Obama Disappointed that Supreme Court Didn’t Redistribute Wealth
Obama wishes Supreme Court should have redistributed wealth as part of Civil Rights movement. Wow.
Wow. He wants your money to give to a bunch of lazy people who happen to have more melanin than you do…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 0717 hrs
The guy’s power base was derived from a very liberal African American community segment in Chicago. How followed that line for 15-years. Once he saw a chance to go further nationally, he’s conveniently left all that behind and hoped no one notices.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 0754 hrs
It seems like he used a lot of fancy words and legal justifications in calling for reparations for “disposessed peoples.” What the hell else would you call “redistributive change” for “disposessed peoples” when referring to the Civil Rights movement?
But certainly knowing how volatile just the word “reparations” is, he stopped short.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 0755 hrs
I see. This is also why Martin Luther King was called a communist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 0900 hrs
Steve-O, I don’t get it… If you support the redistrubution of wealth, just come out and say it.
If what B.O. supports is something you believe in mtfu and tout the grand aspects of wealth redistribution instead of playing all your little games with the topic and trying to water down what he states he believes in.
This is crystal clear. The fact that you won’t just come out and support it means that you know the general public won’t stand for it, so you are trying to trojan horse it past the electorate so that once he gets in office he can go about enacting his belief in wealth redistribution.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 0946 hrs
Even when you confront BHO with a question about his saying he wants to share the wealth he denies his motives. You can take the man out of Jeremy Wrights church but you can’t the church outta’ the Man.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1001 hrs
Let’s cut the nonsense boys. The government redistributes the wealth all the time, up and down, down and up. But when a campaign has nothing to talk about, let’s make a BS point into a talking point, especially one that will rile up our resentful base.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1031 hrs
There are many ways to redistribute wealth that have nothing to do with taxes and welfare, e.g. government contracts, regulations, prohibitions, military bases, earmarks, mineral rights, bandwidth allocation, mercenary army spending, the list goes on. We have been redistributing wealth from the blue states to the red states for many years. Anyone want to check out how much Wisconsin gets back from every dollar it sends in for federal taxes? Answer: about 88 cents. How about those very white and fiscally conservative folks up in Alaska - try $1.83.
But hey, I’d like to cheer you guys up a bit by pointing out the obvious, that is, once we have a partially black president, I think we can declare victory with affirmative action and end it.
Why do you think that Jesse is lukewarm about Obama?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1036 hrs
Actually, I think Obama said that the tragedy of the civil rights movement is that it was so focused on using the courts that it failed to develop the political and community organizing that would have easier facilitated such change through the legislative arena.
He’s speaking very much as an academic. I’m not sure in the entire four-minute clip that I heard him express more than one or two personal opinions. He lamented the fact that African-Americans didn’t organize well politically but it never went beyond that. And he never expressly said the he wished the court would. The vast majority of that clip focused on his interpretation of how things have transpired, not on what he wishes would happen.
I do, however, appreciate the poor attempts of this video to superimpose an interpretation with big yellow letters. That’ll make it easier for all the Sarah Palin fans, who would otherwise be lost in a legal discussion involving negative liberties and other concepts they probably never learned about before dropping out of high school.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on October 27, 2008 at 1045 hrs
Another McCain talking point debunked.
“What the critics are missing is that the term ‘redistribution’ didn’t man in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer,” Sunstein said. “What he’s saying – this is the irony of it – he’s basically taking the side of the conservatives then and now against the liberals.”
The first mention of redistribution, which does not appear on the YouTube clip, comes when Obama discusses a 1973 Supreme Court ruling finding that there is no right to education.
“One other area where the civil rights area has changed… is at the state level you now have state supreme courts and state laws that in some ways have adopted the ethos of the Warren Court. A classic example would be something like public education, where after Brown v. Board, a major issue ends up being redistribution—how do we get more money into the schools, and how do we actually create equal schools and equal educational opportunity? Well, the court in a case called San Antonio v. Rodriguez in the early ‘70s basically slaps those kinds of claims down, and says, ‘You know what, we as a court have no power to examine issues of redistribution and wealth inequalities. With respect to schools, that’s not a race issue, thats a wealth issue and something and we can’t get into.”
