Combined income or small business making 120,000 or higher

• I see the new middle class has dropped from 250,000 to 120,000 and could be lower. - middle class
  • where do you see this? nm - Amanda
    • Cannot make up his mind. Here is the site. - middle class
      • Obama did not say that - - Amanda
        • Way to go, Amanda! Great research.n/m - Stardust
    • On the news today Governor Richardson said it. - Just me
      • okay - what I just read said - - Amanda
      • So did Joe Biden....and we haven't heard from him in awhile since. - sam
        • That's why they call him Hidin Biden (sm) and to Amanda - Just me
          • again - the link ya'll give says - - Amanda
  • He's keeping his campaign of "change" - that's for sure - Just me
    • Not a break from reality, - middle class
  • Lawyers, guns, and money?! no message - Sure you don't mean
  • is the the starting point or the end point for the middle class? - ...
    • Combined income or small business making 120,000 or higher - middle class
      • Soon to be 100, then 75, then 40 (see message) - etc., etc., etc.
        • Of course it has to go lower. How else... - sam
    • According to McCain (sm) - Just the big bad

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

news stories to click on. I'm especially interested in the cyber czar story, which means this political board may be taken down. I do believe this is an absolute intrusion on free speech.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11478

I may be an idjit myself and I am certainly the most cynical of the cynical.  While I'm about it, I think Obama's mom was a bit of an idjit for making the decisions she made in life but I guess that was her business. 

As for GWB, he certainly does deserve some discussion.  Like why did he not straight away pardon those 2 border patrol agents who were the target of the worst miscarriage of justice I have personally ever seen?  Could there be something synister there?  I think so.

I am most certainly NOT a liberal and by the heart of conservatives, I am NOT a conservative either.  I do agree with them (if they really believe it) that abortion and gay marriage are wrong.  HOWEVER, my opinion being stated, I believe those are moral issues and as such belong to God and not the government.  I also do not believe God requires my assistance in passing judgement on them.

Soooo....with all the problems we were facing, t here are many more important issues than Obama's birth certificate.  I drug my feet in voting for Obama but I do  have a glimmer of hope that he is working to at least get some plan in place for the day he is inaugerated.  Everyone deserves a chance.  The American people have spoken so it's time to put this b/c nonissue to rest and get to the business of importance...like millions of people projected to be unemployed and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, which if something isn't done and soon we are headed for the worst times most of you have ever seen and you'll have enough to worry about just wondering how you're going to put food on the table.

any kind for 95% of the American people.  This is just going to kill the people who are already struggling to make ends meet.  Not to mention the high prices that will come if they get cap and trade passed.  Why don't people in Washington get this?  All they talk about are the sacrifices that we are all going to have to make and they do nothing but keep spending.  Where is the sacrifice on their end, huh?  We need to fix this economy and stop the constant spending by our government. 

I'm so sick and tired of this.  I work to make money and they are just going to take more and more of what I earn.  I've always been responsible with my money and have excellent credit but how I am going to continue to make ends meet if this keeps up?  It is pretty sad when responsible people are scared this will bring them down as well.  I guess the rich will just have to pay for everything because there won't be a middle class left the rate things are going.

Poster tried to get you to read this before but obviously ignored by most.  You might want to remember this at the polls.........  This was just back in March when this was attempted by Obama.. your hero!

WASHINGTON - Presidential candidates John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton interrupted their campaign schedules to return to the Senate for votes on taxes and spending likely to become key points of contention in the race for the White House.

Votes on tax cuts and on a one-year ban on pet projects topped the Senate’s agenda before an expected late-night vote yesterday to pass a $3 trillion Democratic budget blueprint. The nonbinding plan predicts a balanced budget in four years and promises generous increases for many domestic programs, but achieves those goals only by assuming major tax increases when President Bush’s tax cuts expire in about three years.  This was found out and release the morning after they tried to get this passed in the mddle of the night back in March. 

Obama(D-Ill.) and Clinton (D-N.Y.) both promise to reverse Bush’s tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they’ll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.

in this household. Sure, we could lose our jobs, however, we are quite prepared for something like that. We have an emergency fund in place that would last at least a year (a year's worth of mortgage and utilility payments), we don't have a car payment, all credit cards are paid off and we have CDs, retirement funds, etc. It's called planning for the future and planning for the unexpected. We have paid into unemployment, so of course we would take it if we had to.

Since sales tax was brought up below, let's take a little poll..........

Do you believe that a federal sales tax to replace the current income tax system would be a good move?  Do you think it would be more fair or less fair and why?

I'll post my opinion separate from this.

I agree that the bill is a bit confusing, but I think it's great so many of us are actually looking into it to find out what it is really about.  I think the New York Times article below clarifies the income guidelines pretty well.  I also want to say that I heard that if we go with Bush's $5 billion plan for SCHIP it will be grossly underfunded, as apparently, it is already underfunded and many kids who qualify with the current income guidelines cannot get on SCHIP, so I hope he is willing to at least compromise and give more money to the program if his veto isn't overridden.  It's for a good cause, darn it!

