Obama '08?

@gungasnake,

Not.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/02/obamas_weatherman_connection.html

@kickycan,

Much of what we read indicates that Obama and Ayres were friends or something or had some sort of a connection years back which was like belonging to the same golf club or some such and it's clearly a lot worse than that. Obama appears to be the guy who basically discovered Obama and gave him his first breaks in Chicago politics.

Ayres is guilty of **** for which you or I would have been executed and apparently was protected from justice by political connections. His being a prof at UI calls the basic legitimacy of UI into question enough that I would not send a kid to school there under any set of circumstances.

2 Replies

Cyclo said...

Quote:

Forget about the averages at the bottom - the truth is that McSame proposes giving the largest tax cuts, in terms of both percentages and real dollar amounts, to the rich, his base. Obama proposes the opposite. It's a clear distinction and one that will be pivotal to Dem victory this cycle.

That is misleading.
If everybody got the same percentage of tax cut, then those that pay the most would save the most.
Would you have a problem with that?
And why do you have a problem with people getting to keep more of their own money?

Are you suggesting that the "rich" dont deserve to keep their own money?
According to the IRS, they pay the vast majority of taxes to begin with, so why shouldnt they get the biggest break?

BTW, define rich for us.
Exactly what dollar amount is considered wealthy for tax purposes?
And if he is only going to raise taxes on INCOME over a certain amount, then how are those who have low income but high net worth going to be affected?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

Oinkbama's clearly looking at this one the wrong way; the rich already pay all of the taxes in America. We now have at least half the people in the country paying no taxes other than sales tax and that's wrong; those people have no basic stake in the country. Oinkbama should be talking about forcing them to work for the state three months of the year. Possibly building pyramids; I mean, it worked for the pharoahs of Egypt, hey....

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

I'm hearing a criticism of Obama for picking Biden that strikes me as particularly strained. The meme is "Obama emphasizes his weaknesses by picking someone who is strong where he is weak."

Come again? If Obama had picked, say for instance, someone very like himself - another liberal leaning black junior senator (I don't know if there is one), he would've been jumped on for not being diverse in his choice, and for trying to combine two "firsts". If he picked Clinton, his judgement would've been questioned for having someone next to him that potentially outshined him, and also for trying to combine two "firsts". Leave alone why he wouldn't pick Sebellius.

He did exactly what every other serious nominee has done in the past - he picked someone whose resume and reputation he believed would compliment his own. He picked someone who could potentially attract some of the electorate he has had trouble attracting.

The target on McCain's back is huge - he has in the past, and continues to this day, to support the failed policies of George W. Bush. He is demonstrably out of touch with the struggles and concerns of the average American - who in the world can't say how many houses they own?

It appears the Republicans have trouble finding cogent criticism of Obama, so they make shyt up.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

Quote:

Obama appears to be the guy who basically discovered Obama and gave him his first breaks in Chicago politics.

That's what I've heard, too....

1 Reply

@old europe,

Oh my goodness that's perfect.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

This is who pays:
http://www.askquestions.org/articles/taxes/
Satisfied? Cool

1 Reply

Re: gungasnake(Post 3372039)
Quote:
Obama appears to be the guy who basically discovered Obama and gave him his first breaks in Chicago politics.

OE said;
That's what I've heard, too....

Indeed.

0 Replies

@teenyboone,

Lets look at the govt numbers...

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/

The graphs and charts are easy to read and understand, and they clearly show that the "rich"pay the lions share of taxes in this country, so why shouldnt they get the biggest tax break?
They will still be paying the majority of taxes, even after tax cuts.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

From your link:

Quote:

Last Revised: 17-Apr-2000

That would be before the Bush tax cuts. Do you have anything more recent we can look at?

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

Yes I do, but you wont like the source.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/irs_screen_grab.guest.html

Its a graph of who pays what.

Then there is also this one...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119786208643933077.html

Quote:

Last week the Congressional Budget Office joined the IRS in releasing tax numbers for 2005, and part of the news is that the richest 1% paid about 39% of all income taxes that year. The richest 5% paid a tad less than 60%, and the richest 10% paid 70%. These tax shares are all up substantially since 1990, and even somewhat since 2000. Meanwhile, Americans with an income below the median -- half of all households -- paid a mere 3% of all income taxes in 2005. The richest 1.3 million tax-filers -- those Americans with adjusted gross incomes of more than $365,000 in 2005 -- paid more income tax than all of the 66 million American tax filers below the median in income. Ten times more.

2 Replies

Is it true that Mr Obama said, when speaking to a pro choice meeting this year, that the first thing he would do as president was make abortion freely available to all at all stages?

I've seen it quoted in a leading newspaper here.

1 Reply

@spendius,

well then it must be true if you have seen it quoted in a leading newspaper there. Was it above or below the crop circle article?

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

By heck dys--that's sooooooooooooo easy. One might deploy such schoolyard arguments against anything under the sun.

What is Mr Obama's position on abortion then?

2 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998

0 Replies

@spendius,

Spendi said

Quote:

I've seen it quoted in a leading newspaper here.

You accuse me of Schoolyard Arguments?

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

From Wiki-

Quote:

The central holding of Roe v. Wade was that abortions are permissible for any reason a woman chooses, up until the "point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable,’ that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.

What I quoted earlier could be shoe-horned into that I think.

No wonder turn-out is low.

Is the election between two sectional interest wings of the pro-abortion camp? How can anybody who thinks abortion is evil vote for anyone who grants the procedure official sanction and is prepared to preside over it and thus take responsibility for it on his watch, as they say.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

You're right, mm, I don't like your first source. I'll check out your second, though. Thanks.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

It was the "usually" and the "may" that attracted my attention.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know