Obama Our Leader

Or he could tell the people the truth (instead of the economy is sound while they loose their jobs, houses and sleep on the streets) and he could pass a massive stimulus package to help the economy rebound.

Remember, your plan was on the ballot and went down in flames last Nov 4th...

 

Wrong, Reagan cut taxes his first year then ended up having to raise them in his second. Bush cut taxes and look what happened to the deficit. You can't cut taxes and reduce the deficit unless you eliminate all other spending. And since that won't happen...

Wrong again, he said 95% would not see an increase in their taxes. To be more specific he said only the top 5% who make more than $250,000 annual income would see an increase. It was the Republican's who kept twisting at what level he would give a tax break.

 

Rev, you're talking about the 1982 bill which is when he raised taxes back up. I was referring to the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 when he cut taxes too much which is why we needed the 1982 tax bill. The 1981 tax bill didn't leave Government enough money to run and would have blown the deficit sky high.

As it was, even with raising taxes in 1982, Reagan quadrupled the national debt in his 8 years. Under Reagan, the national debt went from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Now if a fiscal responsible conservative like Reagan raised the deficit $2.3 trillion certainly we can give a tax and spend democrat $800 Billion.

 

I'll give you a visual Rev, this way you can see who raises the national debt...

http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

 

Found the old article I was looking for...

http://www.counterpunch.org/freeman05302003.html

 

Thanks for the clips from the non-biased Fox news, the station who CLAIMS to give both sides equal time (yea right). Let's use these clips so I can break this down and show you why I said PL statement was wrong and I am right by saying 95% would not see an increase in their taxes is an accurate statement.

Let's get the quotes...

From the first clip...

1. I will help pay for this by asking folks making more than $250K/yr [mysterious and abrupt snip there (that is $250K and up to pay more)]

2. As president, I will cut taxes for every WORKING family making less than $200K/yr (ie... tax cuts begin at $200K/yr).

3. It should go to middle class people, people making less than $150K/yr (gaff machine Joe Biden so don't blame Obama).

4. Bill Richards said $120K and below (again, not Obama giving this number so don't blame him)

He said in the second clip...

1. I will eliminate capitol gains taxes on small businesses and start up's (there goes your small business warning).

2. I will cut taxes for 95% of WORKING families (keep this number in mind)

3. He then asked everyone who makes less than $250K/yr to raise their hands, he said I am speaking to you. You will not see your taxes RAISED one single dime under my administration (didn't say cut, said will not raise).

4. 95% will see your taxes go down (again, 95% will see tax cut)

Now let's open up the facts by breaking down the countries incomes...

Please see this link of 2007 salary statistics. If you look closely at column 1 labeled Households you will see that only 3.7% of American households make more than $200K/yr. So this demographic says that 96.3% of American households make less than $200K/yr.

If you add .2% to this demographic, you will see that only 3.9% of American households make more than $150,000 to $199,999. This means 96.1% of American households make LESS than $150K/yr.

According to Obama's promise, if he cuts taxes at $150K/yr and below he is cutting taxes for 96.1% of American's which when rounding makes 95% a fairly accurate statement. Even if he cut taxes at $200K/yr he is still accurately rounding by by using the number 95%. In both cases it actually more than 95% (either 96.1% or 96.3%) that would receive the tax cut but 96.1% doesn't sound as good in a campaign speech.

Also note the Families column which is 4.8% and 5% respectively. Is that more accurate and better?

You see, where the GOP went wrong was trying to split the hairs of $200k/yr and $250K/yr without listening. They were trying so hard to catch him in a lie that they weren't listening to what he was saying. Yes, he kept using two different figures but if you listen closely he consistently said for earners $250K/yr and above taxes would go up vs. earners $200K/yr and below taxes would go down which means $200k/yr to $250K/yr would remain unchanged.

The other thing this clip points out is America (Joe Biden and Bill Richards) really don't know what middle class is...

 

I never said 40% doesn't matter, what I said is if the 40% want to meet the 60% at the table of discussion and come to a compromise then the 60% is more than willing to listen. However, when the 40% come to the table with an attitude of it's my way or you won't get my support, then I think they need to be reminded of who won and who has the 60%.

I would think you should be more upset with your representation for coming to the table with that attitude than to be upset with the 60% for giving the same response you would have gave. Bipartisanship doesn't mean I will do it your way, it only implies I will listen and consider to your views. Now when I listen to your views, considered them with an open mind and decided no then that is the answer and bipartisanship has been achieved. It is not the reaction of the GOP who grabbed the mic's, yelled louder saying they wouldn't listen. Oh they listened and heard, they just didn't agree (big difference).

 

Yet he repeated used the word WORKING. 95% of WORKING...