Why is this news? Did the administration previously rule out raising taxes? Did they previously rule out raising taxes on the middle class? Somebody asked a question, and it was answered the same way as it would have been during the campaign. Wake me when the administration actively considers raising taxes specifically on the middle class. Until that happens, this is not a story.
yes, multiple times, and explicitly, no one making less than $250k would see any type of tax raise. that's why it's news.
Evidence? Link? To my recollection, the campaign stated that under their plan, no family making under $250,000 would see a tax increase. That's different than ruling it out for extraordinary circumstances. I think they'd have had the same answer then as they do now. In other words, this is not news.
well, your obsessive crush on Palin for one. but if it's any consolation, I think you're far from being the worst of the "Obama sheeple" criers.
You do realize that when I ask for "evidence" I'm looking for something that shows that your point of view is correct and mine is not, right. If you are claiming that he is going back on a pledge, and I provide a plausible explanation that shows the statements are consistent, it is your burden to show that my plausible explanation is not that plausible. However, instead, you linked to the youtube clip in your original post, which directly backs up my claim. In that clip he says, "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." Emphasis mine. Notice how that directly supports my statement?
my crush on Palin has nothing to do with her views on, say, gay marriage, to cite one social issue. and in a world where Palin and Obama agree on that particular issue, i'm not sure how one can call opposition to gay marriage a "conservative" position.
He's certainly not talking about the one that has already been implemented, unless he has a time machine. Which again, is unsurprising as many of your arguments presuppose this.
Sarah Palin Favors Death Penalty Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws Absolute right to gun ownership Teacher-led prayer in public schools Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it Expand the armed forces Opposes Abortion is a woman's right More federal funding for health coverage Replace coal & oil with alternatives Make taxes more progressive The Patriot Act harms civil liberties US out of Iraq http://www.ontheissues.org/sarah_Palin.htm What does get your crush on for Palin then? Is it the body? cause, if you're NOT a social conservative, there isn't that much going for you when it comes to her.
He's not talking about any "plan". He's talking about extenuating circumstances. Obama's campaign plan didn't really include dealing with the economic crisis, and he made that clear before the election. That's enough of an extenuating circumstance by itself, but by merely saying they can't rule something out I don't think they're at the point yet of actively proposing it. It would take further extenuating circumstances or failures in their plan. So, in other words, my statement is still perfectly plausible and in my opinion the most likely explanation. Do you have any more evidence?
are you saying Obama has not repeated his no taxes on less than $250k pledge since mid-september, 2008 last year?
Ok, so how is that relevant? Remember, we're looking for evidence that Obama has said that he wouldn't raise taxes on families earning under $250,000 even in extenuating circumstances.
You are on the wrong side of this argument. basso is right in that this is important. Not raising taxes on people that make less than $200,000/$250,000 has been a major continued promise by the Obama camp. They are backpedaling. Its nothing new for a politician, and most people won't be surprised if he breaks his promise.
My point is that they are not backpedaling. They were asked a question in an interview and they refused to rule it out. I think they would have refused to rule it out given a similar question even during the campaign. That is not backpedaling. I think they are more open to it now than they were before because circumstances are more difficult than they imagined, but I don't consider that to be backpedaling. If they do end up raising taxes on the middle class, or propose such an increase, or even actively discuss it (as oppose to not ruling it out when asked a targeted question), then I think the criticism is important and that will be newsworthy. I suspect that they can already be criticized for underestimating the scope of the challenges they face, or for painting the picture as too rosy to require the solutions they didn't include in their plan. But again, that was just as true last week and the statements from yesterday aren't particularly interesting in that regard. Do you think there is a tangible difference between what was said before and what was said yesterday? A difference in anything other than tone?
