Quantcast

Obama Says Romney Wants to Raise Taxes on Middle-Class to Give Wealthy a Break: Does He?

Chris D 2012/08/01 20:00:00
You!
Add Photos & Videos
The spin keeps on spinning. Now, it's Obama saying Romney will raise taxes on the middle class to keep the tax breaks going for the super wealthy. Sounds fishy to me. Is Obama right, or is it true that Mitt Romney is planning to raise taxes on the middle class?

ABCNEWS.GO.COM reports:
AKRON, Ohio – President Obama today pounced on a new report that found Mitt Romney’s economic plan would raise taxes on the majority of Americans and give tax breaks to the super wealthy, telling supporters in the battleground state of Ohio that his opponent wants them to pay more so that “people like him” can get a tax cut.
obama romney

Read More: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/obama...

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Daryl 2012/08/01 21:23:17
    Yes, Romney wants to raise taxes on middle class!
    Daryl
    +25
    Yes.

    Romney knows that by pandering to the ultra-ultra-ultra-wealthy he will win the election.

    They make up the majority of voters in swing states like Ohio, Indiana and New Mexico.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Rich ComeOnNow 2012/08/08 15:58:59
    Rich
    +1
    The biggest reason our costs are the highest per capita of any nation in the world is cost shifting. If you don't buy insurance and require medical care you cannot afford to pay for, you still get treated. However, that cost is borne by the rest of us in the form of higher premiums. Actuaries build the anticipated costs of these deadbeats into their calculations.
    It is also a fallacy that millions will lose their jobs because of the new health care law. The people now working who will cease to do so are mainly people who want to retire before age 65 but need to keep their coverage under their employer until they become eligible for Medicare.
  • ComeOnNow Rich 2012/08/08 17:01:55
    ComeOnNow
    +1
    There are other ways to drastically reduce that. 1. There are cheap catastrophic plans that anyone willing to work a bit can afford. Below that, they can pay for minor care out of pocket. They can afford televisions and cable. For those that CHOOSE to not take personal responsibility, treat medical bills more like student loans. Have them follow people forever with a minimum of say 15% of all their income going towards them, don't allow bankruptcy to get you out of them, allow garnishments and the ceisire of personal property to repay the debts even those in retirement accounts and trusts, maybe even take the assets or relatives into account like student loans. If we make people actually pay for them and there are actual consequences then more people will be responsible. Maybe hospitals should not have to do anything more than stabilize people that do not have insurance or the means to pay for it. Health care is like anything else, it is only as important to someone as their willingness to prepare for it an have it as a priority.
  • marylou5 ComeOnNow 2012/08/09 01:33:22
    marylou5
    What if you have a TV bigger than 32" you get to pay your own Health Care, lose your welfare and food stamps?

    What if you have an I pod, I pad, Palm Pilot, Blackberry. I phone etc etc..you get to pay your own Health Care and lose your welfare and food stamps?

    What if your tennis shoes cost more than $50, you lose your welfare benefits?

