OT The Fiscal Magic of “The One” (Political)

[blahblahblah]

To kick off our show tonight, Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don’t pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic?

To start with, let’s examine the word magic in this article. Obama’s plan cuts taxes for 95% of working families. Let’s assume that her claim that 40% of Americans don’t pay any income tax is true. According to census data compiled by the US Census Bureau, only 60.1% of the US population is between the ages of 20-64 (the prime working years, where most people are in families). An additional 27.4% are 0-19 years of age (a few of these will pay a small amount of taxes starting at the age of 16), and 12.6% are over 65 (and again, some number of those pay tax but many retirees do not earn enough to). So it’s not surprising that 40% of Americans don’t pay income tax when we learn how many of them are children and retired or elderly people.

Bottom line, the author of this propaganda piece is not comparing apples to apples. Either she is too thick to understand that “working families” and “Americans” are two different things or she thinks her audience is too thick to catch onto her insincere little word games.

[luchabee]

Yes, I agree that Bush consented to an insane amount of spending, whether the prescription drug care plan, increased educational spending, the cost of the war, etc.

He was too ready to go along with the Democrats and liberal Republicans on the budget in order to advance the war to even veto one spending bill. He is a complete fiscal failure.

Moreover, and more important long term, he completely retreated from his positions in attempting to reform Fannie, Freddie, and Social Security after the Democrats countered. He should have gone down with the ship on these.

Also, I don’t know what happened to the “fiscal conservatives” in Congress? Maybe they were too intoxicated with DC power and they went along with everything, too?

As a fiscal conservative, I must admit that I’m not too worried about Obama’s spending plan. It is so preposterous right now, given the current economic climate, that I don’t think it will be enacted, even with a liberal Congress.

In the debate, I believe he said that he would only be raising taxes on 5% of the US Corporations that make $250,000 per year. The great bulk of small businesses fail and, of course, most never bring in $250,000 per year. So, what he is really saying is that he wants to tax the most productive companies in the US who do most of the private-sector hiring during a hyper-recession.

This plan will never get passed. The DC business lobby will kill it. If he really wants to increase social spending to this extent, he will just add to our debt like everyone president before him, but I can’t envision a significant increase in corporate taxes anytime soon.

[luchabee]

Yes, I agree that Bush consented to an insane amount of spending, whether the prescription drug care plan, increased educational spending, the cost of the war, etc.

He was too ready to go along with the Democrats and liberal Republicans on the budget in order to advance the war to even veto one spending bill. He is a complete fiscal failure.

Moreover, and more important long term, he completely retreated from his positions in attempting to reform Fannie, Freddie, and Social Security after the Democrats countered. He should have gone down with the ship on these.

Also, I don’t know what happened to the “fiscal conservatives” in Congress? Maybe they were too intoxicated with DC power and they went along with everything, too?

As a fiscal conservative, I must admit that I’m not too worried about Obama’s spending plan. It is so preposterous right now, given the current economic climate, that I don’t think it will be enacted, even with a liberal Congress.

In the debate, I believe he said that he would only be raising taxes on 5% of the US Corporations that make $250,000 per year. The great bulk of small businesses fail and, of course, most never bring in $250,000 per year. So, what he is really saying is that he wants to tax the most productive companies in the US who do most of the private-sector hiring during a hyper-recession.

This plan will never get passed. The DC business lobby will kill it. If he really wants to increase social spending to this extent, he will just add to our debt like everyone president before him, but I can’t envision a significant increase in corporate taxes anytime soon.

[luchabee]

Yes, I agree that Bush consented to an insane amount of spending, whether the prescription drug care plan, increased educational spending, the cost of the war, etc.

He was too ready to go along with the Democrats and liberal Republicans on the budget in order to advance the war to even veto one spending bill. He is a complete fiscal failure.

Moreover, and more important long term, he completely retreated from his positions in attempting to reform Fannie, Freddie, and Social Security after the Democrats countered. He should have gone down with the ship on these.

Also, I don’t know what happened to the “fiscal conservatives” in Congress? Maybe they were too intoxicated with DC power and they went along with everything, too?

As a fiscal conservative, I must admit that I’m not too worried about Obama’s spending plan. It is so preposterous right now, given the current economic climate, that I don’t think it will be enacted, even with a liberal Congress.

In the debate, I believe he said that he would only be raising taxes on 5% of the US Corporations that make $250,000 per year. The great bulk of small businesses fail and, of course, most never bring in $250,000 per year. So, what he is really saying is that he wants to tax the most productive companies in the US who do most of the private-sector hiring during a hyper-recession.

This plan will never get passed. The DC business lobby will kill it. If he really wants to increase social spending to this extent, he will just add to our debt like everyone president before him, but I can’t envision a significant increase in corporate taxes anytime soon.

[luchabee]

Yes, I agree that Bush consented to an insane amount of spending, whether the prescription drug care plan, increased educational spending, the cost of the war, etc.

