another obama lie - tax breaks for 95%

“only 40% pay taxes”

“not one libbie can intelligently defend this MAJOR lie by Obama, as evidenced by their silence, and complete stupidity.”

“Never mind -found it
last edited: 10/29/08 11:25:53 AM”

“First Sarge, you keep spouting your number like some sort of broken record. I think it's up to you to provide the proof that only 40 percent pay taxes. Anyone earning a paycheck pays wage taxes. Then there are federal income taxes. So which taxes are you talking about?

Let's assume income taxes. The Tax Foundation sayz:

During 2006, Tax Foundation economists estimate that roughly 43.4 million tax returns, representing 91 million individuals, will face a zero or negative tax liability. That's out of a total of 136 million federal tax returns that will be filed. Adding to this figure the 15 million households and individuals who file no tax return at all, roughly 121 million Americans�or 41 percent of the U.S. population�will be completely outside the federal income tax system in 2006.1 This total includes those who pay no tax, and those who pay some tax upfront and are later refunded the full amount of the tax paid or more.

That means 60% pay taxes, Sarge, according to these numbers. Of the 40% that don't pay taxes, some paid in advance and don't owe the gov, ideally, you want to break even come tax cycle so the govt. isn't holding on to money all year that you could have used for your own investments.

So, once again, I don't know what you are talking about.
last edited: 10/29/08 11:31:35 AM”

“LOL - You're kidding, right?

Yes, I switched the numbers, but the point is 100% the same.

Obama lied! His proposal is

I'M

POSS

I


BLE”

“A little frantic, are we?”

“40, 60...okay so how do you get 95% out of the Socialist statement....regardless of 40 or 60 isn't 95 a larger percentage...maybe violin knows since I am certain he has studied numbers his whole life...(LOL)”

“Just a 'little' frantic, because the gov'll give nontaxpayers a free deck and a fish sculpture?”

“Redistribution flashback: 1996
posted October 28, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Barack Obama opened a can of worms with Joe the Plumber and his remarks on government “spreading the wealth”. Over the weekend, an NPR interview from 2001 surfaced in which Obama noted that the failure to achieve redistributive change through the civil-rights movement was “one of [its] tragedies”. Today, a reader sends me this recap from a spring 1996 meeting of the Chicago chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, which has a 34-year-old Obama talking redistribution at the beginning of his political career (emphases mine):

Barack Obama observed that Martin Luther King’s March on Washington in the 1960s wasn’t simply about civil rights but demanded jobs as well. Now the issue is again coming to the front, but he wished the issue was on the Democratic agenda not just on [Pat] Buchanan’s.

One of the themes that has emerged in Barack Obama’s campaign is “what does it take to create productive communities”, not just consumptive communities. It is an issue that joins some of the best instincts of the conservatives with the better instincts of the left. He felt the state government has three constructive roles to play.

The first is “human capital development”. By this he meant public education, welfare reform, and a “workforce preparation strategy”. Public education requires equality in funding. It’s not that money is the only solution to public education’s problems but it’s a start toward a solution. The current proposals for welfare reform are intended to eliminate welfare but it’s also true that the status quo is not tenable. A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training. While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the “social wage” approach used by many social democratic labor parties. By “workforce preparation strategy”, Barack Obama simply meant a coordinated, purposeful program of job training instead of the ad hoc, fragmented approach used by the State of Illinois today.

The state government can also play a role in redistribution, the allocation of wages and jobs. As Barack Obama noted, when someone gets paid $10 million to eliminate 4,000 jobs, the voters in his district know this is an issue of power not economics. The government can use as tools labor law reform, public works and contracts.

Obama won the endorsement of the CDSA in 1996, and from this report, it’s not difficult to see why. As I wrote earlier, Obama offered them the flabby European model of Christian-Democrat socialism lite, and they leapt to support it. The CDSA amusingly notes that Obama ran unopposed in this race because “[h]is opponents have all dropped out or were ruled off the ballot.” They never mention that Obama’s own campaign forced them off the ballot, an action of which the socialists undoubtedly approved.

Obama, version 1996 and 2001, had no problem talking about government action to effect redistribution of wealth in communities. He showed a tendency to see economics as a power display rather than as a legitimate maximization of capital and profit. Look at Obama’s analysis of a cutback; according to Obama, the only reason companies lay people off is to demonstrate power, not to make more efficient use of funds (or to pay ever-more exorbitant tax costs). That sounds as though it comes from an outlook more couched in Karl Marx rather than Milton Friedman. And the Socialists in Chicago ate it up.

What else did the CDSA panel that day suggest? Another speaker, UC professor Julius Wilson, demanded a new WPA program to employ millions, which echoes Joe Biden’s repeated suggestions this election cycle. Jobs would be available to all Americans, “even Donald Trump, if he chose to do some useful work for a change”. Wilson never quite gets around to discussing who would pay for a program that employed all Americans, but it’s clear that he’s very, very comfortable with the socialists.

