Obama can't take a lot of credit for low taxes. Almost all of the tax rates in effect as well as the credits, deductions, exclusions and so on are from the Bush years. Yes he has supported some tweaking and additional breaks for middle and low class (via payroll tax breaks, expanding college credits and some other things). But if Obama had gotten his way taxes would be higher.
Jason, I know you'll accept the facts as they are when I present them, because you actually do the necessary legwork to check the sources. Obama has in fact cut taxes for 95% of working Americans. This is really beyond dispute for economists and Tax professionals, and even Droopy's preferred sources haven't been able to come up with enough subterfuge to escape this reality. You say he would raise taxes if he had his way, but this is only true to the extent that he wanted to raise taxes below Reagan levels, only for the richest 5%. The hard reality is that income taxes have been lowered for most working Americans since Obama has been in office, and contrary to your suspicions, this isn't due to Bush's policies, or to Obama's forced compromises and negotiations with Republican legislators (as the only taxes they've ever been interested in lowering are those for their main constituents, the richest 5%).
Now we all know that Loran loves to dismiss all evidence that challenges his simple-minded world-view and Cato-engineered conclusions, as nothing more than a Soros-funded propaganda piece. He then claims his bald asssertions prove to be a refutation, but without actually backing up these assertions with evidence, they amount to little more than his ignorance, paranoia and contempt of truth, coming out in all its glory. We all know by now that Loran has never been able to respond intelligently to the objective data without using the standard FOX News smear against the data, claiming it cannot really be the truth if it derives from a Liberal. Well, that's just silly on its face, but the data doesn't "come from" liberal sources, as he chooses to fantasize. It comes from the CBO and Tax Policy Center. It is indisputable data that requires a tremendous amount of manipulation in order to twist it into a case favorable to Right Wing causes.
And of course, this is pretty much the same way he dismisses anything critics say about Church history, because we're merely "anti-Mormon" who are incapable of saying anything factual, based on that premise alone. But this is quite ironic since, if he would ever challenge himself to read anything outside the Koch/Murdoch-funded Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute, he'd know that virtually every credible economist on the planet has already conceded the points I have shared on this forum. And how can they be denied? Only in the Right Wing propaganda machine do we find the incestuous cross referencing to the same specie of periodicals that would pretend to have refuted these facts. For example, Investors Business Daily quotes Heritage and the Americans for Tax Reform as if it is some nonpartisan organization with credibility outside the inner circles of the Right Wing propaganda machine. In reality it was actually another "conduit" used for laundering money for Jack Abramoff's so-called "grass roots" movements. Such is the way behind the curtain of Right Wing parlor magicians. But for Loran, credibility matters very little, and for him these baseless propaganda pieces are treated as divine edicts from the high priests of his poliical theology. Or else why does he think that he needs no data to back up his claims, or objective analysis for support? You'll also see that a Rupert Murdocch owned publication would be compelled to argue along those same lines, and it did this in 2008, long before it was refuted by reality. As usual, these sources assert much, but usually get it all wrong, in both their predictions and suspicions. The strongest argument they've managed to make is really quite weak, ad Heritage bases much of the tax increases on "predicted" gross increases over the next decade, based on what they, not the CBO, say "Obamacare" will do for taxpayers. So it is really one giant circle of self-serving rhetoric that pretend to derive from various "Think Tanks" that supposedly, come to the same conclusions independently based on veirfiable data and sound alanysis. But the more to read the arguments by Heritage and Cato, the more you realize how desperate they are to grasp at such straws, insisting that the world accept their misrepresentation of Obama's proposed health Care reform, and ignore all the nonpartisan sources that reject their conclusions and predictions. For example, Cato argued that "Obamacare" (if such a thing even exists) would cost tax payers $6 trillion, and Right Wing pieces like Heritage have been trying to create the impression that the predicted cost of Obama care is constantly going up, the more economists analyze the relevant data. But that is also a myth created to serve their purposes.
Politifact addressed the Obama-Tax myths on a couple of occasions, here and here. The miracle of RIght Wing propaganda is that despite the fact that 95% of working families saw a significant tax cut thanks to Obama, only 12% realize their taxes have been cut. But this is a testament to teh power of propaganda. Fox News can convince ignorant folks like droopy that he's paid more in taxes even as his tax return reflect a very different reality. Specifically, from the link above:
He asked for tax cuts of $500 per worker per year; Congress agreed to $400. The tax cuts -- called Making Work Pay -- were implemented in early 2009 and people saw small increases in their paychecks.
This might not seem like a lot of money to some, but to most Americans who are living paycheck to paycheck, it means a great deal. For instance, $400 is enough to pay a family's grocery bill for a couple of months at least, but you already know this. And again, despite Droopy's insistence that this is all a game of smoke and mirrors from "leftists" the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center did a study that demonstrated at least 80% of Americans saw a tax cut under Obama's plan, the broad-based tax cuts on income being significantly larger than the proposed excise taxes. Of course leave it to Loran to focus on the taxes have gone up, but also leave it to Loran to fail when it comes to basic math. It is he who is engaged in a game of smoke and mirrors, throwing in a lot of misdirection about "leftist" bias with incomplete figures on various excise and state taxes.
As for the church making more exmo's and atheists than it does Mormon i think that is hyperbole. Convert and birth rates are still higher than exits.
It wasn't intended to be hyperbolic. I'm including convert baptisms along with those born into the Church. The fact is the Mormon Church loses more of its baptized members each year, than it retains.
But back to the point about taxes. You are right that Obama wishes to increase taxes on the wealthiest 5%, and I think that would be the only responsible thing to do at this poiint - as do most economists I might add! My point was never that Obama was a closet conservative, but rather he is not a socialist, nor do most people on the Right currently live on the planet called earth, if they think his various attempts and successes at cutting taxes for 95% of American workers, gives them room to hoist signs at Tea Parties saying idiotic things like "Taxed Enough Already." The only people who are in any position to complain about this are those who make more than 200k annually, including the multiplicity of millionaires and billionaires who have figured out how to win via propaganda. Their so-called high taxes haven't prevented them from donating millions to Republican campaigns and creating this false sense of a "grass roots" phenomenon among the average American. They used scare tactics with the ignorant and reinforced that with false information. Ultimately, without the funding and efforts initiated by Right Wing millionaires, the Tea Party never would have gotten off the ground. Loran is part of the problem, not the solution, and all he ever does is dismiss my arguments and my facts with bald assertions to the contrary. He might throw up a hyperlink to some irrelevant Cato or Heritage article every once in a while, but that hardly demonstrates a clear grasp on the subject matter - especially when those links rarely ever argue what he thinks they do.