Later in the interview, Obama seemed to concur with conservative and mainstream liberal scholars on the court’s more modest view of its powers:
“Maybe i am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know, I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts,” he said. “You know the institution just isn’t structured that way. Just look at very rare examples where during he desegregation era the court was willing to, for example, order ... changes that cost money to local school district[s], and the court was very uncomfortable with it. It was hard to manage, it was hard to figure out, you start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that is essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. The court is not very good at it, and politically it is hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So i think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts, I think that as a practical matter that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.”
Of course, this won’t stop the shouts of “Socialism!!” by people who don’t know what they are talking about.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1047 hrs
Or you could read a fair critique of what Obama was saying. Note that the video was spliced. What did the editor not want you to see?
http://volokh.com/posts/1225086611.shtml
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1107 hrs
Or you could read a fair critique of what Obama was saying. Note that the video was spliced. What did the editor not want you to see?
Or you could skip someone elses critique (aka spin) and just watch the whole interview yourself (the a link to the whole interview is at the end of the video)
http://www.wbez.org/audio_library/od_rajan01.asp
second splenda, the audio of the interview is paused frequently in the video, but picks up right where it leaves off most of the time.
There are only one or two places where they skip to different segments of the interview.
The spin game is on. Everyone is going to spin this to say what they want it to say. I’d suggest listening to the whole interview. It will be abundantly clear exactly what B.O. meant.
‘redistribution’ didn’t man in the Constitutional context equalized wealth or anything like that. It meant some positive rights, most prominently the right to education, and also the right to a lawyer,” Sunstein said.
yeah right… that spin might have held a tiny bit of water mutually exclusive of everything else, but taken with the knowledge of exactly what B.O. said to “joe the plumber” and you’d have to be a fool to misinterpret just exactly what B.O.‘s plans are.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1117 hrs
Re 7: B.S. talking point? The man SAID it!!! Duh!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1154 hrs
Gee…I wonder where Obama got all of these radical ideals? Perhaps some of the people in his neighborhood. Oops…sorry. We’re not allowed to talk about that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1154 hrs
Socialism!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1231 hrs
Pinhead!!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1239 hrs
If you support the redistrubution of wealth, just come out and say it.
I’ll say it. I support redistibution of wealth. The emphasis being on the “re”. I feel the initial distribution is flawed. Too much money rolls down that high end of the income distribution normal curve, and ends up in pockets of the 99.9th percentile.
The point is, Obama is trying to frame it as the top 10% vs. the rest of us, and McCain is framing it as the rest of us vs. the bottom 10%.
As for the audio at hand, I think Recess Supervisor nailed it when he said Mr. Obama was speaking as an acedemic to a large extent. But think of it: if at the time of the civil rights movement, legislative action would have been taken to make amends for past wrongs, how much further along we might be now. Call it reparations if you like, but if done at the actual time of harm, it would be much more palatable. Now, 40 years removed (or 140), it’s hard for many to stomach.
spice
Posted by jimspice on October 27, 2008 at 1305 hrs
jimspice,
So if you had your way, you’d rather our government and economy be based on socialism than capitalism.
I don’t think theres much to criticize of your opinion. I mean of course I disagree with it, but I’m happy to let the merits of socialism and capitalism stand on their own.
Its the notion and effort of people to mask socialism as something else and justify socialism as something else that I find disturbing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1316 hrs
“I never got a job from someone who was poor.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1321 hrs
FYI: Whenever I visit Germany the “West Germans” still complain vigourously about how the “East Germans” cannot or will not work. The socialist in them makes them think it is below their dignity.
