4/22/2010

Obama says that a National Sales Tax is worth considering

How many times does Obama have to break his tax promises before the general media mentions that he has been breaking his promise? Can a national sales tax be sold as being consistent with his promise to raise any taxes on people making less than $250,000 per year?

President Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that a new value-added tax on Americans is still on the table, seeming to show more openness to the idea than his aides have expressed in recent days.
Before deciding what revenue options are best for dealing with the deficit and the economy, Obama said in an interview with CNBC, "I want to get a better picture of what our options are."
After Obama adviser Paul Volcker recently raised the prospect of a value-added tax, or VAT, the Senate voted 85-13 last week for a nonbinding "sense of the Senate" resolution that calls the such a tax "a massive tax increase that will cripple families on fixed income and only further push back America's economic recovery."
For days, White House spokesmen have said the president has not proposed and is not considering a VAT.
"I think I directly answered this the other day by saying that it wasn't something that the president had under consideration," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters shortly before Obama spoke with CNBC.
After the interview, White House deputy communications director Jen Psaki said nothing has changed and the White House is "not considering" a VAT. . . .


How about this headline: "Millions face tax increases under Dems budget plan."

President Barack Obama's Democratic allies in the Senate promise to cut the deficit by almost two-thirds over the next five years, but their budget plan could threaten about 30 million people with tax increases averaging $3,700 in 2012 and after because of the alternative minimum tax.
The alternative is tax increases elsewhere in the revenue code averaging up to $100 billion a year after 2011 to continue alternative minimum tax relief and also curb taxes on people inheriting large estates.
The Democratic plan released Wednesday by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota relies on such boosts in revenues to carve the deficit from $1.4 trillion last year down to $545 billion by 2015.
The minimum tax, or AMT, was enacted four decades ago to make sure wealthy people couldn't avoid taxes altogethe. But it wasn't indexed for inflation in people's incomes, so it gets "patched" every year or so in order to prevent people from being surprised by multi-thousand-dollar tax bills at tax time.
Estates larger than $7 million would also be threatened with higher taxes after 2011 if Conrad's plan is carried out.
Conrad says lawmakers will have to find revenues elsewhere in the budget to pay for AMT and estate tax relief after 2011, which could require tax increases averaging up to $100 billion a year elsewhere in the code if Congress is going to keep its promises under tough new budget rules. . . .
Gregg said the Democratic plan is "a budget that kicks the can down the road. More spending. More deficits. More debt. Less prosperity." . . .

Labels: , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Ricky said...

Man, you republicans just love to twist anything around the way you want, to go against the dems.

Obama DID NOT SAY HE SUPPORTED A SALES TAX. His stupid ass financial advisor said that he thinks they should consider it.

What Obama said was all options are on the table.

What you did was take something out of context, from a member of Obama's administration, and you put it in Obama's mouth.

God you Republicans are SO stupid. You will do anything to try and spread hatred.

4/22/2010 2:28 PM  
Blogger David said...

Ricky:

It is annoying that anytime conservatives criticize liberal thinking we are accused of hatred. Mr. Lott was expressing an idea, not hating on Obama.

Disagreeing with someone is not hatred. Calling it hatred is the liberal way to try and frame the debate in ways that obscure the fact that they believe they know what is best for everyone.

People that believe that homosexuality is wrong (and I am more of a live and let live type, so not included in that group) are not homophobes. That word was made up to make people that disagree with them appear to be somehow irrational.

My father does fit into the group that believes that homosexuality is terribly wrong. I disagree with him, but he does not fear homosexuals irrationally, he just disagrees with them.

Stop calling everyone that disagrees a hater. It does not add to the debate.

4/27/2010 12:42 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home