"Oct. 16 — It is the $83,000 question: Could children with that amount of family income qualify for subsidized health insurance under the bipartisan bill passed by Congress and vetoed by President Bush?

When the House votes Thursday on whether to override the veto, Republicans will insist that the answer is yes. They will express outrage that rich children could get coverage from the government while hundreds of thousands of poor children still go uninsured.

Democrats say it is a total distortion for Mr. Bush and his Republican allies to say that the bill allows coverage with family incomes up to $83,000 a year.

Who is right? Each side appears to overstate its case. The bill does not encourage or prohibit coverage of children with family incomes at that level.

Of the 6.6 million children now covered by the program, most come from families with incomes well below $83,000, and the bill would give states financial incentives to sign up low-income children who are eligible but not enrolled.

In general, children with family incomes below the poverty level ($20,650 for a family of four) are eligible for Medicaid. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program is meant for families with too much income to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to afford private insurance.

Mr. Bush said Monday that the bill would expand eligibility for the program up to $83,000.

But Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and an architect of the bill, said Tuesday that the president’s argument was specious. “About 92 percent of the kids will be under 200 percent of the poverty level,” Mr. Hatch said at a news conference with supporters of the bill, including the singer Paul Simon.

Another Republican author of the bill, Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, said the White House claims were “flatly incorrect.”

States establish income limits for the child health program. A recent survey by the Congressional Research Service found that 32 states had set limits at twice the poverty level or less, while 17 states had limits from 220 percent to 300 percent of the poverty level. Only one state, New Jersey, has a higher limit. It offers coverage to children with family incomes up to 350 percent of the poverty level, or $72,275 for a family of four.

In New York, which covers children up to 250 percent of the poverty level, the Legislature this year passed a bill that would have raised the limit to 400 percent of the poverty level, or $82,600 for a family of four. The Bush administration rejected the proposal, saying it would have allowed the substitution of public coverage for private insurance.

States that cover middle-income children often charge premiums and co-payments on a sliding scale, so the coverage is not free.

While the bill passed by Congress would not prohibit states from setting the income limit at $82,600, it would set stringent new standards for such coverage.

In general, after Oct. 1, 2010, a state could not receive any federal money to cover children above 300 percent of the poverty level unless a vast majority of its low-income children — those at or below 200 percent of the poverty level — were already covered. To meet this test, a state would have to show that the proportion of its low-income children with insurance was at least equal to the average for the 10 states with the highest rates of coverage of low-income children.

Moreover, if a state was allowed to cover children over 300 percent of the poverty level, the federal payment for those children would, in most cases, be reduced. New Jersey and New York would be exempt from the cuts if they met the bill’s other requirements.

Citing that provision, the White House said Oct. 6 that the bill included a “grandfather clause” allowing higher payment rates for children above 300 percent of the poverty level in New Jersey and New York.

Jocelyn A. Guyer, a researcher at the Health Policy Institute of Georgetown University, said: “This is a wildly contentious political issue, but it’s largely a theoretical question. More than 99 percent of children in the program are below three times the poverty level, and New York is the only state that has expressed any interest in going to four times the poverty level.”

Suzanne Esterman, a spokeswoman for the New Jersey Department of Human Services, said that 3,000 of the 124,000 children in the state program — about 2.4 percent — had family incomes exceeding three times the poverty level.

Some of the current confusion can be traced back to a bill introduced in March by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan, both Democrats. They would have explicitly allowed all states to expand eligibility to families making four times the poverty level. But the bill passed by Congress did not go that far." -by Robert Pear

You guys are probably sick of hearing my opinions on this if you read the last thread, but I wanted to re-post this section of an article that addresses the income level concern.  It sounds like the only state that asked for income guidelines to go as high as $83,000 was New York, and their request was denied, so that income level is not a part of the current bill. (To me it sounds like even the $60,000 guideline may be limited to New York, but I'm honestly not sure on that and will try to find out).

--The president also complained that the bill would cover too many children who don't need federal help. "This program expands coverage, federal coverage, up to families earning $83,000 a year. That doesn't sound poor to me," the president told the Lancaster audience.

Dorn says that's not exactly right, either. "This bill would actually put new limits in place to keep states from going to very high-income levels. SCHIP money would no longer be available over 300 percent of the federal poverty level, which is about $60,000 for a family of four."

The president gets to make the $83,000 claim because New York had wanted to allow children in families with incomes up to four times the poverty level onto the program. That is, indeed, $82,600. The Department of Health and Human Services rejected New York's plan last month, and under the bill, that denial would stand. White House officials warn, however, that the bill would allow a future administration to grant New York's request.

link to the entire article:  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14962685