Just what we need: To grow the non working class of the US. Idiots are easy to control if you keep them fed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1508 hrs
FYI: Whenever I visit Germany the “West Germans” still complain vigourously about how the “East Germans” cannot or will not work. The socialist in them makes them think it is below their dignity.
Interesting.
Its interesting to me. Its why I think socialist politicians are not about helping peolpe but about control.
Because I’ve observed in my life that when people are in need of help, there is no shortage of people who have been willing to help other people. Help should come first from your family, and then from people you know, and then charities, and the list goes on. There has never been a shortage of americans willing to help out. I point to 9-11 as an example.
So then I wonder why do we have politicians who think we need government to provide the “safety net” that could, has, and would always be provided by the sources above (family, friends, charity, and strangers) (in that order) and its because they can then control.
And then I think the dirty little symptom along the way is the dependence and sense of entitlement (which in and of itself is not only addicting, but debilitating)
When you go to your family, or friends, or charity for help, you would only do so under the most judicious and necessary of circumstances. But with government entitlements, people are not judicious and an expectation grows that they are OWED what is being given to them. I think thats what strikes me about your comment that East Germans think its “below them” to work hard. Thats what government creates.
If these socialist politicians really cared about people they would recognize the government ‘safety net’ the righteously promotoe is a set of permanently bolted on training wheels that cost a fortune, never come off, and create a systemic dependence that enslaves there very people they claim to want to help.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1539 hrs
The facts, RS, are that Obama thinks the Constitution is ....ah….inadequate for remedying social inequalities of the monetary sort.
He would re-write the Constitution as a positive-law document to provide “better redistribution” of wealth.
That happens to be consistent with his education at Columbia U., influenced by Bentham (and others) and perfectly consistent with his hard-line background associations like Frank Marshall, Bill Ayers, and the Maoist in Chicago, Klonsky.
You can spin all you like about the “theoretical” yappaflappa, RS, but there’s no evading the conclusions of his analysis.
And yes, he thinks it must be done legislatively. All he needs is a compliant/supine SCOTUS.
Posted by dad29 on October 27, 2008 at 1655 hrs
And that Dad - is why we should all be very afraid. He can stack SCOTUS with up to 4 more “empathetic” judges. Then the socialists will have the White House, House of Reps, Senate, and SCOTUS. So much for checks and balances…..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1714 hrs
You guys hear that noise?
Its the Government money train just a rollin’ down the tracks!:Choo-Choo!:
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on October 27, 2008 at 1842 hrs
If you believe the chronic lying of the McCain campaign ad, every one will have their taxes raised.
Of course fact based arguments don’t work very well around here, but here goes.
What Obama has wisely recognized is that
1) The middle class, for the most part, is tired of toting the load in this country and not looking at much of a future for themselves and their kids in the bargain.
2) An economy doesn’t get any where unless you have a strong middle class. The Ayn Rand fantasy philosophy of the past nearly 30 years—with the exception of a short break under Clinton—didn’t do the job of advancing the middle class.
Like all politicians, if Obama gets in he wants to stay in, so tax increases are not in the political cards. You can get yourself all wound up about this and try to dish this out to the masses, but the fact remains that growing the middle class has been in the forefront of this campaign.
Income has been distributed in this country—upward. The tax cuts at the fed level have led to shortages on the state and local level, Like carpet lumps whack it down somewhere and it pops up elsewhere, either in the form of property tax increases of cutting services to be replaced by fees.
Reality is a bitch.
We have not cut the fat. We have whacked muscle and bone and we are toppling over.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1920 hrs
Hey Keith - How much money does one make to be considered “middle class”?
And…. Obama is already obfuscating about the amount of income a person/couple has to make to get hit with his hits - he has said both the $250K bogey, but has also said 5% (which gets you down into the $150K range). So which one is it?
Since you seem to have all the Obama answers, enquiring minds want to know.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 1933 hrs
Reality is a bitch.
Yes it is Keith.
And you would think that after all these years of listening to politicians lie, cheat and steal, you would at least pretend to be a little cynical, like the rest of us.