    I find it unreasonable that those tax payers who are subsidizing welfare are too poor to afford the fancy electronics!
    Just asking!
  • ComeOnNow marylou5 2012/08/09 10:21:17
    ComeOnNow
    My point was that anyone can have the best health care in the world with a little effort. So why destroy the quality and punish everyone else because they choose not to. Also, you have not been around many welfare bums. They typically do have big televisions, cable, video games, cell phones, etc. they sure aren't suffering for not even bothering to work to take care of themselves.
  • Pearlie... marylou5 2012/08/09 22:05:12
    Pearlie Momi♥Patriot Warrior♥
    Beware of a sock ..Obama blogger , here only 7 days and such an idiot..kool aid drinkers.
  • Rich ComeOnNow 2012/08/09 02:34:56
    Rich
    +1
    I have 15 yrs of health care experience, and, trust me, most who can afford to and do not buy still won't even if we do everything you suggest. In the industry, we call them "young invincibles" because they think, since they're young and healthy, they don't need insurance. You can attach all of their assets and drive them into bankruptcy, but that still doesn't solve the problem. That's why even a right-wing extremist group named Heritage advocated a mandate back in 1993 to counter a Dem proposal from Clinton, and most Congressional Republicans embraced it. But, when a Dem went for the mandate this time, partisanship took over, and now it's the worst thing mankind ever dreamed of.
    We have far and away the most expensive and bureaucratic health care system in the world. The only solution is to get rid of the middle man (health insurance carriers). The new law will allow more people who have trouble affording coverage to get it, but costs will continue to rise until we join the rest of the world.
  • ComeOnNow Rich 2012/08/09 10:22:46
    ComeOnNow
    News flash, I do not give a damn about the democrats or republicans. Bad policy is bad policy.
  • Rich ComeOnNow 2012/08/09 15:32:43
    Rich
    +1
    Bad policy is forcing people to pay the medical bills of those who can afford insurance.
  • ComeOnNow Rich 2012/08/09 16:50:22
    ComeOnNow
    +1
    I agree, and that is exactly what Obama care is.
  • Rich ComeOnNow 2012/08/10 03:14:40
    Rich
    +1
    In the Nut Right world, up is down, and down is up. The mandate cures the problem. If it didn't exist, there wouldn't have been a need for health care reform.
  • ComeOnNow Rich 2012/08/10 15:46:04
    ComeOnNow
    Wow, you are disconnected from reality.
    The democrats take the complete opposite of everything that is common sense and make that their policy.

    1. Dumbing down schools and accepting mediocrity is good as long as we spend $350,000 by the time students drop out of HS at 16 still unable to read at a 1st grade level like in DC.
    2. Paying people not to work encourages them to work
    3. Businesses and investors having less capital and far higher prices somehow helps them to grow faster, higher more people,  invest in R&D; ensuring the future of our economy, compete better abroad on pricing, or in any way helps  the economy.
    4. It is good for businesses to pay unskilled HS dropout more than many doctors when it takes 4 of them and $450+ to change even a light bulb, and that somehow helps companies to compete abroad.
    5. It is reasonable to make more money in retirement than you ever  did even working.
    6. Million of perfectly able bodied people that CHOOSE to not better themselves or work, that steal trillions from other tax payers in direct checks from the government are somehow not stealing or costing anything, but not stealing enough from those that actually earned the money is somehow costing the government millions.
    7. School vouchers that save the tax payers a fortune and pr...









    Wow, you are disconnected from reality.
    The democrats take the complete opposite of everything that is common sense and make that their policy.

    1. Dumbing down schools and accepting mediocrity is good as long as we spend $350,000 by the time students drop out of HS at 16 still unable to read at a 1st grade level like in DC.
    2. Paying people not to work encourages them to work
    3. Businesses and investors having less capital and far higher prices somehow helps them to grow faster, higher more people,  invest in R&D; ensuring the future of our economy, compete better abroad on pricing, or in any way helps  the economy.
    4. It is good for businesses to pay unskilled HS dropout more than many doctors when it takes 4 of them and $450+ to change even a light bulb, and that somehow helps companies to compete abroad.
    5. It is reasonable to make more money in retirement than you ever  did even working.
    6. Million of perfectly able bodied people that CHOOSE to not better themselves or work, that steal trillions from other tax payers in direct checks from the government are somehow not stealing or costing anything, but not stealing enough from those that actually earned the money is somehow costing the government millions.
    7. School vouchers that save the tax payers a fortune and provide a far ebtter education, and more educational choices are bad, becausse they make the corrupt teachers unions unhappy, but that somehow means the democrats and the unions care more about the students, their education, and the tax payers than those that actually support a less expensive and better education for our children.
    8. Taking from the productive that actually use their money for productive means and giving it to poor people that buy almost entirely foreign crap from China is somehow going to make the county more prosperous.
    9. Feminism is somehow degrading any female  that  has the nerve to have any of their own opinions at all that disagrees with a president like Bill Clinton (Who  they love) that is good for sexually assaulting, harassing, and treating women like sex toys instead of people. Not to mention supporting the murder of millions of innocent little girls because it may not be convenient for someone.
    10. They think that the way to eliminate corporations and the rich from buying politicians it to give politicians massive power over every aspect of our lives and economy, so politicians can have far more power to decide which corporations succeed and fail based on political donations and political expediency.
    11. The way to create opportunity for people is Socialism, because  when the government controls everything, that somehow means that people that are not politically connected will ever have a shot at becoming anything except  what the politicians dictate that you should be (Which is not rich unless you are politically connected). 
    12.  Even though under capitalism, anyone can be anything that they want and as rich as  they want as long as  they are willing to work for it, it is evil because some people ultimately work harder and smarter and make more, while those that had wealth as far less of a priority so they did not  bother to work as hard deserve all the money from those that did, while those that did work hard are evil and should be stolen from.
    13. Somehow actually giving time and money to charity is an evil act from those  that do not care and are done solely for tax breaks, while crying for hand outs fro yourself stolen from other somehow makes you a saint.

