Talk about twisting the meaning...

#1
volinbham

volinbham

VN GURU
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
69,798
Likes
62,540
#1
Obama in reference to places we need to make spending cuts said we need to look at domestic spending, spending in the military, spending in our entitlements and spending in our tax code; spending on tax breaks and deductions for the wealthiest Americans

:blink:

Cynical ploy to claim raising taxes is actually a spending cut or mindset that the government owns the money and let's you keep a portion - if you keep more it is government spending.
 
#2
#2
Balancing the budget or reducing debt, sure...look to those places if you will. To reduce spending, we cannot look to tax breaks or deductions. That is some ridiculously absurd logic there...
 
#3
#3
democrats have considered tax cuts "spending" for as long as I can remember
 
#4
#4
Agreed there is revenue and there is spending. Raising taxes (by eliminating deductions) is not reducing spending. This is either cynical double talk by the Pres or some fundamental misunderstanding.
 
#5
#5
I think they see it as cutting into the revenue more than anything. Although I believe that logic is flawed as data seems to suggest the exact opposite that revenues actually go up when you cut taxes and go down when you raise them. The other tidbit is revenue is almost always ~18-20% of GDP.
 
#6
#6
I suppose the only logic is that one sees the money as the government's to begin with, all is spending - what they give to you by not taxing it from you.
 
#8
#8
volinbham said:
Obama in reference to places we need to make spending cuts said we need to look at domestic spending, spending in the military, spending in our entitlements and spending in our tax code; spending on tax breaks and deductions for the wealthiest Americans.
Click to expand...

This goes right along with Barry's misguided idea that working for the public sector is a "higher calling".
 
#10
#10
droski said:
more class warfare from saint obama.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day that is all it really boils down to. The rich aren't paying enough... or to quote someone from this board: reverse distribution. However that play has worked time and time again for decades now, and as a higher percentage pay no taxes, i don't see it going away either.
 
#11
#11
OrangeYankee said:
At the end of the day that is all it really boils down to. The rich aren't paying enough... or to quote someone from this board: reverse distribution. However that play has worked time and time again for decades now, and as a higher percentage pay no taxes, i don't see it going away either.
Click to expand...

call me naive, but i think a decent % of americans can see through this type of talk and generally don't think the rich are getting so off the backs of the taxpayers and the common man. call it the american spirit.
 
#12
#12
I can't help but think that if a Bachmann called tax deductions spending that she would be hammered as a moron.

It's simply moronic to say we can cut spending through the tax code by eliminating some deductions.
 
#13
#13
Did you not get the democrat memo. This phraseology has increasingly been used the last couple of years.

A google search of "spending on tax breaks" results in 13,200 results where that exact phrase has been used.
 
Last edited:
#14
#14
I think its a reference to the cuts and the tax breaks being reeled back in. Pretty obvious that's what he means, really.
 
#15
#15
lawgator1 said:
I think its a reference to the cuts and the tax breaks being reeled back in. Pretty obvious that's what he means, really.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. It's garbage class warfare silliness hoping to garner support from those who haven't been and won't be impacted. If it was about clawing back the tax breaks, he'd have said so.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#16
#16
lawgator1 said:
I think its a reference to the cuts and the tax breaks being reeled back in. Pretty obvious that's what he means, really.
Click to expand...

He specifically said spending cuts in the tax code and listed the exact examples I said.

He wrapped in it other spending cuts we need.

It was an intentional attempt to make it sound like he's all about cutting spending - including "spending" on the rich.

Ironically, he started the talk by saying we need a balanced approach. For some reason, he could not say he advocated raising taxes.
 
#19
#19
lumberjack4 said:
Only Obama could claim a tax cut, or refusal to raise taxes, is government spending.
Click to expand...

It's been pretty much the Democratic M.O. for as long as I can remember. The phrase "We can't afford the Bush tax cuts" was uttered across the majority of the Democratic ranks so many times, that is has been burned into my brain. Now this whole "tax cuts = spending" is a new twist from the usual "tax cuts = less money coming in," but I think it's their way of trying to spin their logic into the current climate of most people wanting spending cuts.
 
#20
#20
But that's crazy logic! Tax cuts do mean less money coming in. Tax cuts do not mean more spending. Different sides of the balance sheet for crying out loud! I don't care how they try to spin it.
 
Last edited:
#21
#21
TennTradition said:
But that's crazy logic! Tax cuts does mean less money coming in. Tax cuts does not mean more spending. Different sides of the balance sheet for crying out loud! I don't care how they try to spin it.
Click to expand...

Different statements altogether. This crap is pure politics of class warfare.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#22
#22
The government taking less money away from its people, is not spending. The Bush tax cuts increased revenue. The Economy does not remain static when taxes are increased or lowered.
 
#23
#23
lumberjack4 said:
The government taking less money away from its people, is not spending. The Bush tax cuts increased revenue. The Economy does not remain static when taxes are increased or lowered.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it did decrease revenue - it's still not spending. We don't need to confuse the two.
 
#25
#25
lumberjack4 said:
??? I'm the one arguing that not raising taxes, is not spending. Did I miss something?
Click to expand...

I wasn't disagreeing with anything you said, specifically. I think that you are correct. I'm just saying you don't even need to introduce the economics of tax policy into the discussion. Even if cutting taxes didn't increase revenue (which in some cases it can), the act of cutting taxes still wouldn't be spending. I wasn't implying you don't know this (because I'm sure you do), but just making the point that cutting taxes is not spending even if it takes money away from the government ("costs" them).
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top