posted October 29, 2008 04:08 PM            

quote:

---

A new video advertisement released by the Obama campaign says the candidate's promised tax cuts are for citizens making less than $200,000 a year, not the widely reported figure of $250,000.

Adding to the confusion, Obama's running mate, Joe Biden, said in an interview yesterday the cuts are for even fewer people, limited to incomes of $150,000 or less.

Depending on the source of information, just who will have their taxes raised and who will have them cut under Obama's plan varies.

The campaign's homepage, for example, accessed today, reads, "Obama said he wanted to give a tax break to all families making under $250,000 per year, which he said was 95 percent of American workers."

Yet in the "Defining Moment" ad released on YouTube last week and viewable below, Obama says the tax cut "for 95 percent of working Americans" is only for those who make less than $200,000 per year.

According to the 2006 IRS statistics published by the National Taxpayers Union, "95 percent of working Americans" only includes those making less than $153,542 per year.

And now, Fox News reports Biden told a Scranton, Pa., TV station yesterday that Obama's tax break "should go to middle class people – people making under $150,000 a year."

At a rally in Pennsylvania, CBS News reports, McCain took the opportunity to blast Obama as a candidate with more and more taxes on his mind.

"Sen. Obama has made a lot of promises," McCain said. "First he said people making less than $250,000 would benefit from his plan, then this weekend he announced in an ad that if you're a family making less than $200,000 you'll benefit – but yesterday, right here in Pennsylvania, Sen. Biden said tax relief should only go to 'middle class people – people making under $150,000 a year.' You getting an idea of what's on their mind?"
I'll launch a rescue plan for the middle class that begins with a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans," Obama says in the "Defining Moment" advertisement. "If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you'll get a tax cut."

The full "Defining Moment" advertisement can be seen below:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJvkRFKGgGw

The disparity in the numbers has Republican campaigners riled.

The Obama campaign media site, The Record, quotes Tucker Bounds, spokesman for McCain-Palin saying, "By adjusting his tax increases to include anyone making more than $200,000, Barack Obama has reversed himself and issued a shifty new call for at least 1 million more hardworking Americans to be added to his plans for higher taxes."

The Record immediately rebutted Bounds, insisting Obama's plan has always included a tax hike on Americans making more than $250,000, but the tax cut is only for those making less than $200,000.

The site then quotes Obama at the Oct. 7 presidential debate: "If you make less than a quarter of a million dollars a year, you will not see a single dime of your taxes go up. If you make $200,000 a year or less, your taxes will go down."

Biden's comments yesterday, however, have heated up criticism again.

"You getting an idea of what's on their mind, huh? A little sneak peak," McCain said, according to Fox News. "It's interesting how their definition of rich has a way of creeping down. At this rate, it won't be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just $42,000 a year should get a tax increase."

Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor did not directly address Biden's comments, but he released a statement about McCain's criticism.

"The McCain campaign's attacks are getting more desperate by the hour," Vietor said. "Obama and Biden have always said, under their plan no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase one cent. And if your family makes less than $200,000 – as 95 percent of workers and their families do – you'll get a tax cut."

---

posted October 29, 2008 04:56 PM            

Oh yeah, like Biden who says 150k which is not even an iota correct.

You are one of them so your opinion does not matter to me personally. Especially your idiotic responses.

posted October 29, 2008 05:23 PM            

Check at 0.28 secs of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJvkRFKGgGw

He too is conveniently hiding facts.

Selling snake oil.

posted October 29, 2008 08:26 PM            

Check facts out when you have the time.

posted October 30, 2008 08:35 AM            

We are being controlled to agree to his Marxist/Islamist/Socialist call it whatever plan. Go figure.

posted October 30, 2008 03:04 PM            

quote:

---

I don't find it surprising that you agree 100 percent with a marxist economy plan.

