Obama Lie #3 None of you taxes will go up (under $250K)

[_Jason Bourne]

The rich also received a larger dollar benefit because they pay more tax than lower income earners. Cutting 5% for someone making 500k per year is obviously more dollars then the same cut for someone making 50k per year.

[_Kevin Graham]

This is old news that has been put to rest by those who know how to read context, but it just goes to show how desperate the anti-Obama crowd is getting. They keep reliving this stuff like it is news.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... -form-tax/

Cigarette tax for SCHIP nips at Obama tax promise
Updated: Thursday, April 2nd, 2009 | By Angie Drobnic Holan

When we launched the Obameter to track President Barack Obama's campaign promises, we identified 38 on taxes covering everything from repealing the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes to supporting tax deductions for artists .

Then, on April 1, 2009, a new cigarette tax went into effect, and we got lots of e-mail from readers saying it violated a promise Obama made on the campaign trail not to raise any taxes on people who make less than $250,000 a year. Lots of people who smoke make less than $250,000 a year, so Obama broke his promise, these readers told us.

We confirmed the quote that many readers sent us. On Sept. 12, 2008, while on the campaign trail in Dover, N.H., Obama said, "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

We didn't have a promise like this in our database. We had separate promises that Obama would make the Bush tax cuts for lower incomes permanent and that he would raise capital gains taxes only on higher incomes. We decided to add this new, more broadly stated promise to our database.

On April 1, cigarette taxes went up. Certainly many people who smoke make less than $250,000. Should we rate this Promise Broken?

This launched an interesting debate here at PolitiFact. Was the final part of Obama's statement "not any of your taxes" intended as a sweeping declaration against any tax, or was he speaking only in the context of income-based taxes? We noted that his statement began with the phrase "Under my plan ..."

We looked to our coverage during the campaign for greater clarity.

Obama has long been on record supporting the cigarette tax increase. During the campaign, Obama often said he supported legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program. At the time, that legislation was in Congress, and even then it included higher cigarette taxes. By saying he supported the SCHIP legislation, Obama was supporting the increased cigarette taxes to pay for it.

SCHIP was among the first pieces of legislation to come to Obama's desk, and he signed it Feb. 4, 2009. We rated it as a Promise Kept .

Another part of our deliberation was that when Obama was on the campaign trail saying that " no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase," his examples were all federal income or payroll taxes. Cigarette taxes are a federal excise tax, which is a tax on goods. (Other federal excise taxes are levied on things like alcohol, gasoline and firearms.) These are not taxes that affect people based on income level, but rather based on whether they purchase certain goods. So while some families who make less than $250,000 a year will be affected by cigarette taxes, the taxes are based on their decision to buy cigarettes, not based on their income.

Obama's promise on the campaign trail may have been a bit of rhetorical excess based on his income tax plan, which seeks to exempt lower incomes from tax increases. Obama has taken specific steps to change that tax code, such as creating capital gains taxes that only apply to higher incomes, that are aimed at protecting the middle class from new taxes. Also, the cigarette tax does not hit all families that make less than $250,000 a year, but only those who choose to smoke. Finally, Obama clearly stated during the campaign that he supported legislation that would raise the cigarette tax, and he never mentioned any form of excise tax when making the promise.

Still, it's a tax increase. People who smoke will pay higher taxes under the measure that Obama signed. We added this promise to our database and rated it a Compromise.

[_Kevin Graham]

The rich also received a larger dollar benefit because they pay more tax than lower income earners. Cutting 5% for someone making 500k per year is obviously more dollars then the same cut for someone making 50k per year.

Well, duh. That is precisely the point. Our massive deficit is largely the result of depleted federal revenues during a period of increased mandatory spending.

[_Jason Bourne]

Well duh to you too Kevin. I think I agreed above that a war time tax should have been imposed. My point in this thread is that when you, and others, say the bush tax cuts for the rich and often imply it was the rich only that benefited, you are in error. But them I agreed dollar wise rich benefit more but they also pay more.

