Bermuda Fables

"I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." – Charles De Gaulle

“Spread the Wealth” October 21, 2008

Filed under: Uncategorized — alsys @ 1:14 pm

Watching the news over the weekend, a lot of attention was given to this comment of Obama’s as a sign that he intends to move towards a more socialist form of government. I have to admit, I’m not as conversant with the tenets of socialism besides that which I have learned from osmosis.  Under Barack’s new tax plan, that 45% of americans would no longer pay income tax, in fact some will receive refunds based on all the deductibles. That in itself creates a welfare society. It also penalizes for those that succeed at their chosen career to a certain extent. But socialist? I don’t think so. It does veer that way, yes, but not totally.


This campaign has been very dirty, what with 56% of the campaign ads of McCain being directly negative and 76% of Obama’s ads being directly negative. So much of the important information has been lost behind glossy attack ads, containing more implications than truth. I spend lots of time separating the wheat from the chaff, thankfully through various fact checking websites. But that is something I enjoy. The average american has no want to find the truth and are making their decision on who will lead their country based on not much more than a smile and a soundbite. Does that make you scared? It does me. I guess it speaks to our attention span as a species. But there’s a light ahead… it will be all over in two weeks 🙂


36 Responses to ““Spread the Wealth””

  1. “This campaign has been very dirty, what with 56% of the campaign ads of McCain being directly negative and 76% of Obama’s ads being directly negative.”

    Sorry, I think you have your numbers transposed there. If not, that is an egregious misstatement. Saying that McCain voted 90% of the time with Bush is a fact. Not pretty, but a fact and not negative either.

    As or socialist societies, I think your personal ideals are probably closer to them than you realize. Indeed, the very non-secular, individual freedom society envisioned by the founding fathers of the US is more analogous to a democratic socialist society than anything currently in pace in the US, from either party. Canada and the slavic countries can be classed as Democratic Socialists. Oddly, almost every one of them has a much higher quality of life than the US. Indeed, bermuda has traditionally been closer to democratic socialism than any other classification. Where do you think ideas like insurance and education come from? Hint: it’s not from other types.

    Socialism is not a dirty word. Neither is capitalism. However, when the richest 1% of the US owns more money than the bottom 90%, there’s a problem. Obama’s tax plan helps the vast majority of people in the US. There is not a welfare society that you speak of. And, you must stop talking about taxes as penalizing those who work hard. People with gobs of money can and should pay more.

    The basic problem with US inequality is their current tax structure. It penalizes the middle class and the poor and rewards the wealthy. For example, Bill Gates ($100 billion man) pays less taxes than Bill Clinton ($10 million man). How is that fair? When 95% of the population makes less than $250k per year, and those are the ones getting the tax break, I’m all for it.

    Consumption taxes like we have in Bermuda are the most equitable, and always have been. If the Bills lived here, the giant house that Gates built would be higher taxed than Clinton’s simpler one, as would all of the materials going into it. Their incomes would not be taxed. This is fair because people should be taxed based on the “usage” they get out of their jurisdiction. If you are using more of the services, then you should pay more.

    Don’t buy the big lies from the GOP. Studies have shown innumerable times that the economy is better and more balanced under democratic administrations than under republican. The GOP is just better at spin, which is why they stick around. Most voters are too lazy to research the facts and rely on the sound-bite politics for their decisions.

    I do agree with you on one thing. It will be good when it’s all over. Hopefully Obama will be elected. He is without a doubt the better choice.

  2. J Starling Says:

    To consider Obama and the Democrats socialist is laughable and an insult to socialism. Right now they are slightly similar to the old Rockerfeller Republicans than anything else.

  3. I think they see “socialism” as an evil system, Jonny. That’s why they use the term, however incorrect it may be.

    Facts be damned, it’s the GOP and the media!

  4. J Starling Says:

    Darn right-wing media and their conservative agenda…

    But yeah, I certainly understand, with the amount of propaganda they used in the Cold War demonising socialism – and the soviets (who as far as I’m concerned were fascists) certainly didn’t help matters. But as I like to point out, Saddam’s Iraq was officially the federal democratic republic of Iraq or something like that – one can apply a name to anything, but it doesn’t make it a democratic republic, or a union of socialist councils republics.

    On one hand though, its great air-time for the Party I’m backing, the Socialist Party USA ( if they can capitalise on it (yes, bad pun…).

  5. alsys31 Says:

    Actually Renaissance Man, those numbers aren’t transposed. I fact checked that through and, both non-partisan organizations. But I encourage you to research this yourself. And Obama votes 96% along the party line. Again not a bad thing per se, depending on the issue itself.

