How low can "Middle" go?

[Guest 2smart4u]

Obama started out by saying no one making under $250,000 would get a tax increase. Then Joe Gaffe said no one making under $150,000 would get a tax increase. Now today, Sen. Richardson, a big Obamaniac, stated no one making under $120,000 would get a tax increase. Aside from this rediculous numbers game, a larger question is raised. That question is Obama's credibility with anything he's promised. Example: Obama has stated 95% of the population would not see a tax increase. He has also said he has plans for almost a trillion dollars of new government entitlement spending planned. Does any clear thinking American think this is possible without massive tax increases for everyone??

Only the far left Kool-Aiders would continue to support this Marxist that I believe has a secret agenda to bring this country down through a depression, brought on by uncontrolled government entitlement programs. Are you listening, Paul?

[Guest Guest]

Obama started out by saying no one making under $250,000 would get a tax increase. Then Joe Gaffe said no one making under $150,000 would get a tax increase. Now today, Sen. Richardson, a big Obamaniac, stated no one making under $120,000 would get a tax increase. Aside from this rediculous numbers game, a larger question is raised. That question is Obama's credibility with anything he's promised. Example: Obama has stated 95% of the population would not see a tax increase. He has also said he has plans for almost a trillion dollars of new government entitlement spending planned. Does any clear thinking American think this is possible without massive tax increases for everyone??

Only the far left Kool-Aiders would continue to support this Marxist that I believe has a secret agenda to bring this country down through a depression, brought on by uncontrolled government entitlement programs. Are you listening, Paul?

How low? Probably down to 42K , the number Obama voted to raise taxes on.

[Guest Desperation GOP]

Obama started out by saying no one making under $250,000 would get a tax increase. Then Joe Gaffe said no one making under $150,000 would get a tax increase. Now today, Sen. Richardson, a big Obamaniac, stated no one making under $120,000 would get a tax increase. Aside from this rediculous numbers game, a larger question is raised. That question is Obama's credibility with anything he's promised. Example: Obama has stated 95% of the population would not see a tax increase. He has also said he has plans for almost a trillion dollars of new government entitlement spending planned. Does any clear thinking American think this is possible without massive tax increases for everyone??

Only the far left Kool-Aiders would continue to support this Marxist that I believe has a secret agenda to bring this country down through a depression, brought on by uncontrolled government entitlement programs. Are you listening, Paul?

Yawn. Make no mistake about it, this recession is the GOP's baby. repubs caused the great depression in '33 and prove once again they cannot run an economy. Given a surplus they have turned it into trillion dollar deficit. Pure desperation time, he's a marxist, I mean socialist, I mean anti-American, I mean too inexperienced, I mean .... blah, blah blah. You and your party have zero credibility. Time for caribou barbie to get in the return line at Sachs to return the clothes and John boy to start making the Viagra ads. Stop the BS and start rebuilding your party, the bush cheney rove mccain fear and smear tactics are through.

[Guest Paul]

Obama started out by saying no one making under $250,000 would get a tax increase. Then Joe Gaffe said no one making under $150,000 would get a tax increase. Now today, Sen. Richardson, a big Obamaniac, stated no one making under $120,000 would get a tax increase. Aside from this rediculous numbers game, a larger question is raised. That question is Obama's credibility with anything he's promised. Example: Obama has stated 95% of the population would not see a tax increase. He has also said he has plans for almost a trillion dollars of new government entitlement spending planned. Does any clear thinking American think this is possible without massive tax increases for everyone??

Only the far left Kool-Aiders would continue to support this Marxist that I believe has a secret agenda to bring this country down through a depression, brought on by uncontrolled government entitlement programs. Are you listening, Paul?

I'm listening. I'm also thinking and reasoning. You're not.

As usual, you and Fox are making stuff up. In the first place, Bill Richardson isn't going to be making Obama's tax policies. In the second place, all Richardson said was that he thinks people making under $120,000 are middle class, and that they will get a tax cut. Fox Noise pulled twelve seconds of audio out of a longer statement and completely distorted its meaning.