He was too ready to go along with the Democrats and liberal Republicans on the budget in order to advance the war to even veto one spending bill. He is a complete fiscal failure.

Moreover, and more important long term, he completely retreated from his positions in attempting to reform Fannie, Freddie, and Social Security after the Democrats countered. He should have gone down with the ship on these.

Also, I don’t know what happened to the “fiscal conservatives” in Congress? Maybe they were too intoxicated with DC power and they went along with everything, too?

As a fiscal conservative, I must admit that I’m not too worried about Obama’s spending plan. It is so preposterous right now, given the current economic climate, that I don’t think it will be enacted, even with a liberal Congress.

In the debate, I believe he said that he would only be raising taxes on 5% of the US Corporations that make $250,000 per year. The great bulk of small businesses fail and, of course, most never bring in $250,000 per year. So, what he is really saying is that he wants to tax the most productive companies in the US who do most of the private-sector hiring during a hyper-recession.

This plan will never get passed. The DC business lobby will kill it. If he really wants to increase social spending to this extent, he will just add to our debt like everyone president before him, but I can’t envision a significant increase in corporate taxes anytime soon.

[luchabee]

Yes, I agree that Bush consented to an insane amount of spending, whether the prescription drug care plan, increased educational spending, the cost of the war, etc.

He was too ready to go along with the Democrats and liberal Republicans on the budget in order to advance the war to even veto one spending bill. He is a complete fiscal failure.

Moreover, and more important long term, he completely retreated from his positions in attempting to reform Fannie, Freddie, and Social Security after the Democrats countered. He should have gone down with the ship on these.

Also, I don’t know what happened to the “fiscal conservatives” in Congress? Maybe they were too intoxicated with DC power and they went along with everything, too?

As a fiscal conservative, I must admit that I’m not too worried about Obama’s spending plan. It is so preposterous right now, given the current economic climate, that I don’t think it will be enacted, even with a liberal Congress.

In the debate, I believe he said that he would only be raising taxes on 5% of the US Corporations that make $250,000 per year. The great bulk of small businesses fail and, of course, most never bring in $250,000 per year. So, what he is really saying is that he wants to tax the most productive companies in the US who do most of the private-sector hiring during a hyper-recession.

This plan will never get passed. The DC business lobby will kill it. If he really wants to increase social spending to this extent, he will just add to our debt like everyone president before him, but I can’t envision a significant increase in corporate taxes anytime soon.

[Veritas]

“Either she is too thick to understand that ‘working families and Americans’ are two different things or she thinks her audience is too thick to catch onto her insincere little word games.” It is both. The Democrats are the elitists who think they know what is best for everyone from climate change to the economy. Since they have successfully dumbed down so many of the emerging young voters, what do you expect? Brave New World redux. Okay Gandalf time to weigh in and call me names like you always do when someone dares challenge your Weltanschauung.

[Veritas]

“Either she is too thick to understand that ‘working families and Americans’ are two different things or she thinks her audience is too thick to catch onto her insincere little word games.” It is both. The Democrats are the elitists who think they know what is best for everyone from climate change to the economy. Since they have successfully dumbed down so many of the emerging young voters, what do you expect? Brave New World redux. Okay Gandalf time to weigh in and call me names like you always do when someone dares challenge your Weltanschauung.

[Veritas]

“Either she is too thick to understand that ‘working families and Americans’ are two different things or she thinks her audience is too thick to catch onto her insincere little word games.” It is both. The Democrats are the elitists who think they know what is best for everyone from climate change to the economy. Since they have successfully dumbed down so many of the emerging young voters, what do you expect? Brave New World redux. Okay Gandalf time to weigh in and call me names like you always do when someone dares challenge your Weltanschauung.

[Veritas]

“Either she is too thick to understand that ‘working families and Americans’ are two different things or she thinks her audience is too thick to catch onto her insincere little word games.” It is both. The Democrats are the elitists who think they know what is best for everyone from climate change to the economy. Since they have successfully dumbed down so many of the emerging young voters, what do you expect? Brave New World redux. Okay Gandalf time to weigh in and call me names like you always do when someone dares challenge your Weltanschauung.

[Veritas]

“Either she is too thick to understand that ‘working families and Americans’ are two different things or she thinks her audience is too thick to catch onto her insincere little word games.” It is both. The Democrats are the elitists who think they know what is best for everyone from climate change to the economy. Since they have successfully dumbed down so many of the emerging young voters, what do you expect? Brave New World redux. Okay Gandalf time to weigh in and call me names like you always do when someone dares challenge your Weltanschauung.

[jficquette]

Of those 40% who don’t pay taxes 90% are democrats.

[jficquette]

Of those 40% who don’t pay taxes 90% are democrats.

[jficquette]

Of those 40% who don’t pay taxes 90% are democrats.

[jficquette]

Of those 40% who don’t pay taxes 90% are democrats.

[Author]

Posts