...changed to "not raise taxes much"? changed to...?

hange, change, change.

It's all about change.

Changing "promises" from:

I will, listen now, cut taxes — cut taxes — for ninety-five percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.

to:

I pledge to you that under my [current] plan, no one making less than two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year will see any form of tax increase. Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax.

Change his current plan so, yes, they can see a tax increase?

Sen. Barack Obama did not exactly pledge not to raise taxes on Americans who make less than $250,000 a year.... He said his "plan" wouldn't....

If circumstances change and his "plan" changes, well, all bets are off. But even if Obama sticks to his plan, he'll have an enormously hard time keeping that pledge [which he's already suggesting]. That's because he has another plan. This one calls for hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending.

Obama's own campaign estimates that he proposes $130 billion in new spending. The National Taxpayers Union has done the math and come up with $345 billion. Either way, Obama's proposed tax increases on people making more than $250,000 a year won't pay for his new spending. He will have to either cut massive amounts of federal spending, raise taxes or borrow billions — or all three.

Changing that plan from what it now is, using his lawyer-speak, is therefore not part on his so-called pledge. Bill Qlinton explains:

It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the — if he — if "is" means is and never has been, that is not — that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.

Change from "there is no form of tax increase under my plan" to "okay, there was none under my old plan, but there is one under my new plan," is in total keeping with his lawyerly-worded alleged "pledge."

Change also what the meaning of the number 95 is:

Household income at 95th percent limit = $177,000 (2007)

source: U.S. Census Bureau, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007 (PDF), p. 40.

Change taxes for every working family with an income below $177,001 and above $250,000 (to lower and higher rates, respectively), and change no taxes for every working family with an income between those two amounts, and still change the amount of spending in our federal budget to one that is hundreds of billions of dollars higher than it is now? Probably depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is, also.

Change what the meaning of the term "tax cut" is while he is at it:

"When Obama says that he will cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans, he is talking about his proposal for a $500 refundable income tax credit for all but the top 5 percent of income earners. For the bottom 40 percent of income earners, this will be just another check from the federal government rather than a reduction in tax liability. It is another sharp increase in government spending rather than any sort of tax cut.... What Obama is proposing here is really quite similar to George McGovern's 1972 plan to send everyone a $1,000 check, which voters rightly saw as a crass vote-buying scheme rather than serious policy. - AEI"

Giving people who already pay no taxes money is not a tax cut, its a handout and Obama's tax cut promise is little more than a gimmick and an expensive one at that if he gets elected.

Change "tax cut" into, using his lawyer-speak, a term of art so it primarily means "handout." American Spectator's Philip Klein elucidates:

Under Obama's logic [sic], higher food stamp allowances and expanded state funding of the arts could be dubbed "food tax credit" and "arts tax credit" respectively, and also qualify [as a "tax cut"].

If Barack Obama can effectively claim that his plan cuts taxes on 95 percent of Americans, then the term "tax cut" has no meaning.

Depends on what the meaning of "meaning" means.

No hope these meanings of "change" change because

Obama will inflict massive tax increases on Americans, and McCain will not.

Every solution he offers to any problem is Raise Taxes and Empower the Federal Government. Any power given to the Federal Government is done so at the expense of its' Citizens.

Change is not putting another artful-dodging lawyer in the White House for four or eight "ten" years. That's Change we can be deceived by.

Change is electing a decorated Navy captain, wounded Prisoner of War, and pro freedom and pro free markets two-term congressman and four-term senator who has repeatedly been tested and understands, from long and painful experience, America's wartime enemies and how to deal with them and, most importantly, strike a deterring fear into all their hearts.

President John McCain is the change we most definitely need for our Nation's victory from the economic to the war fronts — the change we can most definitely believe will help all of us and our country be better off four years from now.

Labels: clue-challenged liberals (BIRM), lying liberals (BIRM), McCain Administration, tax'n'spend liberals (BIRM)

	12:59 AM

Comments (registered users)