    I can go on all day if you would like. 

    By the way we know  democrats do not give a damn about anyone else, that is why Obama is a millionaire and his brother lives in a driftwood and tin shack, and his "favorite" aunt lives here illegally, in section 8 housing, and on social security disability that she never paid into. Not to  mention democrats never say tax me because I care, cried about even paying for  their own social security, medicare and medicaid during the payroll tax cut debate (Despite those being the programs they pretend to care about the most), and statistically giving far less to charity than conservative that actually care
    (more)
  • Rich ComeOnNow 2012/08/11 02:16:15
    Rich
    +1
    You need a life beyond Sodahead. I'm not going to rebut you point-by-point because it would take me more time than I think you're worth, so I'll address a few of them.
    You misrepresented the Democratic position on welfare. We want people to work, but there is reality to be dealt with. If a single mom must work long hrs to support her family, her kids are going to receive minimal attention. Then you right-wingers whine about how she and others like her shirk their responsibility as parents. Latch-key children are the ones most likely to suffer from poor grades and get into trouble at school.
    Dems are not opposed to helping business. In fact, Obama proposed tax credits for capital investment, but the GOP, always opposed to anything Obama says, blocked it.
    Most liberals are not opposed to school vouchers provided three conditions are met. First, if you take public money, you must accept all students on a first come, first served basis. Second, you must provide facilities for special needs students. Third, religious courses must be optional. Implement vouchers with those restrictions, and you have a level playing field and no violation of the separation of Church and State.
  • ComeOnNow Rich 2012/08/11 04:29:02
    ComeOnNow
    Oddly enough it is the single mothers on entitlements that do not work that pay the littlest attention to their children and they are falling behind in school. The problem is that they meet see a work ethic to emulate.the vouchers do nt violate the separation of church and state, it gives parents the choice where to send their children to school but you and the democrats do not give a damn about that, just the union teachers pensions.The tea partners are for the only sustainable plan. Let's face it, you and the other democrats are willing to destroy the country all to steal from your neighbor. I do not see the democrats on here demanding to pay for anything. Obama's brother lives in a shack as he lectures us about charity. Clearly it is time for a flat tax, no exemptions for anyone or any business. You know, actually treat everyone equally. That way all the democrats actually have to contribute to all these programs they pretend to care about. We know you just want hand outs and are willing to bankrupt the entire country for them. Look how they cried about even paying for their own social security. Here is an idea, if NOBODY wants to pay for it, it is not that important and needs to be eliminated.

     That is because they have a huge percentage of the population dependent on the...

    Oddly enough it is the single mothers on entitlements that do not work that pay the littlest attention to their children and they are falling behind in school. The problem is that they meet see a work ethic to emulate.the vouchers do nt violate the separation of church and state, it gives parents the choice where to send their children to school but you and the democrats do not give a damn about that, just the union teachers pensions.The tea partners are for the only sustainable plan. Let's face it, you and the other democrats are willing to destroy the country all to steal from your neighbor. I do not see the democrats on here demanding to pay for anything. Obama's brother lives in a shack as he lectures us about charity. Clearly it is time for a flat tax, no exemptions for anyone or any business. You know, actually treat everyone equally. That way all the democrats actually have to contribute to all these programs they pretend to care about. We know you just want hand outs and are willing to bankrupt the entire country for them. Look how they cried about even paying for their own social security. Here is an idea, if NOBODY wants to pay for it, it is not that important and needs to be eliminated.

