Wall Street Journal says Obama's tax cuts

Some need to pay close attention to this.........  it's called welfare handouts.  "Entitled mentality".  The working class will get NO tax cuts.  You all will be working to put money in the hands of those that do not.  It makes perfectly good sense.  I've been saying there is no way he can do anything he is leading people to believe he can because 1/3 of people in this country pay NO TAXES.   He has led so many to believe he will cut middle class when he can't.  He is blatantly trying to disguise "government handouts" as "tax credits".   You want your hard earned money going to everyone who doesn't bother to work? 

One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of “working families.” He’s even promising to cut taxes enough that the government’s tax share of GDP will be no more than 18.2% — which is lower than it is today.

It’s a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he’s also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of “tax cut.”

For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase “tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals[.]

• Wall Street Journal says Obama's tax cuts - are not tax cuts at all....which we all knew
  • SHhhh.....you are quoting a source..... - no one wants you to do
    • obama supporters sure don't like - truthful sources

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

I know, I know a "liberal rag"!!!!   ha ha ha

World greets Obama:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122592900344403049.html

Obama's Dour Vision:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122592129148302567.html

What an Obama Presidency Means for Your Money:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122591367859702209.html

Pelosi, Automakers to Meet:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122599560485005549.html

Obamas's Real Opposition:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122593259568103473.html

In what appears to be an attempt to call Obama a hypocrite, ABC’s Scott Mayerowitz “reports” today that the President also has a “lavish lifestyle.” Under the title: “Obama’s Perks: Private Jet, Chef Tax-Free,” ABC notes that Obama earns $400,000 dollars a year and even has a private jet:

The president makes $400,000 a year, but hasn’t received a raise from Congress since 2001. He also gets a $50,000 annual entertainment expense account (any unused money at the end of the year must go back to the Treasury.)

Then there is the use of two private jets, Boeing 747s better known as Air Force One. And of course the constant security details, drivers, a private chef, a country vacation estate and the rent-free use of a well-known, 132-room mansion called the White House. The president also used to have a yacht, until Jimmy Carter sold it.

As its evidence that “corporate America” is upset, ABC said that “some Wall Street bloggers” are angry with the compensation cap. But the article cited only one blogger, Dealbreaker.com, who — apparently poking fun at Sen. Claire McCaskill’s statement — remarked, “Some accountability needs to be put in place. We won’t have them kicking sand in the face of taxpayers any longer.” Dealbreaker.com also suggests charging rent for White House tenants.

Comparing the President to Wall Street CEOs is absurd. The “private jet” that Obama uses is Air Force One, which is used as a security precaution and necessary for the dozens of staff and press that accompany the President on every trip. Each use of the jet by the President is regarded as a “classified military operation” in order to ensure the President’s safety.

Furthermore, Obama’s salary is set by Congress (whose members are elected by the public). CEO compensation is decided internally within the company, usually by its board of directors. The problem with recent excessive CEO compensation was that executives receiving federal funds were still rewarded for failure with tens of millions of dollars from their companies.

The President, on the other hand, does not get a bonus for his performance, good or bad. Indeed, Presidents Bush and Obama earn the same salary. County Fair at Media Matters has more.

The stages of grief:

Denial - okay that was last year, just read old Paulson reports.

Anger -  that was Lehman Bros.

Bargaining - TARP anyone?

Depression - 

Acceptance -

I think we have a ways to go until they get over it.....

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/industries/finance/wall-street-bonuses-expects-come-season-despite-bailout/

Paying bonuses this year is likely to result in a lot of backlash from the average American. After all, even with bonuses down dramatically, they are still higher than the average American, who is losing his or her home, makes. Not to mention the government bailout of financial firms, which seems to change daily, is coming from taxpayer dollars. Concerns abound—rightly or wrongly--that some of the $700 billion bailout could go to pay bonuses this year.

So - you think it's impressive that Obama plans to ask his department heads to cut $100,000,000 from their budgets?  Let's put aside for a moment the question of why he's asking them for cuts at all when he's the one who says that MORE government spending is the solution to our economic crisis.

