Liberals masquerade as tax cutting conservatives

The past ten days says everything on how liberals are converting to popular anti-tax philosophy just long enough to get elected and then they can raise all the taxes they want. Jeff Merkley introduced his most publicized campaign proposal this week, which is to give taxpayers a $500 tax cut. Merkley even emphasized that he wants it as soon as possible. This comes off of Merkley’s ads touting in bold highlights that he is going to cut taxes while simultaneously attacking Gordon Smith in debates and in press releases for raising taxes. Gordon has a great pro-taxpayer record compared to Merkley where we are unable to find a single tax he didn’t vote for in his near entire 10 year term.

The liberal/union coalition group, Our Oregon, mailed out a voter’s guide called “Tax Fairness and Accountability” draped in imagery of the bald eagle and U.S. Flags. The guide warns taxpayers against “higher fees” and higher “tax burdens” and then offers liberal YES/NO endorsement list that will in effect prevent tax cuts and create more taxes.

Also this week, Barack Obama produced his 30 minute TV infomercial. Obama delivered his prime point saying, “As president here is what I will do, I will cut taxes for every working family making under $250,000 a year. Give business a tax credit”¦”. Obama didn’t make his first priority “helping the kids” or a strong foreign policy, but rather cutting taxes (twice).

This is the same Obama who earlier proposed raising capital gains taxes to 28%, then decided to scale back his increase by nearly half, and then told reporters he was going to delay it altogether until better economic circumstances. Obama used McCain’s health care tax reform as a way to place TV ads attacking McCain for raising taxes (while ignoring the counter tax savings).

If Merkley, Obama and Our Oregon have their say they will obviously do what they have done before which is to raise taxes as much and as often as there is political will to do it. Tax and spend politicians are limited only by their imagination.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:05 | Posted in Measure 37 | 12 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Provo

    Just in time for Holloween

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Look, if you are voting for Obama and make less than whatever his latest magic number of the day is, $250K, $200K, $150K and you think you are going to get a tax break, you are on crack.

    Who is heading Obama’s transition team? John Podesta. Who Did Podesta work for before Obama? Clinton. What did Clinton do two weeks in to his term? Well, the guy who promised to focus on the economy like a laser beam and give everyone in the middle class a tax cut said then and there, no tax cut suckers. Expect Obama to start lowering expectations about 30 seconds after he puts his feet up on the Oval office desk.

    Oh, and if you do get a tax cut from Obama, expect it to be real short lived. Because in 2010 you just know he’s going to love letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

    Look, there are lots of good reasons to vote for Obama. You are voting for Hope. You are voting for change or God knows what. But if you think you are voting to get your taxes cut, you are also crazy. There is a reason Obama was rated the most liberal of all 100 Senators. He loves to spend money. And Liberals believe one key thing, cutting taxes results in less revenue. Its wrong, but they believe it, so which do you think will come first for Obama, you spending your money or Obama spending your money?

  • Crawdude

    Liberal Bar Stool Economics

    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
    comes to $100.
    If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
    this:

    The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
    The fifth would pay $1.
    The sixth would pay $3.
    The seventh would pay $7.
    The eighth would pay $12.
    The ninth would pay $18.
    The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

    So, that’s what they decided to do.

    The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the
    arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

    “Since you are all such good customers, he said, “I’m going to reduce the
    cost of your daily beer by $20.”

    Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their
    bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They
    would still drink for free.

    But what about the other six men – the paying customers?
    How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair
    share?”
    They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33.
    But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and
    the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

    So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill
    by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each
    should pay.

    And so:

    The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
    The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
    The tenth now paid $50 instead of $59 (15% savings).

    Each of the six was better off than before.

    And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the
    restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
    “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to
    the tenth man, “but he got $9!”
    “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too.
    It’s unfair that he got nine times more than I!”
    “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $9 back when I
    got only two? The wealthy get al l the breaks!”
    “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get
    anything at all. The system exploits the poor.”

    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

    The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down
    and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they
    discovered something important.

    They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

    And that, boys and girls, journalists, and college professors, is how our
    tax system works.

    The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax
    reduction.

    Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show
    up anymore.
    In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
    friendlier.

    David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
    Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

    For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

    For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

  • Crawdude

    Today on my way to lunch I passed a
    homeless guy with a sign that read ‘VoteObama, I need the money.’ I laughed. Once in the restaurant my server had on a ‘Obama 08’ tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference–just imagine the coincidence.

    When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood therein disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip tosomeone who I deemed more in need–the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.I went outside, gave the homeless guy $5 and told him to thank the server inside as I’ve decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

    At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away
    the money he did earn, even though the actual recipient needed the money more.

    I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

  • Jason W.

    beautiful story!

  • Crawdude

    Dear Fellow Business Owners
    As a Business owner who employs 30 people, I have resigned myself to the fact that Barack Obama, will be our next President, and that my Taxes and Fees, will go up in a BIG way.
    To compensate for these increases, I figure, that the customer, will have to see an increase in my fees to them of about, 8%. I will also have to lay off six of my employees. This really bothered me as I believe we are family,here and didn’t know how to choose who will have to go. So, this is what I did. I strolled thru the parking lot and found, eight Obama bumper stickers on my employees cars. I have decided these folks will be the first to be laid off.
    I can’t think of another fair way to approach this problem. If you have a better idea, let me know. I am sending this letter to all business owners that I know.