     That is because they have a huge percentage of the population dependent on the government for hand outs and jobs. The same thing you democrats are trying to do to this country. You imbeciles are pushing the same exact failed policies that destroyed Europe. How about instead of sudden and forced austerity because we are bankrupt, we actually say hey you lazy able bodied bums and corrupt businesses and countries, we are done giving you hand outs. We cannot afford them. You have “X” years to get a job and then you are off the government dole? Why do we have to wait until the democrats failed policies bankrupt us for piddly things like birth control that should clearly be up to the individual.

    Obama is the president of stealing. Democrats should just change their name to the party of Jealous Thieves. Every time Obama speaks he vilifies those that actually pay taxes and promises more hand outs to buy votes from the thieves. it has become the entire platform of the crooks.
    (more)
  • Rich ComeOnNow 2012/08/11 16:57:25
    Rich
    +1
    It is one thing to be misinformed. It is another to cling to nutty beliefs when presented with facts. If your mother is living, you might want to ask her how long she was deprived of oxygen while carrying you. You have nothing to say, and you're simply not worth my time. We're done here.
  • ComeOnNow Rich 2012/08/13 19:47:14
    ComeOnNow
    Ha ha, everything I sad what true and not you resort to pouting. How predictable.
  • Rich ComeOnNow 2012/08/14 03:52:23
    Rich
    I do feel foolish now that I realize I was arguing with a child.
  • ComeOnNow Rich 2012/08/14 14:42:31
    ComeOnNow
    I just figured I would bring it to your level. You seem to have trouble comprehending the obvious.
  • debra.f... ComeOnNow 2012/09/03 02:07:12
    debra.faber
    Wipe the koolaid ring from around your mouth, and watch something besides the right wing mediasphere.
  • debra.f... ComeOnNow 2012/09/03 02:06:15
    debra.faber
    Bull, this bill requires people who can afford to buy insurance to do so.
  • debra.f... Rich 2012/08/09 16:09:14
    debra.faber
    +1
    I completely agree. We cannot have the"best health care in the world" until we no longer have the most expensive healthcare bureaucracy in the world.
  • ComeOnNow debra.f... 2012/09/03 13:18:51
    ComeOnNow
    Making it cheaper by destroying innovation sure as hell is not the way to go. Paeticularily when anyone can have access to the best healthcare in the world. It just has to actually be important enough to them to care to work for it like everyone else does.
  • debra.f... ComeOnNow 2012/09/04 20:24:47
    debra.faber
    Again, we don't have the best health care system in the world. We are ranked 37th in the world by the World Health Organization. We pay far more for results other countries are able to obtain for a fraction of the cost. Insurance is too expensive for millions of people in this country. Countless people work jobs every day, are not provided with health care via their employer and do not earn a wage high enough to afford insurance. Most people in this country are vastly underinsured for any sort of calamitous health event in their lives.
  • ComeOnNow debra.f... 2012/09/05 01:09:02
    ComeOnNow
    You have to ask yourself. If this rating was accurate, Why would the Prime Minister of France (ranked #2 on the list) come to the Us (Ranked 37th on the list), by flying right past France (Rankes #1 on the list) and by 7 other countries ranked higher than the Us.
    Does that make any sense? Um No.
    Why didn't Ted Kennedy and Sen Dodd fly elsewhere to get their cancer treatment.
    Maybe Dodd could go to the UK (Ranker 18th) to get the treatment from prostate cancer that has a survival rate there of 77% when here in the US the 5 year survival rate is virtually 100%.
     
    Because the report has nothing to do with the actual quality  of health care.

    Let’s be perfectly clear about this, the United States Health Care is second to none! Ask the tens of thousands of patients who travel internationally to the US every year for their health care. As an example of the quality of health care delivered in the US, Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 of 16 of the most common cancers. Perhaps that is why Belinda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member (one of the health care systems touted as “superior” to the US) abandoned the Canadian Health Care system to undergo her cancer treatment in California.1
    But to unders...