That doesn't change Obama's tax plan one bit. Fox lies all the time, and ditto-heads like you buy it. And then you cast your vote based on things that just aren't true. Here's a link to the entire interview. http://www.850koa.com/cc-common/mainheadli...article=4508532

All Biden and Richardson were doing was providing an example. The Tax Policy Center has calculated how much people will save in taxes under the Obama plan. Here are the numbers, you know --- the truth: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...28/1600845.aspx

And of course you don't seem to care that McCain supports the policies that have caused the problems we have now. Here's the truth on tax cuts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SCrbSXwdWk&NR=1

I truly wish you were listening. I truly wish you understood the desperate need for federally-funded R&D for alternative energy sources. We're sending $700 billion a year overseas to fund our oil consumption, and it doesn't even seem to bother you. Just keep Republicans in power and Limbaugh on the radio calling names of everyone you don't understand, and you're happy. That's why I asked you whether you actually care about our country: it doesn't look like it.

Republicans used to care about the federal budget deficit and the national debt. What happened to that? Since Reagan took office, the Republicans have become the party of fiscal irresponsibility. Just look at this chart: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

I'm sick over what's going on. I'm watching this country turn into an unthinking mob. This is exactly what happens when a nation enjoys a long period of dominance - usually its people start to think they're entitled to it, and that nation declines. That's the choice we face. If we, as a nation, don't stop making stuff up and basing our policies on fantasies and pretending we don't need major policy changes to invest in our future, this country is going to decline as a great power. That's not gloom and doom, because I'm saying it doesn't have to happen. But it will happen if you guys have your way. You've been leading down a very sorry road, which is why it's time to throw your guys out.

[Manscape]

Obama started out by saying no one making under $250,000 would get a tax increase. Then Joe Gaffe said no one making under $150,000 would get a tax increase. Now today, Sen. Richardson, a big Obamaniac, stated no one making under $120,000 would get a tax increase. Aside from this rediculous numbers game, a larger question is raised. That question is Obama's credibility with anything he's promised. Example: Obama has stated 95% of the population would not see a tax increase. He has also said he has plans for almost a trillion dollars of new government entitlement spending planned. Does any clear thinking American think this is possible without massive tax increases for everyone??

Only the far left Kool-Aiders would continue to support this Marxist that I believe has a secret agenda to bring this country down through a depression, brought on by uncontrolled government entitlement programs. Are you listening, Paul?

Tooby, how's it feel to be a Bush/McCain deadender?

[WilliamK]

Obama started out by saying no one making under $250,000 would get a tax increase. Then Joe Gaffe said no one making under $150,000 would get a tax increase. Now today, Sen. Richardson, a big Obamaniac, stated no one making under $120,000 would get a tax increase. Aside from this rediculous numbers game, a larger question is raised. That question is Obama's credibility with anything he's promised.

A clue for the obviously clueless:

Families making under 250K will see no increase. Families under 200K will see a decrease. Those in between will remain about the same.

Individuals making under 200K will see no increase. Individuals making under 150K will see a decrease. Those in between will remain about the same.

In all cases, the cut-off points can vary somewhat because of variables like child care expenses, the size of one's mortgage, etc. Obama has an online calculator that can give you some feel for that: http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

Besides those distinctions, different numbers also come from comparing Obama's and McCain's tax plans to each other, vs. comparing them to current rates. For example, a family making $70K with one child and a 100K mortgage balance under McCain's plan will pay more compared to Obama's plan, but less compared to current rates.

As to Richardson's comments, he defines "middle class" as being below 120K and said that people in that group would see lower taxes under Obama's plan, which they will. He did not say that 120K was a cut-off point. Also worth noting is that Bill Richardson is not the architect of Obama's tax plan.

Any thinking person can see that there is no conflict between any of those statements. But there appears to be a widespread inability, especially among Republicans, to comprehend the difference between the concepts "no increase" and "decrease", "individual" and "family", "compared to now" and "compared to McCain's plan", and "Bill Richardson" and "Barack Obama". Palin, Libaugh, the RNC, etc. are milking this incomprehension for all it's worth. Say "moo", 2Smart.

[Guest Guest]

A clue for the obviously clueless:

Families making under 250K will see no increase. Families under 200K will see a decrease. Those in between will remain about the same.

Individuals making under 200K will see no increase. Individuals making under 150K will see a decrease. Those in between will remain about the same.