Obama is crowing about this because he knows that Americans don't know how to translate "huge" numbers into percentages, and also that Americans have grown used to hearing numbers in the $trillions.  I mean - millions, billions, trillions all sound pretty much alike!   Let's prove him wrong, shall we?

If Obama were asking for $100 million to be cut from a $3.5 billion budget, it would represent 1/35th of that budget.  1/35 is about 2.86%.  So even on a $3.5 billion budget this wouldn't be much.

But wait.  Obama's budget is $3.5 TRILLION, which is 1000 times larger. (A trillion is 1000 times larger than a billion.)  Conversely, that makes $100 million a thousand times smaller of a percentage of the budget.  In other words, we're not even talking about 2.86%, but one-thousandths of 2.86%.  Here's what that looks like:   0.00286%.

In other words, if Obama made NEW cuts of $100,000,000 from his budget every day for over 300 days, he still wouldn't have even cut 1% from his budget.  So you may now be forgiven if you're underwhelmed by Obama's $100 million budget cut. 

 It's kinda like someone crowing about how they've reduced their carbon footprint by disconnecting their doorbell.  And this little object lesson showing how little $100,000,000 is compared to Mr. Obama's budget also gives you a little bit better idea just how disgustingly gargantuan his budget really is.

for the rich -- and "rich," by the way, is anyone earning more than a quarter of a million dollars a year.

Obama wants to give tax CREDITS to businesses that keep jobs in the USA, instead of exporting them out of the country.

These huge greedy corporations may be creating jobs, but they're not creating American jobs.  Obama wants to try to slow that down and wants to reward companies who don't turn their backs on Americans.

8-24-05, 10:58 am Congressman Jim Leach (R, Iowa) has informed Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D, California) that he will co-sponsor her Resolution of Inquiry into Bush Administration communications with the U.K. about Iraq at the time of the Downing Street Memos.  Leach is the first Republican member of Congress to publicly support a demand for an inquiry into the Bush Administration's pre-war claims.  The 131 congress members who have signed Congressman John Conyers' letter to the President about the Downing Street Memo are all Democrats.  The 11 Senators who have asked the Senate Intelligence Committee to do the investigation it committed to in February 2004 but never did are all Democrats.   The Resolution, H. Res. 375, is a privileged resolution which must be brought to a vote in the House International Relations Committee by September 16th, or Lee is permitted to demand a vote of the full House.  Fifty-two Democrats, including Lee, have co-sponsored the Resolution.  Leach is the first Republican to join them, and he is a member of the International Relations Committee..   The International Relations Committee has 27 Republican members and 23 Democratic members.  Thus far 10 of the Democrats have co-sponsored the Resolution.  If the other 13 vote for it as well, then along with Leach, one more Republican vote will be needed for a tie, or two more for passage.   Leach has questioned Bush's war policies for years and was one of five Republicans in May to vote for Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey's amendment requiring an exit strategy.  Another of those five, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, also serves on the International Relations Committee.    Congressman Leach has broken the silence of the Republican Party on the Downing Street Minutes, said John Bonifaz, Co-Founder of the After Downing Street Coalition.  His willingness to co-sponsor Congresswoman Barbara Lee's Resolution of Inquiry is bound to make the White House nervous.  It is not possible for the President to paint this demand for documents as coming solely from his opponents.  This is a demand for the truth.  Did the president deliberately deceive and mislead the United States Congress and the American people about the basis for going to war against Iraq?  We as a people -- from Crawford to Des Moines to Washington, DC, regardless of our political persuasion, deserve to know the answer to that basic question.   Congress returns to Washington from its summer break on September 6, said David Swanson, Co-Founder of the After Downing Street Coalition.  The first 10 days will test the Democrats' ability to stand together and challenge the Bush Administration, as well as Republicans' willingness to break ranks on an issue where public opinion has diverged widely from White House policy.   The text of the Resolution, H. Res. 375, a list of current co-sponsors, and what you can do to help: http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/902 From AfterDowningStreet.org

I thought I was the only one who knew this.  If tax cuts expire, we get honked!  Duh!  That's more $ out of our pockets! 

Can someone explain why they want to have a lower salary?  All I ever hear around here is how our paychecks continue to dwindle.  If Obama gets elected, plan on an even smaller check!

How can this be so hard to figure out?