    You have to ask yourself. If this rating was accurate, Why would the Prime Minister of France (ranked #2 on the list) come to the Us (Ranked 37th on the list), by flying right past France (Rankes #1 on the list) and by 7 other countries ranked higher than the Us.
    Does that make any sense? Um No.
    Why didn't Ted Kennedy and Sen Dodd fly elsewhere to get their cancer treatment.
    Maybe Dodd could go to the UK (Ranker 18th) to get the treatment from prostate cancer that has a survival rate there of 77% when here in the US the 5 year survival rate is virtually 100%.
     
    Because the report has nothing to do with the actual quality  of health care.

    Let’s be perfectly clear about this, the United States Health Care is second to none! Ask the tens of thousands of patients who travel internationally to the US every year for their health care. As an example of the quality of health care delivered in the US, Americans have a higher survival rate than any other country on earth for 13 of 16 of the most common cancers. Perhaps that is why Belinda Stronach, former liberal member of the Canadian Parliament and Cabinet member (one of the health care systems touted as “superior” to the US) abandoned the Canadian Health Care system to undergo her cancer treatment in California.1
    But to understand how WHO derives this misleading statistic, which has been ballyhooed widely by both the media and politicians alike, you need to understand how it is created. WHO’s health care rankings are constructed from five factors each weighted according to a formula derived by WHO. These are:
    1. Health Level: 25 percent
    2. Health Distribution: 25 percent
    3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent
    4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent
    5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent
    “Health level” is a measure of a countries “disability adjusted life expectancy”. This factor makes sense, since it is a direct measure of the health of a country’s residents. However, even “life expectancy” can be affected by many factors not related to health care per se, such as poverty, homicide rate, dietary habits, accident rate, tobacco use, etc. In fact, if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA’s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth.2
    “Responsiveness” measures a variety of factors such as speed of service, choice of doctors, and amenities (e.g. quality of linens). Some of these make sense to include (speed of service) but some have no direct relationship to health care (quality of linens). These two factors at least make some sense in a ranking of health care, but each is problematic as well.
    The other three factors are even worse. “Financial fairness” measures the percentage of household income spent on health care. It can be expected that the “percentage” of income spent on health care decreases with increasing income, just as is true for food purchases and housing. Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same “percentage” of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system. This factor is biased to make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior. It rewards countries that spend the same percentage of household income on health care, and punishes those that spend either a higher or lower percentage, regardless of the impact on health. In the extreme then, a country in which all health care is paid for by the government (with money derived from a progressive tax system), but delivers horrible health care, will score perfectly in this ranking, whereas a country where the amount paid for health care is based on use of the system, but delivers excellent health care will rank poorly. To use this factor to justify more government involvement in health care, therefore, is using circular reasoning since this factor is designed to favor government intervention.
    “Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution” measure inequality in the other factors. In other words, neither factor actually measures the quality of health care delivery, because “inequality of delivery” is independent of “quality of care”. It is possible, for example, to have great inequality in a health care system where the majority of the population gets “excellent” health care, but a minority only gets “good” health care. This system would rank more poorly on these measures than another country that had “equal”, but poor, health care throughout the system.
    In summary, therefore, the WHO ranking system has minimal objectivity in its “ranking” of world health. It more accurately can be described as a ranking system inherently biased to reward the uniformity of “government” delivered (i.e. “socialized”) health care, independent of the care actually delivered. In that regard the relatively low ranking of the US in the WHO system can be viewed as a “positive” testament to at least some residual “free market” influence (also read “personal freedom”) in the American Health Care system. The American health care consumer needs to understand what th
    1 week ago
    Additional Details
    to understand what the WHO ranking does and does not say about American health. Don’t be fooled by “big government” politicians and the liberal media who are attempting to use this statistic to push for socialized medicine in the United States. It says essentially nothing about the delivery of health care or the quality of that delivery in the US. It does say that, so far, the American health care consumer has at least some personal freedom to seek the best health care available, and is not yet relegated to the “one size fits all” philosophy of government sponsored health care systems.
    Susan Delacourt, “Stronach travels to U.S. for cancer treatment.” The Star, September 14, 2007.
    Sally C. Pipes, “The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care”. Pacific Research Institute, pp 132-133, 2008.
    http://www.healthandsharing.c...
    (more)
  • debra.f... ComeOnNow 2012/09/07 19:41:47
    debra.faber
    Unfortunately there are no scientific studies which support your opinion. There ARE numerous studies which do not support your opinion. The United States only achieves #1 in one health care rating and that is cost.
  • ComeOnNow debra.f... 2012/09/07 22:02:16
    ComeOnNow
    Only things like cancer survival rates and the actions of the leaders of those countries that come here for anything serious right?
  • marylou5 Rich 2012/08/10 05:20:43
    marylou5
    +1
    You are promoting government controlled socialized medicine?
  • Rich marylou5 2012/08/10 15:42:09
    Rich
    +1
    I am promoting a system along the lines of virtually every other free republic in the world. Using childish pejoratives does not lead to fruitful discourse.
  • marylou5 Rich 2012/08/10 17:14:06
    marylou5
    Contrived and feigned "blah, blah, blah" doesn't disguise the fact that:

    "You are promoting government controlled socialized medicine?"

    There is no one more moronic or obtuse than an arrogant individual, who thinks he/she can fool astute, perceptive, knowledgeable SH posters with OBAMABOT doublespeak!
    Epic fail!

    Give it a rest...we all have your number. You fool no one!
  • Rich marylou5 2012/08/11 02:20:00
    Rich
    You have my number?
    Did you know that the US spends more than twice as much per capita on health care than any other nation in the world.
    Taiwan recently appointed a commission to study how health care is administered in other nations. Their spokesman says that the US was an excellent example of how not to do it. Profits are not compatible with optimal health care. I speak from 15 yrs of health insurance experience. Now I'll be happy to discuss this with you if you promise me an open mind and to refrain from name-calling. Have I set the bar too high?
  • marylou5 Rich 2012/08/11 03:44:30
    marylou5
    "You are promoting government controlled socialized medicine"!

    Please don't waste your time or mine.

    No discussion needed.
    Dialogue ends here.
    Thanks but, no thanks.
  • Rich marylou5 2012/08/11 16:58:23
    Rich
    +1
    I asked tow things, that you keep an open mind and conduct yourself as an adult. Sadly, you weren't up to it. How pathetic.
  • marylou5 Rich 2012/08/13 04:04:55
    marylou5
    You stated your opinion!
    I stated mine. We disagree. So what!
    This is an opinion site! Is it not?

    You want to belabor the point. I don't. So what!
    Why do you want a dialogue with someone who is not interested in your opinion That's pathetic and egocentric!

    If I met you on the street and your conversation bored me, I'd find a way to disengage!
    That's what I'm doing.
    Have a nice day!
  • Rich marylou5 2012/08/13 04:30:12
    Rich
    +1
    You are being silly and immature child. An adult should always be willing to consider the possibility one is wrong. I suspect you thought you'd get away with a cutesy sound bite and didn't realize what you were getting yourself into. I'll add that you posted me first, not the other way around. If you weren't interested in hearing from me, then you shouldn't have messaged me in the first place.
  • marylou5 Rich 2012/08/13 05:11:07 (edited)
    marylou5
    Good grief, you're harder to get rid of than poison ivy!
  • Rich marylou5 2012/08/13 15:34:34
    Rich
    Good grief, you're arguably the single most boring person I've ever had post me. Can't you say anything cogent?
    On second thought, don't response since it's abundantly clear you have nothing of value to say.
  • marylou5 Rich 2012/08/14 02:05:34
    marylou5
    it's respond..not response :-)
    Buh, bye!
  • Rich marylou5 2012/08/14 03:53:43
    Rich
    And I'm usually a careful typist.
  • marylou5 Rich 2012/08/14 04:58:12 (edited)
    marylou5
    I know!
  • marylou5 Rich 2012/08/14 02:14:44
    marylou5
    I did have a cogent reply, but you didn't like it!

    "You are promoting government controlled socialized medicine"!

    You will miss me like a migraine, but you will miss me:-)

    Buh, bye
  • Rich marylou5 2012/08/14 03:53:04
    Rich
    +1
    You just can't offer anything besides silly, meaningless cliches. So sad.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/07/31 15:50:15

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals