Obama camp changes tax-cut beneficiaries

Do your editors even check your "writers" sources? 5 minutes on factcheck.org and you'd see Lambro is parroting a RNC memo, not actually doing any work. Its 250K limit for married couples, 200K for single earner you bozo. I wish I could be a journalist, its easy, just copy and paste from mcCrazy campaign literature.

If Faradroka is correct, it sounds like the Democrats want to impose another marriage penalty on us. Let's see ... If we marry, our household will get slapped if we earn more than $250k combined spousal wages. If we stay unmarried, simply shack-up together, and file our tax returns separately as singles we can do combined household earnings of up to $400k without worry of extra taxes. Faradroka, Do you really think Comrade Obama will let us get away with that? It sounds to me like you are the authentic Bozo.

Hear Richardson yourself. He clearly said $120,000. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G88ebXY2uaI

Hear Biden yourself. He clearly said $150,000. http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=S8sWT_SSQwE

Obama is the false prophet we were warned about. He is worshipped for his silver tongue and championed by many who are against much of what made this country strong. We get what we deserve; we don't value life (infanticide), we don't value hard work (socialism and marxism), we are greedy (Rezko, fannie & freddie, wright and johnson), we hate (Ayers, Wright) and we believe we are victims who will be protected by big govt & politicians. Obama sells snake oil and we want more. God help us.

Obama lies by omission.....until he is forced to reveal his many hidden agendas. Example? His slip in answering a citizen initiated legitimate question...to which he responded "we must share the wealth". Obama's "sharing the wealth" (or our incomes) is nothing but a buying of votes by the 40-50% who pay no Income Tax. They will GLADLY get out to vote! Obama's campaign is to BUY everything...votes, control of the press and media, etc. Obama cares only for his own quest for power and his wife's quest for more money! Neither cares about America nor our citizens. His enablers Pelosi and Reid are in the same power-grabbing boat....tax and spend us into another DEPRESSION. _________ Ready for the soup lines America??? NO NO NO Dems for Mc Cain and Palin

There are two parts to this story. First, Obama's tax shell game is based on relative doublespeak. There is no way a tax increase can be passed as anything but a fixed cost increase, in a free market economy regardless who it is for. It's called the trickle down effect. The increase in the fixed cost of anything must be passed to product. There is point where the product becomes uncompetitive which creates a reduction in production which causes a reduction in workforce. It also causes jobs to move to a cheaper cost market and in many cases out of the country. Therefore we just need to calculate how many jobs are going to be lost in proportion to each percentage of cost (tax) increase. Second, defining the "rich" is relative to the amount of funding required for social welfare programs and redistributing the wealth. Using France as an example, 53.4% of their GNP goes for social programs. Therefore, only 46.7% of their workforce is actually producing something outside the needs of the government. It's economic cannibalism. This is the reason Europe wants the U.S. to adopt a competitive production decline. They want us on a regulated market economy so they can have a say in our economic market share. If Obama gets elected, they may have their wish.

I went to his website and ran his tax calculator. First, I want to say I question the accuracy of it. I note that I put in my status as "single" yet I saw that block flip to "head of household" before the response came up and it stayed that way. So, are they basing their savings on non-single filing status only? Second, I put in $150,000 to $200,000 as a single filer. It flipped to head of household and actually told me I would probably not see a tax reduction. Hmmmm, maybe Joe Biden was correct.