As was Obama.”

“At a rate of 91%

even the 'Donald' will need to have a tent.”

“Tough times: Congress grew 13 percent richer in 2007


Net worth in Congress

WASHINGTON — Times are tough, but don't worry about most members of Congress making ends meet.

Their collective wealth grew by 13 percent last year, leaving them in better shape than most Americans to make it through an economic downturn, according to a new analysis of personal financial reports.

Overall, nearly two of every three senators are millionaires. That includes presidential candidates Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. In the House, 39 percent of all members belong to the exclusive club.

Only 1 percent of all Americans are considered millionaires.

"With a median net worth of $746,000, most members of Congress have a comfortable financial cushion to ride out any recession," said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which conducted the study.

In the House of Representatives, Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., ranks No. 1, with $397 million, followed by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., with $343 million. Rep Robin Hayes, R-N.C., ranks third, with $173.4 million. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., ranks sixth, with $62 million.

In the Senate, the two Democrats from Massachusetts claimed two of the top three spots.

Sen. John Kerry led the pack, with $336 million, while Sen. Edward M. Kennedy ranked third, with $104 million. Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wis., ranked second, with $241.5 million. Overall, senators had a median net worth estimated at $1.7 million.

The 535 members of Congress, who earn average annual salaries of $169,000 and receive cost-of-living pay increases, had a total net worth of $3.7 billion last year. Although some are likely to take a hit from Wall Street's woes, their average net worth soared by 61 percent from 2004 to 2007.

However, not all members are wealthy and some appear to be bankrupt. The study found that 16 House members and three senators had an average net worth of less than zero.

Obama ranked as one of the biggest financial winners, with his net worth increasing from $800,000 in 2006 to $4.7 million last year, thanks mainly to royalties from his two best-selling books. McCain had a net worth estimated at $28.5 million, with most of the wealth attributed to his wife Cindy's family fortune.

Authors of the study said it's impossible to give a precise net worth for members of Congress because their individual assets and liabilities are disclosed in broad ranges. To conduct the study, the Center for Responsive Politics determined a member's minimum net worth and maximum net worth and then calculated an average, which was used to rank the members.

Because the law does not require them to do so, members of Congress don't disclose the value of their homes unless they produce income. As a result, a member's true net worth is likely to be much higher than what gets reported.

"Members of Congress don't make it easy for the public to keep tabs on their personal holdings and any conflicts of interest those holdings present," said Dan Auble, who manages the center's database of lawmakers' financial information.

Who's the wealthiest of them all?

A new study suggests that members of Congress are in much better shape than most Americans to make it through an economic slowdown.

Here's a list of the members who had the highest average net worth last year:

Senate

1 John Kerry (D-Mass.)........$336,224,883

2 Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)........$241,545,513

3 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.)........$103,560,020

4 Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)........$93,715,011

5 Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.)........$89,509,099

6 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)........$84,171,162

7 Gordon Smith (R-Ore.)........$46,127,014

8 Olympia Snowe (R-Maine)........$33,308,537

9 Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.)........$32,428,089

10 Elizabeth Dole (R-N.C.)........$31,421,472

House of Representatives

1 Jane Harman (D-Calif.)........$397,412,077

2 Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)........$343,457,521

3 Robin Hayes (R-N.C.)........$173,409,173

4 Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.)........$165,748,714

5 Michael McCaul (R-Texas)........$64,073,077

6 Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.)........$62,468,047

7 Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.)........$50,297,547

8 Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-N.J.)........$47,350,092

9 Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.)........$43,716,445

10 Gary Miller (R-Calif.)........$39,978,021

Source: Center for Responsive Politics”

“Creepin'

Gloomy Republicans are happy to get whatever slice of good news they can, and once again Joe Biden is the bearer of gifts.

"It should go to middle-class people," Biden said yesterday in Pennsylvania of Obama's tax cut plan. "People making under $150,000 a year."

Oops.

Obama has repeatedly said it would be those making under $250,000 who would get relief.

Perhaps just a verbal slip-up, but it plays into the GOP claim that the Democrat's tax hike will inevitably "creep down."

McCain, speaking in Hershey, PA, today, jumped on Biden's statement, according to Lisa Lerer.

"Senator Obama has made a lot of promises," McCain said. "First he said people making less than $250,000 would benefit from his plan, then this weekend he announced in an ad that if you're a family making less than $200,000, you'll benefit — but yesterday, right here in Pennsylvania, Sen. Biden said tax relief should only go to "middle-class people — people making under $150,000 a year." You getting an idea of what’s on their mind. A little sneak peek. It's interesting how their definition of rich has a way of creeping down.

UPDATE: Obama's campaign responds, sort of, to McCain's attack, reiterating that their plan is to cut taxes for those making under $250K and ignoring Biden's reference to $150K.