---

...is not a rational response to saying that Obama's tax plan hasn't changed. In saying that Obama's plan hasn't changed I didn't give a full-fledged endorsement, nor is his plan Marxist (it is the exact same taxation system the U.S. has been using for over 100 years). Any economist would tell you the same thing.

quote:

---

He has flip flopped so many times before.

---

1. Flip-flopping is not an inherently bad thing. Never has been. It is better to be flexible in order to change with evolving situations.

2. McCain has verbally espoused completely contradictory views. If you spent some of your YouTube browsing time looking at the candidate you favor, you'd know this already.

quote:

---

We are being controlled to agree to his Marxist/Islamist/Socialist call it whatever plan.

---

posted October 30, 2008 03:31 PM            

Firstly I didn't call names to his economic plan. I called him an marxist. Because his plan is not detailed and leaves many questions than answers. Any one who studies political science will know what it means by calling some one marxists.
Perhaps you are in denial that he ever said "He wants to redistribute the wealth".
If you are getting confused I can understand, but here is a guy who studied political science and he is using those words. Now that is scary.

All religions are socialist inherently be it christians, islam or hindu.

>>> If you spent some of your YouTube browsing time looking at the candidate you favor, you'd know this already.

In that such a long history he has been pretty much the same. If your candidate had a long history I am sure I and others would have volumes to talk about. Lucky him that he has such thin resume.

posted October 30, 2008 05:34 PM            

Yes, the constitution was written in the spirit of equality of all. I will never accept people using marxist words used by Obama "redistributing the wealth". It is unAmerican. Constitution did not talk about it because it is unequal in its very wordings. Obama wants to change all that perhaps (not sure what he meant by Constitution is flawed and the gotcha questions obsessed media is dumb too). Remember Lenin, Marx etc were intellectuals who screwed up economies of their host country. It sounds too good , but does not work no matter even if genius like Einstein is involved in it. And here is a non honor graduate of Columbia and however he enrolled in Harvard, trying to subject Americans to his dumb thoughts.

America is the greatest country in the world due capitalism and generosity of people. Do not give it at the hands of coconuts.

posted October 30, 2008 10:28 PM            

quote:

---

Perhaps you are in denial that he ever said "He wants to redistribute the wealth".

---

No. I'm not. I, in fact, know the context under which the statement was said. Look it up on Politifact. They've got his exact words in the context in which they were said. You can't get any more clear on his meaning than that. I don't fall blindly for sound bites taken out of context.

quote:

---

Flip flopping within days is a bad thing.

---

Not necessarily. As new information comes to light, it can be imperative to change position.

Here's a video of McCain seemingly changing position without a matter of minutes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeBw28tX5Nw
Days: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN8EMmML-es
You get the idea.

quote:

---

I will never accept people using marxist words used by Obama "redistributing the wealth".

---

Marxism doesn't hold any ownership of those words. There are plenty of real world, American instances of Marxist-like wealth redistribution (like Palin's oil tax redistribution), and you shouldn't have to think too long to figure them out. Employee-owned businesses rely on what could be deemed Marxist ideas.

Unless a person actively claims Marxism as their philosophy, I wouldn't be quick to assume that they are indeed Marxist.

quote:

---

Constitution did not talk about it because it is unequal in its very wordings.

---

Marxism wasn't around when the Constitution was drafted in the first place. Marx wasn't even born yet.

[For educational, and not endorsement purposes ->] And, in actuality, the premise behind Marxism intended for equality amongst men, which is also what American's forefathers intended. That's not to say the America's forefathers would have bought into Marxist philosophy, but it is important to note the similarity of desire for equality. Marxism has primarily been maligned due to its associated with totalitarian regimes. If democratic governments had been successful utilizing Marxism, it wouldn't be demonized to such a degree. Socialism, as a sort of relative to Marxism, has been associated with mixed success. Also noteworthy is that unchecked Capitalism doesn't work either. Anti-trust (anti-cartel) regulation, which limits profit potential for companies, is a necessary component of Capitalism. Most Capitalist societies are actually mixed economies.

quote:

---

And here is a non honor graduate of Columbia

---

First you bring in Islamist, which Obama isn't, and now you bring this bit of irrelevance?

quote:

---

trying to subject Americans to his dumb thoughts.