More of the same Did anyone, even Fox News, clearly point out that Obama did not reject the label of “Socialist”? Now that he has been outed by “Joe the plumber”, that would be difficult. He just said that those who are not Socialists are just “selfish”! Now that he has agreed that he is a Socialist, read a bit more from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism: “Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy. In the 1970s and the 1980s, Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Polish and Chinese Communists instituted various forms of market socialism combining co-operative and State ownership models with the free market exchange.[5] This is unlike the earlier theoretical market socialist proposal put forth by Oskar Lange in that it allows market forces, rather than central planners to guide production and exchange.[6] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.” The only real issue is the degree of “social interventionism” he intends. We don’t have that information because the “media” are part of his campaign, rather than part of our expected “checks and balances”. Recall though that his “father figure” Frank Marshall Davis and his long time friend Bill Ayres were Marxists. By their philosophy, Socialism is just an intermediate state in the path to full “sharing”. The current financial mess has its roots in a socialistic experiment to put people into homes they could not afford. We have already thrown in a billion dollars as the first pass at trying to fix the damage that did to our economy. Ready to “double down” on “more of the same” with Obama? That “Change you can count on” Obama promises is from Capitalism to Socialism. Recall that he keeps saying what we have been trying isn’t working? He did say at the start of this campaign he would offer “a very different vision” for our nation.

Care for an insight? Sen. Obama consistently stands with his arms crossed over his chest. It's a tell, if ever there was. Body Language 101: he's either cold, or he's hiding something. Wait and see, after 1/20/09, he'll drop this annoying habit.

Once in the White House they will say "We didn't know until we got here how bad it was, we are going to have to increase taxes on much lower levels." 4 years of still blaming Bush. BHO will keep all the promises he meant to keep as Clinton said.

Biden was right! I ran numbers for head of household, 2 dependents, and incomes of $100,000 to $150,000, $150,000 to $200,000, then $200,000 to $250,000. The latter two brackets came back with NO TAX REDUCTION. For the $100,000 to $150,000, there was a $500 reduction - less than $10 per week. I also question the accuracy of it anyway. As part of my experiment I ran scenarios using the same filing status and number of dependents for the different brackets under $100,000. Can you tell me how they ALL get the same amount of reduction in taxes?

To Faradroka: Some of those fact-checking organizations need fact checkers themselves. You have not done any research yourself, either. I went to his website and did the tax calculator. Put in $200,000 to $250,000 and 2 dependents; no tax cut. Put in $150,000 to $200,000 and 2 dependents; no tax cut. If you put in $100,000 to $150,000 and 2 dependents you get a $500 tax cut.And, I question how accurate that is anyway, because when you run it to see effect on singles, it keeps flipping back to filing status "head of household." I guess he doesn't want singles to see they will probably get an INCREASE.

“Slight” typo in previous post: Trillions lost already to socialitic experiments. Since Obama refused open debates, we had to wait for unscripted slips. Did anyone, even Fox News, clearly point out that Obama did not reject the label of “Socialist”? Now that he has been outed by “Joe the plumber”, that would be difficult. He just said that those who are not Socialists are just “selfish”! Now that he has agreed that he is a Socialist, read a bit more from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism. The only real issue is the degree of “social interventionism” he intends. We don’t have that information because the “media” are part of his campaign, rather than part of our expected “checks and balances”. Recall though that his “father figure” Frank Marshall Davis and his long time friend Bill Ayres were Marxists. By their philosophy, Socialism is just an intermediate state in the path to full “sharing”. The current financial mess has its roots in a socialistic experiment to put people into homes they could not afford. We have already thrown in a trillion dollars as the first pass at trying to fix the damage that did to our economy, and lost trillions in investment value. Ready to “double down” on “more of the same” with Obama? That “Change you can count on” Obama promises is from Capitalism to Socialism. Recall that he keeps saying what we have been trying isn’t working? He did say at the start of this campaign he would offer “a very different vision” for our nation.

What possible difference does it make what his “tax calculator” determines? It’s just a number based on a model that will never be law. What really matters is the philosophy that will guide determination of actual laws after the election. Since Obama is a well controlled lawyer, he has only let a few real clues slip on that basic philosophy. Obama did not reject the label of “Socialist”? Now that he has been outed by “Joe the plumber”, that would be difficult. He just said that those who are not Socialists are just “selfish”! As long as there is any difference between the wealthiest and the most “disadvantaged”, the Socialist principle of “spreading the wealth” will apply. Does anyone really believe that they will not have a chance to be more “patriotic” by Joe Biden’s standard, or less “selfish”, under an Obama administration?