Sayeth Tommy Vietor:

"As Obama and Biden have always said, under their plan no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase one cent. And if your family makes less than $200,000 — as 95 percent of workers and their families do — you’ll get a tax cut."”

“I've read that they won't renew the tax cuts, which will involve an increase in taxes to what those folks are paying, but they're not mentionig that tidbit.”

“Barack Obama is the Milli Vanilli of politics”

“Looks like another lie that Obama got caught in.”

“Any one American paying more taxes than another American is unAmerican.”

“What says the debt clock cowgirls?”

“it says "time to stop the handouts -- ding dong"”

“http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22444.html

"If you make big bucks � or enjoy alcohol, cigarettes and Coke � the government might hit you up to pay for fixing the nation�s health care system." ”

“along with taxing you for employer provided medical benefits. exactly what mccain was running on and obama was denouncing during the campaigns. this will hit many more than th top 5% of the income bracket.”

“All democrats lie.”

“Lies? � I wouldn't think any Republican with half a brain would want to open that can of worms.

You guys are still looking for those WMD like OJ looking for the 'real' killer. � Obama may be a sellout, but I don't think there's anything he can do to top your party invading the wrong country.

Every bit of your sanitised 'collateral damage' was predicated on your lies.”

“All republicans lie, cause like democrats, they represent money not people.”

“well, if they start taxing my medical benies it will definitely be change.”

“The republican leader, Sean Hannity still has not been waterboarded.”

“because he's a whimp.”

“Oh, there are always a few, Clifford. For example in the news today Dan Boren (spawn of Sen. David?), David Vitter and Mary Landrieu want to protect oil companies' special tax breaks. � Surprise --- they're from oil producing states. � Rick Boucher wants to loosen restraints on carbon emissions in the climate change bill. � Surprise --- he represents a coal-producing region of southwest Virginia.

What I couldn't figure some years ago..... � Why was Bob Dole involved in a custom Estate Tax bill for the Gallo wine family? � His shills say, "Oh, he was on the Agriculture Committee and the Gallos grow grapes"! � ROF

It couldn't have had anything to do with that $3 million the Gallos spread around DC could it?”

“'well, if they start taxing my medical benies it will definitely be change.' baume

The right wants everyone to buy their own insurance, but don't include gift insurance as income.

Tilt, you know the ones that represent money not people, their still in office.
last edited: 5/13/09 7:33:18 AM”

“And the everyday people who oppose campaign finance reform are screwing themselves as well as everyone else.

Who was the point man for that? � The head Gov't Nicotine Salesman Mitch McConnell. � Big surprise there, too.”

“Tilty just does not understand WE DID HAVE CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM...McCain Feingold? Ever hear of it? It essentially controlled free speech but made lucritive loopholes for all the politicians to set up new programs.

Tilty, I know living in the basement of Mom's house with a 10PM curfew makes it hard to really understand freedom...but trust me you don't WANT the government telling you what "Fair" or "Equal" is.”

“LOL @ poor little t*lty”

“�All democrats die.�
Stovie
6:48:58 AM
5/13/09”

“WK...Got bad news for you...All people die...

You do know that Death is a Sexually Transmitted Disease?”

“link needed, WK.”

“WK...Got bad news for you...All people die...

You do know that Death is a Sexually Transmitted Disease?�
theXL400
8:53:02 AM
5/13/09

YEs...but it is better when silly libbies bite the bullet

Stovie is so silly”

“but trust me you don't WANT the government telling you what "Fair" or "Equal" is.” XL
That should be done by tobacco and oil companies . Oh, and the military should help also.
last edited: 5/13/09 9:17:57 AM”

“What? � No canned 'First Amendment' response about how cash really does equal speech? � Perhaps even They don't buy that bull#&%!$ anymore.

If you don't support breaking that feedback loop you can STFU about crooks in elective office. � You're working for them.”

“Madame Speaker, Have You No Decency?”

“Stovie's been peeking at Nancy.”

“Cash equals speech?


Yeah I guess you can go to the media and get an advertisement for whatever and not have to pay....Wait...its your MOM's credit card isn't it? Okay well YOUR MOM pays but I guess that doesn't count.

Tilty if Cash (which people earn making it a "private property" issue) does not equate to speech, how come Dead Air America died when it RAN OUT OF MONEY????”

“Air America Radio is so anti business it can't get ad funding. Isn't that proof of what were are talking about blabber mouth. You are the best at proving the exact opposite of whatever you are saying.”

“silly troll”

“Poor Un...reality smacks him in the face and he stands there with a deer in the headlight look.
Are you agreeing that since they could NOT GET MONEY they could not Produce their programs (i.e. get their ideas on the air)?
So their ability at "free speech" was impeded by their lack of money?

Meaning MONEY can be compared to free speech. Since not having the money would have been no different than having the money and being told,"You cannot spend the money on that show or advertisement."??????

OH CRAP Unclump takes one in the face....”