Obama Our Leader

Your post is hypocritical.

You didn't even attempt to do what you suggest others do:

 

There are many working families who make too little to pay federal income tax. Ask me how I know ...

The truth is that you are defending the indefensible. Stop it. Everyone but you appears to get it, so much so, that even Obama stopped talking about it.

 

HEre again you are simply incorrect. The 40% were rejected out of hand. They weren't even allowed in teh conference. Can you explain that?

No, that's not what bipartisanship it. Bipartisanship is working together.

I wish for your sake we were back in the Bush administration because at least then your posts had some legitimacy. Here you have gone towards stretching even the most gullible.

 

How true is this extremist view?

http://www.worthynews.com/4755-faith-based-programs-retooled-under-obama-administration

It sounds optimistic to me.

 

Supporting wholesale abortions shows any rhetoric of reducing the number of abortions as nothing more than talk. It means nothing.

 

Since the one statement contradicts the other, you would have to document that Obama supports "wholesale abortions." The other position is already stated and documented.

 

I think that our tax dollars are actually paying for abortions at retail - not wholesale.

 

Since you're talking about abortion, you need to clarify that statement in the beginning with something along the lines of... In my opinion, ..... If not, you want be within the new rules of this board.

 

"I think" is not a qualifier similar to "in my opinion"?

BTW it was a JOKE.

 

Hey I was only saying what the new rules where... I didn't and don't agree with the new rules, but if they are going to start to silence some, then they should be 'man' enough to enforce them... my opinion only of course.

My statement towards you were not 'against' us, it's against the un-needed rule.. You just happen to give me an example of where some rules are silly.

I know you were 100% serious when you stated it.

 

The fact is he said tax cuts for 95 % of Americans. It was incorrect and impossible. You cannot cut taxes on people who pay none. But he sure can give them welfare under a guise of a refund.

 

You keep focusing on the word "working".

Obama didn't. He used the word in some of the various versions he was selling.

His promise of a tax cut continually morphed throughout the campaign.

This is most likely because he didn't really have any particular tax cut in mind. He was just trying to throw the words out there to cast as wide of a net as possible.

At the presidential debate in Oxford, Miss., Barack Obama described his tax plan and said, "Here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut."

 

Word wrangling again.

 

It is welfare if they do not pay taxes. Just because someone works does not mean they earn enough to pay out taxes. Many get a full refund on their return. Pretty simple really

 

You really need to read more carefully.

I said, "He used the word in some of the various versions he was selling."

But he did not use the word "working" in all of the versions of a tax cut that he was selling. For example, at the presidential debate in Oxford, Miss., Barack Obama described his tax plan and said, "Here's what I can tell the American people: 95 percent of you will get a tax cut."

As I said, you are focusing on the word "working" but Obama did not.

 

The so called "tax cuts" are an absolute joke for most tax payers in America. It's like taking $10,000 and giving back $100 and calling it a good deal. Let's get real folks! The "tax cuts" are another name for wealth redistribution. None of it in the Oink Oink Oink Law has anything to do with a general tax cut. The "rebate" amounts to nothing and is a gimmick just like rebates for stuff you buy in the store. All of it is greatly offset by the expanded spending and the tab for all that will continue to grow. The other grossly misleading term is "working people"! Many of us are actually working but darn few of us are going to see any tax relief. Most of us are going to pay a lot more to fund the "non-working people" who'll get the grants, credits, etc. It's nothing but pure socialist pork! Oink, oink, oink!

 

Redistribution of wealth just like Joe the Plumber said. All the money will go to people who know how to work the system because they have milked it dry in the past and now the cash cow borrowed money to throw it at them again. Maybe they will bring back the government cheese for old folks. Or maybe not. Maybe they'll just euthanize us after they decide we cost their centralized health plan too much.