Published on October 15, 2008 By Island Dog In Politics

The WSJ has a great piece on Obama’s nonsense that 95% of Americans will receive a tax cut.

“One of Barack Obama's most potent campaign claims is that he'll cut taxes for no less than 95% of "working families." He's even promising to cut taxes enough that the government's tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% -- which is lower than it is today.

It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."

Read the full article.


Comments (Page 6)
7 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7 
on Oct 30, 2008



It just goes to the point that even evil men can do something right.  It does not excuse their overall behavior.  Same with Acorn.  They may have started with good intentions, now they are just another criminal organization.  And to associate with them the way Obama has says a lot for his lack of ethics and morals.  And how "4 legs good, 2 legs better" fits Obama's campaign.

hmmm.....i thought somewhere in this board we already established that ACORN is not a criminal organization, & that Obama only had limited association with them. & McCain has also been seen associating with ACORN (see colbertnation.com) plus that pic i had a link to, if you choose to believe it. so i guess that makes McCains ethics questionable too? & besides, the great thing about the US constitution is that it gives us 2 other branches of government 2 keep us (relatively) safe from our presidents. & if that doesnt help, im sure there are plenty of americans who are more than willing to change things by force. its not like there are many ethical politicians anyway

on Oct 30, 2008

we already established that ACORN is not a criminal organization, & that Obama only had limited association with them

limited association? when asked why he feels he is ready for presidency after so little time in the senate he replied with his pre senate experience as a leader in ACORN made him ready. This is a bit more then "limited association" and it comes from his own mouth. He also proclaims that acorn will shape his campaign and promises them large amounts of money if he wins and so on.

Also, who is we? Everyone who actually beleives in evidence instead of rhetoric has so far only shown evidence to ACORN being a criminal organization.

on Oct 31, 2008

taltamir


limited association? when asked why he feels he is ready for presidency after so little time in the senate he replied with his pre senate experience as a leader in ACORN made him ready. This is a bit more then "limited association" and it comes from his own mouth. He also proclaims that acorn will shape his campaign and promises them large amounts of money if he wins and so on.
Also, who is we? Everyone who actually beleives in evidence instead of rhetoric has so far only shown evidence to ACORN being a criminal organization.

you shouldnt ask "who is he?" it makes you sound like a Palin bot, if you want to kno about him check the wiki or listen to some of his rallys, honestly im tired of hearing Palin or anybody else ask "who is he". Because it shows how little attention they pay to Obama and how little research they are willing to do. for god sakes, Obama set up a website & a small organization within his campaign to correct misconceptions, you can hear some of his campaign promises on the radio, you can see them on tv, many of them talk about his history, how his father is from Kenya, his mother is from Kansas etc. now i should have said "relativley" limited association, i had originally edited it out because i thought some close minded fool would twist my words around beyond their obvious & intended meaning. he may have been in a position of power within ACORN, but it wasnt all that high up on the chain and he didnt spend much time with ACORN compared to many of his peers at the time.

on Oct 31, 2008

i thought somewhere in this board we already established that ACORN is not a criminal organization, & that Obama only had limited association with them.

NO we established no such "facts".  Obama "says" he had limited contact, but the truth is he is in deep with them.  So much so that even the non-Obama democrats are cringing at the relationship.  And we only established that McCain addressed Acorn.  Hardly an association.

great thing about the US constitution is that it gives us 2 other branches of government 2 keep us (relatively) safe from our presidents

Yea, like the german one did in 33.  When you have them in your back pocket (Pelosi-Reid in the one, Ginsberg in the other), it is hard to find where the checks and balances will be.  But go on with your pollyanna outlook.  You will just miss the train when it slams into you.

on Oct 31, 2008

check the wiki o

Wiki is not authoratative.  You can start there, but anything listed there has to be verified with an independant, unbiased and untamperable site.

Obama set up a website & a small organization within his campaign to correct misconceptions,

Kind of Like OJ's site that proves his innocence.

but it wasnt all that high up on the chain and he didnt spend much time with ACORN compared to many of his peers at the time.

So that makes him less guilty?  "But your honor, I only stole $1000, so I am not as guilty as those who stole $10,000"!

on Oct 31, 2008




NO we established no such "facts".  Obama "says" he had limited contact, but the truth is he is in deep with them.  So much so that even the non-Obama democrats are cringing at the relationship.  And we only established that McCain addressed Acorn.  Hardly an association.

you must have missed a few posts then, there was this 1 post, i think it was about factchecks.org or something, there was the whole "guilty by association" thing that seems to have been shot down (but if oyu have more to say about it be my guest) & it seems that you didnt read too much into my last post as i said i intended to say "relatively limited association" but didnt becuase some prick might come along & twist things around to his point of view.