---

posted October 31, 2008 05:51 AM            

AG, I think its waste of my time to educate you. You suffer from reading comprehension. Apparently words drops to some internal black hole whenever you read. Every word is important by itself and the totally of the paragraph and even the post. Go re-reread the thread. I won't show it to you, you have to understand it yourself.

Check my past posts on marxisms. Liberals needs to be reminded time again, as much as I would like to that I can't as I have no time

posted October 31, 2008 12:08 PM            

Beyond that, I have absolutely no faith in your understanding of the workings of economics or government. If you did, your posts would be much different, and you wouldn't portray yourself as such an alarmist.

posted October 31, 2008 12:17 PM            

Free enterprise is the only theory that works. Takes time to show up on books of government account. You are in banking profession, you don't have vision. You can only munch facts.

Reagan presidency was the most prosperous era for the Americans. He inherited unemployed Americans etc etc..from Carter and turned around our economy.
If you also remember, the first two years of Carter and Clinton were disasters and it amounted to Republicans gaining majority in the congress.

Obama's spread the wealth around philosophies will hurt America like his predecessors Democrats.

Follow the middle path or be a centrist ok.
Not extreme left like Obama nor extreme right (no one I can think of in the republican party).

If in doubt check what Obama's campaigners are advising him of late

AG - Flip flop your vote, you won't regret that you did that (oops did I just say that)

posted October 31, 2008 01:02 PM            

Obama doesn't "preach" Marxism at all. To interpret what he says that way is an enormous stretch of the imagination.

quote:

---

Reagan presidency was the most prosperous era for the Americans.

---

That's outright false.

Have you looked up the economy under Republicans and Democrats yet? I don't think you'll have any grasp of economical matters in America until you do so. You need to take the blinders off.

quote:

---

Follow the middle path or be a centrist ok.
Not extreme left like Obama nor extreme right (no one I can think of in the republican party).

---

posted October 31, 2008 10:46 PM            

quote:

---

"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said in the interview

---

http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21334799/250_000_or_150_000.htm?pageid=23043

I tell you these marxist team will not keep their promises and tax high people even making $42,000 a year.

Please , please, please don't give a chance to this Marxist team to be formed at the Federal.

posted November 01, 2008 12:12 AM            

The $42,000 number has been fact-checked and factually discredited probably more than any other bogus claim thrown around in this campaign.

From FOXNews:

"What Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those," Richardson said in the interview, according to a clip posted on YouTube.

There's no indication that Obama has changed his tax policy, which states that anyone making under $200,000 would get a tax cut under his administration, and nobody making under $250,000 would be hit with a tax increase. Richardson actually recited that part of Obama's plan correctly earlier in his radio interview.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/

Richardson actually recited that part of Obama's plan correctly earlier in his radio interview. Do you get that? When Biden and Richardson talk of people making lower amounts, it's because the run-of-the-mill middle class does, in actuality, often make less than $200-$250K. Neither of them have suggested that the income brackets they're talking about will get taxed more, which is the only salient point. "Marxism" doesn't come into the equation whatsoever.

posted November 01, 2008 08:33 AM            

There is a thin line between gaffe and lies. Point is its foolish to trust politicians. Once they come to power you will become low priority. Check Barnie demanding more taxes from people. This thread is highlighting the class warfare played on Americans by an marxist Obama. Try to follow or you will miss. You have lived here longer than me. Tell me that I am wrong in seeing such class warfare happening like never before. Pit people against each other, especially middle class.

I think the type of people who gets attracted to such idiot marxists are people who believe the government will pay for their gas and their mortgage