Like all politicians, if Obama gets in he wants to stay in, so tax increases are not in the political cards.
I believe you are wrong here. He has promised a LOT of things to a LOT of people, and if he gets elected, and they get screwed, he gonna have some ‘splainin to do! Besides when the Bush tax cuts expire can you honestly say that Obama will go in front of the people and say sorry? I think not, he will blame it on Congress and people will buy that explaination.
I mean Christ this guy has more teflon on him than John Gotti and Jim Doyle combined!
On a side note Keith what exactly do you consider “middle class”? is it..
1. 30K year?
2 50K/year
3. 75K/ year
4 100K?
There is NOT one Politican anywhere that will ever answer this question, but it would be nice if someone, anyone would PLEASE!
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on October 27, 2008 at 1936 hrs
It’s not to exceed an annual income of $201.241.58.
Just for the record, Obama pegs the tax cuts up to $250,000 will be allowed to expire.
We all have to pick a president on some basis but some of you want to put Obama under a much more demanding microscope than the other guy. Its so obvious.
Some of you picked in 2000 and 2004 and left us with this horrible mess. An unregulated financial market and a defalting middle class is bringing us to the brink.
All politicians lie is a crap argument and a dumbassed way to deflect the issue. You are obviously voting for someone, and without a doubt it is someone who is going to let this nonsense continue because all we hear from you are attacks on Obama.
Better find some way to deal with your anger after November 4th.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 2004 hrs
Obama’s actual tax plan (if you care to read it) proposes an income tax increase on the top two tax brackets, which goes down to around $150k.
He’s lying about the $250k number, Keith. Sorry to break it to you.
Posted by Owen on October 27, 2008 at 2007 hrs
By the way. Where do you think the middle class ends?
Amuse me.
Glad you went to the Obama site. You will be getting seven calls from Obama volunteers.
BTW Owen, where’d you get that from? Here—http://taxcut.barackobama.com/—plug in and play.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 2020 hrs
All politicians lie is a crap argument and a dumbassed way to deflect the issue. You are obviously voting for someone, and without a doubt it is someone who is going to let this nonsense continue because all we hear from you are attacks on Obama
.
Christ Keith you’d think I’d just insulted your mother….
So what you are telling me is that Obama is as pure and white as the driven snow? And that he has never had to lie cheat or make promises, that he couldn’t/wouldn’t keep. (A promise to fulfill his entire Senate term and not run for POTUS comes to mind).
My point is all politicans stretch and bend the truth to fulfill the specific agenda, they are pushing at the time.
Better find some way to deal with your anger after November 4th.
November 5th will be a great day for me. I can quit working FOREVAH,
Because the Lord Messiah Obama will support me and whichever crack whore I decide to knock up! And her 10 kids too!!!
And then I will take solace in knowing that we can try again on January 21st, when the race for 2012 begins…. and then celebrate the Departure of Jim Doyle! I hear he is in line for Transportation Secretary!!! PFFFFFTTTTT!!
See!!!! I can look on the bright side cuz I am a glass half full kinda guy, but you on the other hand will always be a pissed of Liberal who has NO idea what happiness is like!
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on October 27, 2008 at 2033 hrs
Keith, I got it off of Obama’s website:
“Ordinary Income: The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990’s levels of 36% and 39.6%.”
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Factsheet_Tax_Plan_FINAL.pdf
Is that authoritative enough for you?
You’ve been lied to.
Posted by Owen on October 27, 2008 at 2039 hrs
Keith:
Lets see this year I am on track to make 100k, I have no kids, no college expenses, and no mortgage.
And my tax cut is…...
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on October 27, 2008 at 2042 hrs
EXACTLY ZERO!!!
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on October 27, 2008 at 2042 hrs
You’ve been lied to.
No he hasn’t Owen…...
All politicians lie is a crap argument and a dumbassed way to deflect the issue.
See? He said it himself….
He also said Obama is as pure as the white snow!