    And I do think you are confused. Nowhere above do I state whether socialism as opposed to capitalism is incorrect. In fact, I was saying (I thought obviously) that the GOP is wrong in stating that he is a socialist. That’s it. I didn’t say that socialism is a bad thing.

    Yeah it is the media… and the GOP… and the democrats… it isa attack attack from both sides and often with untruthful or barely truthful statements. If you only see the other side as bad then you probably won’t notice when your side is doing crap…

  6. Thanks for the links. I am a little surprised, but it’s fair.

    Attack ads work because they make for easy short sound-bites. These sound-bites work because voters are too lazy to think otherwise. It would be nice to have politicians who were above the fray, but sadly, they are not.

    FWIW, I didn’t say that YOU were saying that socialism was bad, but the GOP/right wing does.

    I’ll let my economic comments stand as is.

    BTW, the avatar for me has captured my large square head quite well. 🙂

  7. alsys31 Says:

    Ah okay, noted. Sorry 😛 Yeah, I think it is the wrong tack for the GOP to take.

  8. Alysys,

    It would be helpful if you were to include as many links as you can when you write to make it easier for people to understand where you’re getting your information.

    It is very helpful to have the links you provided with regards to the advertising campaigns.

    Do you have any with regards to Obama apparently eliminating income tax?

  9. Phil Says:

    The University of Wisconsin Advertising Project recently conducted a study of the two campaign’s ads. Their conclusion:

    “Looking at the tone of all of McCain’s advertising from June 4 to October 4, we found that 47 percent of the McCain spots were negative (completely focused on Obama), 26 percent were positive (completely focusing on his own personal story or on his issues or proposals) and 27 percent were contrast ads (a mix of positive and negative messages).

    But what about Obama? Our analysis reveals that 39 percent of all general election Obama TV ads have been positive (solely about his record, positions or personal story), 35 percent have been negative (solely focused on McCain) and 25 percent have been contrast ads – mixing a bit of both. So, on a proportional basis, the McCain campaign is and has been more negative than Obama.

    But, Obama has aired over 50,000 more ads than McCain. So, hasn’t he simply aired more of everything – including negative ads – than McCain has this year, or than anyone in history, as McCain may have alleged?

    If one just looks at pure airings of negative ads, McCain has aired more than Obama. If one allocates contrast ads as half positive and half negative or considers contrast ads as negative – as the Advertising Project does – the tone of the McCain and Obama campaigns has been absolutely identical.”

  10. alsys31 Says:

    Yeah I am bad about that (sorry, K 🙂 ) As requested Denis:

    Burman, Leonard E., “An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans: Updated September 12, 2008.” Tax Policy Center, 12 Sept. 2008.

  11. alsys31 Says:

    Phil, my stats were according to the Wisconsin Advertizing Project’s release dated Sept 17, 2008. The closer to the election the more negative ads for both sides really.

  12. Phil Says:

    The figures you quoted were actually just the figures for the first week of advertising after the conventions.

    Click to access wiscads_release_091708.pdf

  13. alsys31 Says:

    Ah yes Phil, you are correct. To date, 73% Mccain and 61% Obama. It would be interesting to see a week by week breakdown too. I wonder if certain issues spark flurries of negative ads and how effective they were as compared to poll results.

  14. Thanks Phil, I guess I was closer to the mark initially. Well found.

    I think negativity comes out more for the one PERCEIVED to be behind. Like Hilary in the primaries, for example. If McCain and his team see him as behind in the polls, they’ll be dirtier. Much like Obama was initially, because he had to make a quick surge after the DNC. It would have been better not to go negative, but that is not usually the candidate’s say, but their handlers’.

    There’s no denying it works. Remember the questionable ads here?

    Oh, and Alsys, I know you’re not alone on island with your “misguided” McCain support. There’s a silver Peugeot 307 with a “NObama-McCain/Palin” bumper sticker. It shocked the hell out of me, I thought they were too rare to be seen locally! 😉

    Sorry, just being my usual libertarian self.

  15. J Starling Says:

    🙂 It was probably Alsys herself!

    Just kidding. But that takes guts. And a risk of getting your tires slashed.

  16. alsys31 Says:

    Now Mr Starling… the only thing offensive on my car is my football team, lol!

  17. Cahow Says:

    Tia, just keep being whom you are and keep your moral high ground. Others may differ but your voice is wanting in my books.

  18. 9ps Says:

    And what football team might that be Tia? Please please please don’t say Man Ure??!!

  19. J Starling Says:

    You call them a team? 😉

  20. 9ps Says:

    3 -1 up as we speak, in Turkey, my friend!!! Up the Gunners!!!!!!

  21. Mike Says:

    Amazing when the computer even recognises what you are talking about.

    I mean – these are Arsenal’s away colours are they not?