In all cases, the cut-off points can vary somewhat because of variables like child care expenses, the size of one's mortgage, etc. Obama has an online calculator that can give you some feel for that: http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

Besides those distinctions, different numbers also come from comparing Obama's and McCain's tax plans to each other, vs. comparing them to current rates. For example, a family making $70K with one child and a 100K mortgage balance under McCain's plan will pay more compared to Obama's plan, but less compared to current rates.

As to Richardson's comments, he defines "middle class" as being below 120K and said that people in that group would see lower taxes under Obama's plan, which they will. He did not say that 120K was a cut-off point. Also worth noting is that Bill Richardson is not the architect of Obama's tax plan.

Any thinking person can see that there is no conflict between any of those statements. But there appears to be a widespread inability, especially among Republicans, to comprehend the difference between the concepts "no increase" and "decrease", "individual" and "family", "compared to now" and "compared to McCain's plan", and "Bill Richardson" and "Barack Obama". Palin, Libaugh, the RNC, etc. are milking this incomprehension for all it's worth. Say "moo", 2Smart.

Oh so they have a calculator. That makes me feel better.

[Guest Lincoln Logger]

I'm listening. I'm also thinking and reasoning. You're not.

As usual, you and Fox are making stuff up. In the first place, Bill Richardson isn't going to be making Obama's tax policies. In the second place, all Richardson said was that he thinks people making under $120,000 are middle class, and that they will get a tax cut. Fox Noise pulled twelve seconds of audio out of a longer statement and completely distorted its meaning.

That doesn't change Obama's tax plan one bit. Fox lies all the time, and ditto-heads like you buy it. And then you cast your vote based on things that just aren't true. Here's a link to the entire interview. http://www.850koa.com/cc-common/mainheadli...article=4508532

All Biden and Richardson were doing was providing an example. The Tax Policy Center has calculated how much people will save in taxes under the Obama plan. Here are the numbers, you know --- the truth: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/200...28/1600845.aspx

And of course you don't seem to care that McCain supports the policies that have caused the problems we have now. Here's the truth on tax cuts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SCrbSXwdWk&NR=1

I truly wish you were listening. I truly wish you understood the desperate need for federally-funded R&D for alternative energy sources. We're sending $700 billion a year overseas to fund our oil consumption, and it doesn't even seem to bother you. Just keep Republicans in power and Limbaugh on the radio calling names of everyone you don't understand, and you're happy. That's why I asked you whether you actually care about our country: it doesn't look like it.

Republicans used to care about the federal budget deficit and the national debt. What happened to that? Since Reagan took office, the Republicans have become the party of fiscal irresponsibility. Just look at this chart: http://www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

I'm sick over what's going on. I'm watching this country turn into an unthinking mob. This is exactly what happens when a nation enjoys a long period of dominance - usually its people start to think they're entitled to it, and that nation declines. That's the choice we face. If we, as a nation, don't stop making stuff up and basing our policies on fantasies and pretending we don't need major policy changes to invest in our future, this country is going to decline as a great power. That's not gloom and doom, because I'm saying it doesn't have to happen. But it will happen if you guys have your way. You've been leading down a very sorry road, which is why it's time to throw your guys out.

So what does that say about this individual who has to go to youtube to get his information instead of the nightly news. I feel so much safer that Paul is the only one thinking and listening. The country is so much safer. Oh and by the way he pointed out that every one else is not listening. So keep reading cause the posts are all about Paul, and nothing but Paul And he is unhappy, which makes me now happy. This comes from the same person who when it was his son on the line said stand up for what you believe in and finally when people are standing up for something that is against what Paul believes it, it must be wrong. Talk about someone who needs to get a life. His discredits are bogus, his facts are unjust and his criticism are just attempts to discredit are unfounded. But that is the person who is backing Obama. And he wonders why people in this country are up in arms now.

[A former Kearny resident]

I honestly don't see any of us getting a tax cut... regardless of who becomes president

[Guest Extinguisher]

Obama started out by saying no one making under $250,000 would get a tax increase. Then Joe Gaffe said no one making under $150,000 would get a tax increase. Now today, Sen. Richardson, a big Obamaniac, stated no one making under $120,000 would get a tax increase. Aside from this rediculous numbers game, a larger question is raised. That question is Obama's credibility with anything he's promised. Example: Obama has stated 95% of the population would not see a tax increase. He has also said he has plans for almost a trillion dollars of new government entitlement spending planned. Does any clear thinking American think this is possible without massive tax increases for everyone??