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on October 27, 2008 at 2047 hrs
It doesn’t matter where I think the “middle class” ends and begins. I’m not the one deciding who gets to keep there money, who gets robbed, and who gets the hand-out. Or is this another decision above his pay grade?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 2055 hrs
“there” should be “their” - ugh….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 2055 hrs
No Michael. It works out to $1,000 savings.
And nobody said Obama is pure except for those o hallucinogens. As usual that resides in your imagination and inn that anger you like to work up imagining what we think.
I love it when discussing with you folks. When you get nailed you revert to the “all politicians are corrupt” as if to justify your own choices, and to imagine all government is bad.
Government, by the way, is having to come in once again to save the ass of capitalism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 2105 hrs
Keith? You there? I showed that your candidate lied to you based on his own website. Care to comment?
Posted by Owen on October 27, 2008 at 2113 hrs
He’s too busy telling us that government is saving capitalism’s ass, while ignoring that government gave capitalism a swift kick in the groin in the first place by forcing lenders to provide mortgages to people who couldn’t afford them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 2115 hrs
As usual Tony, you are way off on that one—http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/business/26gret.html?scp=9&sq;=&st;=nyt In ca.se you were sleeping, Ayn Rand fan Alan Greenspan admitted that the lack of regulation led to this crisis.
As usual and the norm for the right wing, the blame is being leveled on people who want to help minorities, when the fact was that the Clinton administration as in most things they did properly managed the Community Reinvestment Act. It was after 2002 when things went to hell. Bush in his state of the union speech called for opening these loans up to more people.
After all, his wonderful economy was built on the housing bubble. And this is how you thank minorities and the poor for propping up the Bush administration to make the fantasies look like they are working.
As for your repeated assertions Owen, I’d go with the tax calculator and the fact that no one has denied that the higher Obama tax cuts would not include everyone under $250,000. Pretty much every word of the McCain ads, except for the line “I’m John McCain and I approve this message” have been lies, so it is understandable you would expect that from everyone.
And JJ. You screamed the question about who is middle class so it is pretty disingenuous to act like you don’t care.. Apparently you have some ideas on this. Let’s hear ‘em.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 2147 hrs
Keith,
Screw you’re dang calculator. READ OBAMA’S PLAN. I even linked to it for your convenience.
Seriously, grow up.
Posted by Owen on October 27, 2008 at 2153 hrs
Get a clue, Keith. ObamACORN and the Dems leveraged the CRA into an increasing pressure play on banks, Fannie, and Freddie to start this whole mess.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 2209 hrs
Government, by the way, is having to come in once again to save the ass of capitalism.
Please… Government stacked the deck, capitalism played the hand, and this is what we have.
Government started this situation. You’re demented if you think otherwise.
An economy doesn’t get any where unless you have a strong middle class.
An economy doesn’t get anywhere unless you have a strong WORKING middle class. An attempt to grow the middle class by income redistribution isn’t going to grow the economy at all.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 2215 hrs
Owen, love to help you out man but your statement in #32 is no where to be found off of the link. Think I’ll go with the tax calculator and what everyone else says about the plan.
xxpilot, you don’t get a strong working middle class with trickle down. We have learned that over the past 30 years. How many more years should we try that out until we go totally bust? This time why don’t you come up with a number for that one?
Business bought government over the past 30 years. Business stacked the deck in government, and now we in the middle class have to pay the price because of your Randian heros. Heard of K Street? Yes, many Democrats were at fault here too.
What we demand, and will get, will be regulation with teeth and investment in the American people. The economy will be hammered to work for us, not the other way around. It will be capitalism at its finest, not the perversion you worship.
I don’t know which sprawlburbia you live in xxpilot, but if it wasn’t for the government under Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon your family would still be living on 33rd and north.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 27, 2008 at 2225 hrs
Keith,
Page 5 on the link. You are acting like an idiot. Grow up and admit that Obama wants to raise income taxes on the top two income brackets - which includes those making far less than $250k. To do anything else is pure dishonesty and I would hope that you have more respect for yourself.
