to earlier. The amount of money he and his wife get for free from Obama’s “Making Work Pay Tax Credit” is based on the federal income tax he owes – not Social Security tax, Medicare or anything else. If John (who is married) owes $400 in federal income tax, he and his wife get back $600. If he owes $510, they get $490. If he owes nothing, he gets it all. That fact alone makes the entire issue legitimately a federal income tax issue, as conservatives accurately point out.
Second, many Americans who pay these “other” non-income taxes already get much of that money back through a well-known “refundable tax credit” currently in existence called the earned-income tax credit.
Facts are nasty little buggers, aren’t they?
Senator Obama, John McCain is absolutely correct. Spin it as you like, but what you call a "tax cut" is nothing more than welfare.
To borrow a phrase ... words mean things.
ping for later
Of course, these so-called tax cuts eventually will be phased out after one reaches a certain income level. They'll not only pay tax on each marginal dollar earned, they will have their "tax cut" reduced, thereby creating a disincentive to work harder.
No, he is pointing out that wealth redistribution is socialism- not Conservatism. Obama's plan takes money from the top five percent (most likely far more) and gives it to the bottom five percent who don't pay income taxes. They basically will get a refund on the EIC even though they don't pay taxes.
Sounds like he is an Obama supporter. Oh wait, that's the same thing..
What the Lord High 0bama means is he is going to reward a little work and punish a lot of work.
That is why communist societies can't produce anything of value, and eventually collapse under their own weight. No one is willing to work hard enough to make anything of lasting value. The communists must then resort to stealing what they need from a capitalist.
Well that is worrisome. Any pictures of this?
Giving so called tax cuts to people who don’t pay income tax.
What do you call it, O-bully. Educate us!!!
Wait until these people who voted for him find themselves with nothing. Dictators or such don’t give money out; they only take.
Do you find it strange there are no speaker towers visable in the picture. There could be some scafolding in the upper left hand corner at the tree line where it appears there could be an American flag, but at that didsatnce the delay would be substantial. I wonder if this is a legit picture. Can anyone blow this up and make sure it wasn’t photoshopped? And, from that distance you couldn’t even see the stage let alone hear anything. Why would anyone stick around?
Yes it is. I could just invent enough income to show a couple bucks worth of fed taxes and rake in $900+ bucks. The IRS will never question the reporting of imaginary income.
Sorry Avacado but that picture is obviously photoshopped.
Freepers who were there on Friday took photos proving there couldn’t have been more that 10,000 people in that park. Why? Because Interstate 70, I70, intersects that park. This photo purports to show thousands standing in that freeway!
See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2109682/posts
Also, some Poly-Sci students from Northwestern University conducted polling in the Chicago area and northwestern Indiana because they found their professors statements about Obama having the election in the bag suspicious. They found that McCain is leading in the polls there with 20% undecided yet on who they’ll vote for this Nov.4th.
It is becoming obvious that widespread pro-Democrat propaganda is being ground out by the MSM!
Hello Andrew.
See my post at #33 for the truth about crowd size in St.Louis, Missouri, on Oct.18th.
We’re all being scammed.
Thank you for your reply and comments. That was the only picture I could find and it just didn't look right to me. Plus, the only article that I found that stated 100,000 claimed that that is what the Obama camp claimed with no mention from park officials.
Are there any real pictures of that day in St. Louis?
And again, thank you for your reply. I feel a bit more relieved.
The answer is: You can't.
Instead, he proposes to send 1000 dollars out in the form of refundable tax credits, which if you owe no taxes, is a freebie (welfare!). And it will be taken from the other 5%.
At least the earned income credit has to be earned, you get more if you work, up to a point, then it tapers off to nothing. If you don't work, you don't get any.
What's sad is I haven't seen much mention of this save a few times on Fox...a token effort at best.
Hopefully Palin is hammering this point everywhere all day long!
Nope. Remember, the person who posted the top photo was there; also, the press pulled the same trick in Portland, Oregon, claiming 75,000 people attended Obama’s speech at the south end of Portland’s Waterfront Park when in fact that small area couldn’t hold that many people. So a pattern of deception is becoming apparent.
I know as I’m quite familiar with that park in Portland and knew immediately there was no way THAT many people could squeeze into that space. Photos taken by Freepers (there only for the free rock concert and beer, of course!) had taken photos proving that the press’s depictions of a huge crowd were photoshopped and thus bogus!
This is fascist type propaganda the Democrats are spreading now in an attempt to depict Obama as more popular that he really is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.