Only the far left Kool-Aiders would continue to support this Marxist that I believe has a secret agenda to bring this country down through a depression, brought on by uncontrolled government entitlement programs. Are you listening, Paul?

So when democracy doesn't go your way, you accuse the majority of America of being Kool-Aiders? Here's some unsolicited advice -- if you and the Republican party want to know why you will lose huge on Tuesday, take a long look in the mirror. This election is principally about a rejection of Bush-McCain/Republican policies. If Clinton were the nominee, it would also be the same landslide result.

Another piece of unsolicited advice -- if you don't like a progressive tax code where the rich pay more, then move to Latvia where they have a flat tax.

[Guest Paul]

So what does that say about this individual who has to go to youtube to get his information instead of the nightly news. I feel so much safer that Paul is the only one thinking and listening. The country is so much safer. Oh and by the way he pointed out that every one else is not listening. So keep reading cause the posts are all about Paul, and nothing but Paul And he is unhappy, which makes me now happy. This comes from the same person who when it was his son on the line said stand up for what you believe in and finally when people are standing up for something that is against what Paul believes it, it must be wrong. Talk about someone who needs to get a life. His discredits are bogus, his facts are unjust and his criticism are just attempts to discredit are unfounded. But that is the person who is backing Obama. And he wonders why people in this country are up in arms now.

So what do you think about a program for research and development of new energy sources?

[Guest 2smart4u]

So what does that say about this individual who has to go to youtube to get his information instead of the nightly news. I feel so much safer that Paul is the only one thinking and listening. The country is so much safer. Oh and by the way he pointed out that every one else is not listening. So keep reading cause the posts are all about Paul, and nothing but Paul And he is unhappy, which makes me now happy. This comes from the same person who when it was his son on the line said stand up for what you believe in and finally when people are standing up for something that is against what Paul believes it, it must be wrong. Talk about someone who needs to get a life. His discredits are bogus, his facts are unjust and his criticism are just attempts to discredit are unfounded. But that is the person who is backing Obama. And he wonders why people in this country are up in arms now.

Paul is the prototype leftist. His perception of politics is simple; everything on the left is good, everything on the right is bad. He will spin and distort any and all facts to suit his purposes, all the while singing Kumbaya and professing an open mind. I can only imagine the brain-washing Junior endured.

[Guest Guest]

Paul is the prototype leftist. His perception of politics is simple; everything on the left is good, everything on the right is bad. He will spin and distort any and all facts to suit his purposes, all the while singing Kumbaya and professing an open mind. I can only imagine the brain-washing Junior endured.

Do you have a mirror in your house somewhere?

[Guest Lincoln Logger]

So what do you think about a program for research and development of new energy sources?

Both candidates have proposed research for new energy sources and promised future development. It just depends on which speech you listen too but both have made that promise. What has seriously been missing from the US economy for the past 40 years has not been research but manufacturing? It seems the US develops a product and then it goes overseas for manufacturing. Most research is by a few knowledgeable people, but manufacturing is by 100's of people per product. This is where employment builds. But this overseas manufacturing has been a constant problem no matter what party has been in Office. It has never been resolved because it all boils down to the cheapest places to build.

[Bern]

So what do you think about a program for research and development of new energy sources?

I really worry when we can't even focus and get a consensus on something so obviously needed.

Since the 70's we've had one energy crisis after the other and with energy costs its also become turned into an economic crisis. Yet, all we do is talk, talk, talk.

[Guest Guest]

Obama started out by saying no one making under $250,000 would get a tax increase. Then Joe Gaffe said no one making under $150,000 would get a tax increase. Now today, Sen. Richardson, a big Obamaniac, stated no one making under $120,000 would get a tax increase. Aside from this rediculous numbers game, a larger question is raised. That question is Obama's credibility with anything he's promised. Example: Obama has stated 95% of the population would not see a tax increase. He has also said he has plans for almost a trillion dollars of new government entitlement spending planned. Does any clear thinking American think this is possible without massive tax increases for everyone??