  22. alsys Says:

    9, Think much much lower tablewise, lol. We are united mind…

  23. 9Ps Says:

    Don’t tell me Newcastle??!!

  24. Blankman Says:

    Under Barack’s new tax plan, that 45% of americans would no longer pay income tax, in fact some will receive refunds based on all the deductibles.

    alsys, under the existing plan something north of 30% of Americans already pay no taxes

    So it’s impossible for any tax plan to reduce taxes for those people. What it can do is provide them with Federal Welfare Checks tax rebates that have nothing to do with what they have paid into the system.

    But none of this takes into account the impact of Obama’s stated intention of letting the Bush tax cuts expire. While Obama’s campaign is adamant that this cannot be interpretted as a tax increase on Obama’s part it does mean that a lot of people that aren’t expecting it will see a net increase in taxes.

    As an observation, marginal rates will increase under both Candidates’ proposals.

    I’m not going to bore everyone with gory comparisons of the tax proposals other than to comment that “both candidates were at best trading half truths” [CNN used the term “lying through their teeth”] during the debates.

    A number of front page articles on the subject including a commentary on Joe the Plumber’s question.

    The truly disturbing thing is that this guy asked a question, Obama gave his “spread the wealth” answer and we suddenly see the press descend on Joe like a ton of bricks and start investigating him as opposed to commenting on Obama’s answer. We now know more about Joe than Obama (did you realize that “Joe” is his middle name?)

  25. Mike Says:

    “It will all be over in two weeks”.

    Just a quick question – as I have never really understood US politics (or BDA for that matter) – why are people already beginning to vote?

    In Florida I think.

  26. LaVerne Furbert Says:


    This is real interesting. You write an “insightful” opinion piece about Obama “spreading the wealth” and it ends up being a discussion on which English football team is the best. Same people from Bermuda Sucks, Catch A FIre, etc. etc. Even Jonathan joined in. Maybe it’s a good idea to lighten things up every now and then.

    Here come the lynchers again!!

  27. Blankman Says:

    Returning to Obama’s “spread the wealth” campaign:-

    Under Barack’s new tax plan, that 45% of americans would no longer pay income tax, in fact some will receive refunds based on all the deductibles.

    Obama has also claimed that 95% of Americans will receive a tax cut under his plan. Simply put that’s impossible. At present something north of 30% of Americans do not pay any federal income tax. And if they don’t pay taxes they can’t get a tax cut. They can get a Federal Welfare Check tax rebate but that’s a completely different thing.

    One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today.

    APIt’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”

    For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

    – A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to “make work pay” that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.
    – A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.
    – A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).
    – A “savings” tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.
    – An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.
    – A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.
    – A “clean car” tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

    Here’s the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be “refundable,” which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer — a federal check — from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this “welfare,” or in George McGovern’s 1972 campaign a “Demogrant.” Mr. Obama’s genius is to call it a tax cut.

    The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.

    The total annual expenditures on refundable “tax credits” would rise over the next 10 years by $647 billion to $1.054 trillion, according to the Tax Policy Center. This means that the tax-credit welfare state would soon cost four times actual cash welfare. By redefining such income payments as “tax credits,” the Obama campaign also redefines them away as a tax share of GDP. Presto, the federal tax burden looks much smaller than it really is.

    The political left defends “refundability” on grounds that these payments help to offset the payroll tax. And that was at least plausible when the only major refundable credit was the earned-income tax credit. Taken together, however, these tax credit payments would exceed payroll levies for most low-income workers.

    It is also true that John McCain proposes a refundable tax credit — his $5,000 to help individuals buy health insurance. We’ve written before that we prefer a tax deduction for individual health care, rather than a credit. But the big difference with Mr. Obama is that Mr. McCain’s proposal replaces the tax subsidy for employer-sponsored health insurance that individuals don’t now receive if they buy on their own. It merely changes the nature of the tax subsidy; it doesn’t create a new one.

    There’s another catch: Because Mr. Obama’s tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge “marginal” tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

    Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of “making work pay,” but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you’re a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery — among many — of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama’s 95% illusion to go unanswered.

    By the way, none of this takes into account that Obama is planning to let the Bush tax cuts expire. While his campaign is adamant that this is not a tax increase on Obama’s part that means a sizeable number of people will see their tax bill increase. 😦

  28. Cahow Says:

    Well thank you Mr. Republican……more spin your worse that some others I know.

    Of course it affects others differantly. The overall benefit is too the peoples that do pay taxes. Welfare has been and will continue. Your muddying waters, thats all.

  29. Blankman Says:

    Actually no – as the article I posted said, something like one third of people already pay no taxes so it’s impossible to cut their taxes.