Yea, like the german one did in 33.  When you have them in your back pocket (Pelosi-Reid in the one, Ginsberg in the other), it is hard to find where the checks and balances will be.  But go on with your pollyanna outlook.  You will just miss the train when it slams into you.

well the great thing about trains, is that you can step to the side & be safe from them but seriously, thats why i said "relatively" if all 3 branches were to be taken over then it would fall on the duty of the people to restore things.



Wiki is not authoratative.  You can start there, but anything listed there has to be verified with an independant, unbiased and untamperable site.

thats why you check the references at the bottom of the page, usually those arent messed with by everybody & their mom



Kind of Like OJ's site that proves his innocence.

actually not really, you can do the research about their claims very easily, & most of what they strive to correct are obvious misconceptions spawned by palin & McCain (like a previous claim that he was muslim)



So that makes him less guilty?  "But your honor, I only stole $1000, so I am not as guilty as those who stole $10,000"!

thats different, a better example would be a captain of the SS on the front lines, compared to a colonel in charge of a concetration camp, the captain is not responsible for the deaths of 6 million jews & other, hes responsible for fighting to defend his country at all costs

on Oct 31, 2008

factchecks.org is literally in obama's pocket, we are talking about millions of dollars worth of entaglement.

ou shouldnt ask "who is he?" it makes you sound like a Palin bot, if you want to kno about him check the wiki or listen to some of his rallys, honestly im tired of hearing Palin or anybody else ask "who is he".

I haven't asked who is he, I TOLD YOU who is he, based on interviews with HIM that I have watched... you suggest reading from his election website is more authoratative than watching videos of him doing and saying things?

And what the hell does this have to do with palin? if she looked into it then that is good, but I am not getting of my info from her.

It is a typical "attack the messanger because you can't refute the message". 

on Oct 31, 2008

taltamir


factchecks.org is literally in obama's pocket, we are talking about millions of dollars worth of entaglement.

honestly i havent heard about it until this forum so i wouldnt know.

taltamir


I haven't asked who is he, I TOLD YOU who is he, based on interviews with HIM that I have watched... you suggest reading from his election website is more authoratative than watching videos of him doing and saying things?
And what the hell does this have to do with palin? if she looked into it then that is good, but I am not getting of my info from her.
It is a typical "attack the messanger because you can't refute the message". 

well i have to apologize, i misread your post. & im suggesting that if they make a point of it on their website, then you (assuming your interested) should check to see if they are telling the truth. I dont know if Palin looked into anything at all, all i ever heard from her was "who is Barack Obama?" she didnt try to answer that at any of her rallys with any kind of non-fear-mongering speech. & im not attacking the messenger, i simply misread your post & it just happen to look like 1 of the more annoying talking points of that campaign

on Oct 31, 2008

if you reread my post you will see i specifically mentioned baraks many speeches and interviews as my only sources. Never did I chant the slogan "who is barak obama"

on Oct 31, 2008

taltamir


if you reread my post you will see i specifically mentioned baraks many speeches and interviews as my only sources. Never did I chant the slogan "who is barak obama"

ya i noticed that the 2nd time through

on Nov 03, 2008
you must have missed a few posts then, there was this 1 post, i think it was about factchecks.org or something, there was the whole "guilty by association" thing that seems to have been shot down (but if oyu have more to say about it be my guest) & it seems that you didnt read too much into my last post as i said i intended to say "relatively limited association" but didnt becuase some prick might come along & twist things around to his point of view.
You mean the post where it described him doing legal work for them? Sitting on a governing board? Addressing them and telling them they are going to have a roll in his administration? That post? Or do you mean the one where he was caught on camera in bed with the founder? The latter one I was not referring to.
on Nov 03, 2008



You mean the post where it described him doing legal work for them? Sitting on a governing board? Addressing them and telling them they are going to have a roll in his administration? That post? Or do you mean the one where he was caught on camera in bed with the founder? The latter one I was not referring to.

actually i was talking about posts in this particular topic, so far there havent been many, if any, refering to any of that.

on Nov 04, 2008

Google is your friend:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+acorn+ties&aq=4&oq=obama+ACORN

Now about the non-posting?

on Nov 05, 2008

hmm...i thought this thread would be dead already, oh well....



Google is your friend:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=obama+acorn+ties&aq=4&oq=obama+ACORN
Now about the non-posting?

well that counts as 1 & im sure theres some decent stuff in there but im feeling particularly lazy today so ill check them out later

on Nov 06, 2008

well that counts as 1

The link is to links.  WHy waste space reposting links when they are already done for you?

7 PagesFirst 4 5 6 7