Only the far left Kool-Aiders would continue to support this Marxist that I believe has a secret agenda to bring this country down through a depression, brought on by uncontrolled government entitlement programs. Are you listening, Paul?

I'd rather be a f**king communist then to let the GOP remain in power. Acutally, what's the difference? Patriot Act, ileegal wiretapping, torture etc.

[Guest Guest]

Paul is the prototype leftist. His perception of politics is simple; everything on the left is good, everything on the right is bad. He will spin and distort any and all facts to suit his purposes, all the while singing Kumbaya and professing an open mind. I can only imagine the brain-washing Junior endured.

From reading many of Paul's posts, I'd say you were spot on. He is such a narrow minded ideologue, you waste your time by trying to show him where he's wrong.

[wu-su]

This election is principally about a rejection of Bush-McCain/Republican policies. If Clinton were the nominee, it would also be the same landslide result.

Another piece of unsolicited advice -- if you don't like a progressive tax code where the rich pay more, then move to Latvia where they have a flat tax.

I may be mistaken but the Congress legislates, influences policy and makes the laws; therefore the damage marking this country and which is all around us is more the result of the actions or non-actions of a Democrat-controlled Congress rather than the Republican Executive Branch.

Before the term “sour grapes” is used again, a bit of unsolicited advice, perhaps I should remind you of a quote from one of your own, in 1976 Jimmy Carter declared, "Our income tax system is a disgrace to the human race." So what’s wrong with scrapping our confusing, unfair tax code and replacing it with a simple flat tax of one low rate with no deductions or special interest loopholes? Under a flat tax, all income would be taxed only once and at one rate; all deductions and credits would be eliminated, lowering the overall tax rate. The only income not subject to tax would be a generous personal exemption for every American, allowing families to afford to cover their needs before paying the government. This concept should be popular with the American people because it embraces the core belief that all Americans, rich or poor, should be treated equally before the law. See you don’t have to live in Latvia after all to appreciate a flat tax.

I'll leave with this quote from Dick Armey, "If you want the government to get off your back, you've got to get your hands out of its pockets.”

[Guest Guest]

I'd rather be a f**king communist then to let the GOP remain in power. Acutally, what's the difference? Patriot Act, ileegal wiretapping, torture etc.

Well, you're already half way there, you're a f***ing demented idiot now. Hang in there, you'll get your wish.

[Guest Keith]

Well, you're already half way there, you're a f***ing demented idiot now. Hang in there, you'll get your wish.

As much as you hate this situtation, you only have Bush/Cheney to blame. Enjoy.

[Guest Paul]

Both candidates have proposed research for new energy sources and promised future development. It just depends on which speech you listen too but both have made that promise. What has seriously been missing from the US economy for the past 40 years has not been research but manufacturing? It seems the US develops a product and then it goes overseas for manufacturing. Most research is by a few knowledgeable people, but manufacturing is by 100's of people per product. This is where employment builds. But this overseas manufacturing has been a constant problem no matter what party has been in Office. It has never been resolved because it all boils down to the cheapest places to build.

I think the difference was that Obama's vision looked more to the long term than McCain's did. What has been missing from the puzzle, I think, is any major effort by government to get new technologies developed and off the ground. That is why Obama has proposed a $15 billion per year Apollo-like project for energy R&D. When the new technologies are developed, private businesses will pick them up and use them. Maybe there's even a way for us taxpayers to get our outlay back, I don't know. But even if we don't, the savings we will make on reduced outlays for oil and gas will more than offset our expenses. It will be good for business. It will create millions of new jobs. We will free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. And the technologies will be clean. We should have done this long ago, but we didn't so let's start now.

[Bern]

I'd rather be a f**king communist then to let the GOP remain in power. Acutally, what's the difference? Patriot Act, ileegal wiretapping, torture etc.

Don't count on the Patriot act and wiretapping to be stopped. Both parties signed on and approved. Both parties passed the legislation immunizing the large telecoms after they were caught doing illegal wiretapping at the behest of the administration.

I suspect most of this will be kept for use by the Obama administration. Just like we will keep the very inefficient and cumbersome Homeland Security bureaucracy.

We'll see how quickly Obama closes Guantanamo. Will the prisoners then be released, tried or moved to another facility and still be held without real trials?