Another presidential "no new taxes" pledge may be ready to bite the dust.
President Barack Obama promised during his campaign to contain his tax hiking zeal to those Americans who, in his view, make too much money. For everyone else, candidate Obama vowed, "no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any type of tax increase. Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax."
Except for maybe a tax on health insurance benefits...
Those employees impacted by the tax -- school teachers, autoworkers, etc. -- were heavily in Obama's column in last fall's election and didn't seem bothered by his attacks on wealth. Perhaps they didn't realize their generous benefits would qualify them as wealthy.
They're looking at $2,000 to $4,000 a year in extra income taxes as their reward.
It's not a right-wing mouthpiece saying this; heck, I doubt there are any right-wing mouthpieces in Detroit.
Thanks, CTA/NEA. Thanks, liberals. And thanks to any other idiot who voted for this man.
15 comments:
Being an out-of-towner, you are not burdened with the knowledge that Detroit hisorically had two newspapers: The Detroit Free Press (Left) and The Detroit News (Right).
The fact that Detroit is economically depressed does not mean it is without right-wing media outlets. Do you suppose you can't tune in a Detroit-based Fox station or hear Rush (+myriad wannabes) on AM radio there?
Bottom line? Your block quote IS from a right-wing mouthpiece.
As a card-carrying Republican I'd also thank John McCain for running a campaign of such ineptitude that I have to wonder how many of his staffers were also on Obama's payroll.
My God, when I think about how disorganized, ineffectual and unfocused the McCain's campaign was I have to wonder whether McCain wasn't on Obama's side.
Then I stand corrected on the "right-wing mouthpiece" comment.
So, Ernie, care to comment on the substance of what was written? Or was my outsider mistake the only part with which you can find fault?
I hate to say I told you so, but to all my fellow teachers who so blindly wasted their votes on image over substance:
I TOLD YOU SO!
The whole thing is pundit speculation. Like "String Theory," it's all good fun, but not necessarily reality. And I suppose the News had column inches to fill, hence the piece.
I'll keep my undies unbunched until something real begins to emerge.
The News' speculation is unlikely to play out the way they stated. If I pay $2000 for insurance and my employer gives me $3000 because they don't have to pay for overpriced HMOs, I'm money ahead.
How about you answer Obama's challenge: If the government is so bad at running health insurance and the privates are so efficient, why are the privates so scared of a public option?
They're afraid of it for the same reason that I am--eventually people will be forced into it. The private firms will go out of business, and we'll be stuck with British/Canadian-level health care.
If that's the best defense Obama can come up with for socialized medicine, we're doubly screwed.
Wasn't that a movie? Wait. That was Gamara: Friend of Children. Eh. Gamara. Obama. Six. Half-dozen.
And the Detroit News, conservative? Not so much, unless you define anything to the right of Bill Ayers as conservative. But it's Michigan, one of the most f*cked-up states in the union (and yeah, I know all about Michigan; I spent most of my life in the adjacent state, the Republican one). I even have kin in Michigan. They're completely nuts.
@Darren: "eventually people will be forced to join it." Really? Evidence? Vast Left Wing Conspiracy? No. Wild, irrational speculation? Yes.
@RWP, which party controls the legislature in Michigan? (Hint: opposite of how it is in California.)
I'm sure you imagine the News as leftie and the Free Press as downright Communist. Shockingly, "lefties" see the Free Press as conservative and the News as downright Wingnutty. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that there are no major city newspapers that rise to your standard of being "conservative."
Michigan is a very conservative state (outside of Detroit/Ann Arbor). Kinda like California with it's coast/valley political split. (Go out to Holland or Grand Rapids and try to buy liquor on Sunday.) So don't be so hasty to denigrate the good people of The Great Lake State.
Actually the editorial is, as you'd expect from the News, too conservative.
The history of socialized medicine in the U.S. - uh, you did realize, Ernie, that the U.S. has a highly-socialized medical system already, right? - puts us on track for all the worst features of all socialized medicine systems everywhere - rationed care, long waits for tests and specialists, generally diminishing service coupled with escalating costs and my favorite, two tiers of medical care. Medical care for the haves - those with political influence - and what's left over for the have-nots.
As for rightwingprof's criticism of Michigan, you're right but we have an excuse.
For a long time we were the only state that could tax the rest of the union. The UAW screwed the car companies, the car companies screwed the car-buying public and the state screwed them both. There's just no good that can come from a situation like that once it turns south and turn south it has with a vengence.
The private insurers are concerned because the government doesn't play by the rules. In fact, they can literally change the rules.
They do not have a bottom line, so they do not have to care about profits. They can undercut the private insurers without consequence and run them out of business.
Ernie, don't be such an ass and you might notice that I *didn't* denigrate the people or state of Michigan. In fact, take off your right-wing-hating glasses a moment and you *might* notice that I was impressed that such words came from Michigan.
Not going to post abusive and/or excessively rude comments like that. If you want to say something like that, do it on your *own* blog.
"Even now come Lord Jesus" is what I am thinking as the so called change takes place.
So, government will pay for health care by taxing a employer provided health care, which is already provided at employer expense. So, as an employer who provides health care, why don't I just total up the per person cost, including the tax, divide by two, offer the result as a raise to my employee while I tell him I will no longer be providing him with health care, but he can now get it from the government. Employee gets more money, and health care; employer reduces costs. But then . . . how were we funding the program, again?
Post a Comment