[_EAllusion]

There are tons and tons of misleading statements, broken promises, reversals of positions, and outrageous lies that have come out of the Obama administration - especially when compared against his campaign. Yet Richard continues to swing and miss. It's baffling. Richard is tasking himself with demonstrating a prominent politician has lied - a challenge about as difficult as proving the ocean is wet - and yet he struggles with sinking his teeth into a good example.

[_Kevin Graham]

Hey EA, who are you going to vote for? I'm genuinely curious. Has Obama said things that turned out to be false? Of course. Just go to politifacts catalog of false statements on all politicians. No one is innocent. Every year I'm stuck trying to choose the lesser of two evils. But Barack Obama has said five comments that were graded "pants on fire." Compare this to Mitt Romney who has thirteen. And reading through the examples it is clear to me that Romney's lies are far more egregious.

[_Bond James Bond]

Hey EA, who are you going to vote for? I'm genuinely curious. Has Obama said things that turned out to be false? Of course. Just go to politifacts catalog of false statements on all politicians. No one is innocent. Every year I'm stuck trying to choose the lesser of two evils. But Barack Obama has said five comments that were graded "pants on fire." Compare this to Mitt Romney who has thirteen. And reading through the examples it is clear to me that Romney's lies are far more egregious.

Cool website. It appears Obama on average tells more truth than Romney. Total breakdown according to Politifact:

true-mostly true-half true-mostly false-false-pants on fire

Obama: 87-83-90-43-54-5
Romney: 23-19-34-21-19-13

[_Drifting]

Cool website. It appears Obama on average tells more truth than Romney. Total breakdown according to Politifact:

true-mostly true-half true-mostly false-false-pants on fire

Obama: 87-83-90-43-54-5
Romney: 23-19-34-21-19-13

Hmmm...this would seem to indicate that Romney is ineligible for Temple attendance...

[_EAllusion]

Hey EA, who are you going to vote for? I'm genuinely curious. Has Obama said things that turned out to be false? Of course. Just go to politifacts catalog of false statements on all politicians. No one is innocent. Every year I'm stuck trying to choose the lesser of two evils. But Barack Obama has said five comments that were graded "pants on fire." Compare this to Mitt Romney who has thirteen. And reading through the examples it is clear to me that Romney's lies are far more egregious.

I'm working on Gary Johnson's laughably inept campaign. I strongly encourage you to vote for him.

As far as politifact goes, they can be good for what it is they do, but they handle abstract claims and proportionate importance poorly. It's just not in their wheelhouse. So, for instance, Obama promised the most transparent administration in history and has more or less worked very hard at creating the least transparent administration in history (no hyperbole). This includes, for instance, the DoJ arguing successfully in federal court that when the executive declares a matter classified due to national security it is above judicial review. This effectively renders the executive impenetrable on any topic it can arbitrarily declare a matter of national security. Since that claim itself is above review, the default position is any wrongdoing can be above the law through use of the classification system until another branch of government blinks and creates a constitutional crisis. And the Obama administration has used classification very liberally to shield itself, so that goes beyond the abstract threat this position represents. That's a major blow to transparency. So is the administration's relentless pursuit of whistleblowers. It goes on. At the same time, there has been a few token actions in favor of transparency that don't add to much. Politifact doesn't handle this kind of claim well, though. It's better at simple factual assertions. But Romney could have dozens of those that are lies and it not add up to something as significant as this. So a simple +/- isn't helpful.

[_EAllusion]

If you are looking for Obama lie - slash - broken promise that is pretty clear, he has reversed course on prosecution of medical marijuana dispensaries. He's gone from promising not to target those in compliance with state laws to running the most aggressive, paramilitary crackdown on them to date.

http://www.salon.com/2012/04/26/obama_j ... singleton/

I only mention it because it is one of those issues libertarians care a lot about and has substantial public support but does not make it to the mainstream media radar all that often.