    Let Bush’s tax cuts expire and you’ll find that a lot of people will end up paying more taxes, not less.

    But more importantly, Obama has promised to shut tax havens down. Guess what. Bermuda’s a tax haven and features prominently in one of his ads. Bermudians can’t vote but if Obama wins we are in serious doo doo.

  30. alsys31 Says:

    Blankman, I’ve only seen a bit of information about the consequences of the Bush tax cuts expiring under Obama but it kind of appears that a large number of the people he is pandering to right now will indeed receive tax raises. Do you know if that’s true?

  31. J Starling Says:

    Hey Alsys, I hope you don’t mind my making another plug for the SP-USA on your pro-McCain site – 🙂

    I just came across this article from the US periodical ‘The Nation’ and I thought that it was of interest. Its the SP-USA Presidential candidate Brian Moore responding to the Republican’s trying to demonise the Democrats as socialists.

  32. alsys31 Says:

    Have at it, dear. Share the knowledge…

  33. Blankman Says:

    Alsys, I’ll see if I can dig up the numbers. Meanwhile, it’s interesting to compare Obama and McCain’s tax plans:

    As shown in Table 1 below, the Tax Foundation estimates that there will be 47 million tax returns with zero income tax liability in 2009 under current law. That’s one-third of all tax returns, and those 47 million tax returns represent 96 million individuals.

    Both the McCain and Obama plans would increase this number by expanding existing tax benefits or creating new ones. Senator McCain is proposing one expanded provision—the dependent exemption—and one new credit, a $5,000 refundable health care tax credit. The Obama plan contains seven new provisions, including a new “Making Work Pay Credit,” a “Universal Mortgage Credit,” and a plan to eliminate income taxes for seniors earning under $50,000.1

    Taken together, the Tax Foundation estimates the McCain proposals would increase the number of nonpayers by about 15 million, bringing the total number of taxpayers who pay no personal income taxes to 62 million, roughly 43 percent of all tax filers. Almost all of this is due to McCain’s health care credit, which dramatically realigns health care incentives and gives people a powerful motive to buy health insurance. This tax provision has a bigger impact on cutting people’s taxes than any single proposal from either party.2

    Obama uses a longer list of smaller tax credit ideas to reduce a similar number of taxpayers’ liability to zero. About 16 million people who are currently paying at least a little income tax would see their liability zeroed out, bringing the total to 63 million, or 44 percent of all tax returns.

  34. Blankman Says:

    Okay, finally found something re the impact of eliminating the Bush tax cuts. It’s on a website I usually don’t follow but everyone else seems to be ignoring the calculations. [If you don’t believe the article you can do your own calculations – there’s a link to the actual IRS forms].

    Senator Obama’s Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k

    I confess. Senator Obama’s two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of “working Americans,” intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I’ve earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes — I might even get a break — and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.

    However, Senator Obama’s dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I’d been paying before President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline — they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the “Bush Tax Cuts” lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.

    I’ve worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns — I know how “promises” work — so I analyzed Senator Obama’s promises by looking for loopholes.

    The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn’t “count” allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse — allowing the rates to return to a higher levels — is not actually a “tax increase.” It’s just the lapsing of a tax cut.

    See the difference?

    Neither do I.

    When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up — a lot — but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won’t actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he’s passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.

    Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.

    No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.

    For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama’s claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase — they’ll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.

    Check this for yourself. Go to and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 — Senator Obama’s benchmark year — you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn’t call it a “tax increase,” but your taxes under “President” Obama will increase — significantly.

    Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I’d call that Tax Lie #1.

    The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 — the most recent year for which tax data is available — only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual’s earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap — and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.

    By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket — and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers — but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer’s share of the tax increase.

    However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website that he “might” create a “donut” — an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn’t raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama’s “donut plan” was quietly removed from his website.

    This “explanation” sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I’d call this Tax Lie #2.

    (updated) Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he’s aiming at “fat cats” who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is. However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.
    Under “President” Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain — perhaps to help put your children through college — instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you’ll pay $20,000 under Obama’s plan. That’s a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.

    No question — for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.

    Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses — and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 — and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don’t “pay” taxes — they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation’s own taxes go up, you don’t see it — its automatic — but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product’s price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices — those pass-through taxes — when corporate taxes go up.

    No question: this is Tax Lie #4.

    There’s not a politician alive who hasn’t be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush’s “Read my lips — no new taxes” proved false, he lost the support of his base — and ultimately lost his re-election bid.

    This year, however, we don’t have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he’s also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that’s the truth.

    Detailed tables showing various changes are contained in the article.

    * When “President” Obama allows President Bush’s tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 to expire, this will amount to a de facto tax increase –

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s