Posted by Owen on October 27, 2008 at 2228 hrs
I would remind you that everyone reading this can follow the link and read for themselves. I would further remind you that Obama’s actual published plan means a helluva lot more than some BS calculator that someone published. That is, if you are actually interested in Obama’s real plan.
Posted by Owen on October 27, 2008 at 2235 hrs
Owen says:
...Obama wants to raise income taxes on the top two income brackets…
which would be correct if you only read the first statement from page 5 of the linked plan:
The top two income tax brackets would return to their 1990’s levels of 36% and 39.6%.
However, two sentences later, the plan notes:
Obama would work with the Treasury Department to adjust the thresholds of these rates slightly to ensure that no married couple making less than $250,000 (or single making less than $200,000) was affected by these changes.
Such adjustments are noted elsewhere in the plan as well.
So Owen, unless you are alluding solely to singles from 200-250K, which Obama has never denied, but does not always include as a caveat either, I think you may be wrong on this one. Or am I missing something.
spice
Posted by jimspice on October 28, 2008 at 0024 hrs
Sorry Keith - I’m on the Eastern time zone so didn’t get your continued screeching until this morning. However, all I did was ask the question. Since Obama has made the term “middle class” an issue (“McCain didn’t even say the words middle class” yada yada) - it seems that it is up to you guys to define it.
There have been lots of polls out that show that everyone identifies themselves as middle class - whether they are making $30K or $250K. So it makes it very easy for the campaign to play off this with the platitude of “helping” the
“middle class”.I’m a bit more cynical than that and want some clarification. Especially since Obama so easily shifts his positions to tell people what they want to here, and there is already an obvious conflict between the 95% and $250K comment. Let us all not forget that the saintly Bill Clinton campaigned on the same dreck and raised taxes on damned near everybody right after he took office, changed the CRA to make it easier for the sub-primes to start, and created the tech bubble. How conveniently we forget…
So heres your chance hot rod. Show us how smart you are. Tell us what income ranges the Democrats think the “middle class” is - define the next group of people you want to enslave in perpetuity to government entitlements.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 0602 hrs
Let us also not forget the same Bubba Clinton stating right after the collapse that the Dems made a mistake in not letting the Rep’s reign in Fannie and Freddie with more regulations
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 0633 hrs
No Michael. It works out to $1,000 savings.
Keith I like to think that I am smart enough to plug the numbers into the calculator, that YOU provided. My result was a big goose egg.you weren’t using that fuzzy liberal math again were you?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 0701 hrs
I can help it if you can’t work the thing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 1030 hrs
Are you married, Michael? If not you won’t get a tax cut. Neither would you get a tax cut under McCain.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 1035 hrs
No Steve-O I am not married, I do not own a home, and I do not have college expenses, I could have sworn I answered these questions last night.
And for the record I am also just into the 100k bracket. and file as a single.
Plug it all in and I get goose egged either way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 1119 hrs
The point is McCain has totally lied about the Obama tax program, whipping up his crowds by telling them he will raise their taxes, when in fact for most of them the Obama will give them a better tax break than McCain’s.
McCain had abandoned this lie until recently when he switched over to the Socialist attack. Now he is back on the lie about raising the taxes of everyone who is in this crowd—a total lie unless of course this crowd is made up of people earning over $250,000 a year.
If they are not, they are fools.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 1719 hrs
Keith -
You need to keep up to date dude. The latest Obama ad has the Messiah himself stating (and its in words at the bottom too) that “Families making more than $200K” would now get hit. Biden the Gaffe Machine told people at a rally that now its those making more than $150K. How low can we go?
I guess I’m getting my clarification huh?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 28, 2008 at 1728 hrs
I’ll just note, again, that Owen is peddling BS with this post. Obama specifically said in this radio appearance that the courts should NOT be involved in redistributing anything.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on October 29, 2008 at 0710 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 115
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 11:29 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).