  • dean

    I don’t know. Are liberals masquerading as conservatives, or are conservatives masquerading as conservatives. It gets confusing sometimes.

    Reagan enters office in 1981. From Carter, he inherits Federal receipts of $517 billion and spending of $591 billion, for a deficit of $73 billion. By the time he left office in 1989, taxes were $999 billion (he cut income taxes but significantly raised payroll taxes) and spending was $1.14 trillion, for a deficit of $153 billion. He did cut overall taxes from 19.6 percent to 18.4 percent as a share of the GDP, but only cut spending from 22.2 to 21.2 percent of GDP, thus increasing the annual deficit from 2.6 percent to 2.8 percent. The annual deficit went over 5% of GDP during (conservative) Reagan’s term, and, the national debt grew by two thirds under his watch.

    Over 8 years, Bill Clinton by contrast cut spending from 21.4 percent of GDP to 18.5 percent. He also raised taxes from 17.6 percent to 19.8 percent of GDP. And miracle of miracles, Clinton left office with an annual surplus that would have eventually eliminated the national debt had we elected Gore instead of Bush.

    OK…which was the true conservative? One cut taxes and pretty much failed to cut spending. One raised taxes AND cut spending. I would say Clinton was the more fiscally conservative president. As for Bush…let’s not even go there. he continued Reagan style tax cutting and failed completely to cut spending. Is he a conservative? More like a wastrel.

    So let’s say Obama gets elected, which looks likely. And lets say once he goes over the books he changes his mind and fails to deliver his proposed tax cut. Instead he does a Clinton and cleans up Bush’s fiscal mess. Would that be such a bad thing? Would it be liberal or conservative?

    So-called conservatives have managed to completely bankrupt this nation and put our future at grave risk. I think we have seen all we need to see from this crowd. Have a nice decade or 2 out of power. You earned the time off.

    • cc

      “I don’t know. Are liberals masquerading as conservatives, or are conservatives masquerading as conservatives. It gets confusing sometimes.”

      …yadda, yadda, yadda, and on, and on, ad infinitum – even the dullest tool in the box is still a tool.

      dean could have ended this inane comment with “I don’t know…” and saved the bandwidth.

      That would be the sustainable thing to do.

  • Anonymous

    Other lies Dean Tells:

    Lie: Dean claims to be a professor
    Truth: Dean is not and never was a professor. He once was an extended studies instructor at OSU. That’s to professor as Yugo is to Mercedes.

    Lie: Dean claims to have authored a book, sometimes, when he is in a lest dishonest mood, he describes himself as lead editor.
    Truth: Dean was junior editor of a book composed of other people’s work. He contributed nothing but his name. Thisis the kind of gig you get as a result of a friend in academia or throwing you a bone.

    Lie?: Dean claims to be a landscape architect or some other grandiose sounding name for “yard man” Most businesses incorporate, but there is no record of any for profit business owned by Dean at the corporations division. Either Dean is lying and the business exists only in Dean’s or, possiblity, Dean is running an unlicensed cash business to cheat on taxes.

    Is Dean a Tax Cheat?

    While Dean has no active businesses registered with the corporations division there are two inactive non-profits on record for him with addresses at what appear to be his former residences.

    Tax tip for cheaters: If you want a bunch of nice big tax deductions, incorporate a non-profit corporation and list the corporations address as your house. Reporting requirements are minimal and you can write off part of your mortgage. If you’re really dishonest you can write off an enormous amount of personal expenses as corporate expenses. Vacations, road trips and day hikes become “research.” Computers, office supplies, books, magazines you would buy anyway become “supplies” for the corporation. Lunches with friends become “business conferences.”

    The fact that Dean created two non-profits indicates that this was a possible motivation. If a corporation exhibits no activity, other than providing deductions for its officer(s) for a period of time, it must be dissolved. Tax cheats will create a corporation, use it to cheat on taxes for three years, let it lapse, and create a new one to continue cheating.

    Dean’s history as a proven liar and hypocrite make me believe that this is exacxtly what he did and why he created his non-profits.

    I have forwarded my research to the IRS, so we’ll see what happens.

    • dean

      Whoever you are…you certainly should remain anonymous, because you are clearly a complete and utter jackass as well as a coward, and what you don’t know about me is a lot. How about sticking with the actual issues I raised fool.

      And if you are going to do character assassination, do better research. You have not “proven” a dang thing. You simply made presumptions.

  • Anonymous

    dean,

    You sure fall all over youself trying to perpertrate your version of the liberal charades.

    What I can’t figure out is why you hang out only here with our BS and never show up at BO and other blogs.

    • dean

      I’m a political anthropological researcher, and have nothing to learn from Blue Oregon since I know that tribe’s BS from the inside out.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)