What Ralm is advocating is socialist, but his name is Ralm, not Obama. The raising of taxes by the states to raise revenue was a result of the Bush cutting Federal Aid to the States, Obama tried to eliminate these State Taxes and layoffs with his TALP.
The $8,000 is for the whiners complaining about Americans who did not pay taxes on their social benefits. So which is it, do you want them to pay taxes or not? Once again Do you want those who receive social benefits to be taxed or not? The right has been whining about this, now you get it, and you whine about THAT! Last time I checked the chief of staff doesn't make the policy decisions for the WH. On Apr 20, 2:34 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > First, as I suspicioned, the tax code WAS changed to where every dollar is > now taxed, (versus last year's Internal Revenue Code which allowed for the > approximate $8,000.00 of an employee's earnings to remain tax free) So, in > essence, President Obama is outright lying when he says that everyone making > under $250,000.00 is getting a tax cut. Simply not true. He taxes an > additional $1800.00 and turns around and gives you $400.00. Do the math > Sean. > > Second, do you think that the increased taxes on cigarettes, (all tobacco) > liquour, beer, and on the power companies are not going to effect those > making under $250,000.00? > > The socialist expansion is exactly what it means. Look at the expansion of > government services and the size of the federal bureaucracy. > > In fairness to Bush, (and again, I emphasize that I was opposed to TARP and > any other bailout) Bush reasoned that the application of these socialistic > bailouts were necessary for the long term economic health of our free market > economy. The current Administration makes no bones about this either, they > want to see the end of a free market economy, period. > > As professed, admitted socialist Rahm Emanuel said just yesterday, Sunday, > April 19, 2009: > > "And I think you’ll see this on Tuesday. The president will sign landmark > legislation for national service. And the sponsors are Senator Kennedy and > Senator Hatch, a Republican. And if you go through the process ... health > care, national service, as well as getting the resources necessary for > stabilizing the banks, every one of those have been bipartisan. But the > challenge will be: Will the Republicans come to the table with constructive > ideas.” > > Here is another lovely little ditty from Rahm: > > “So if there's any seriousness about what some of our Republican colleagues > are saying here in the House and elsewhere about improving the number of > refineries, then maybe they'd be willing to have these refineries owned > publicly, owned by the people of the United States, so that the people of > the United States can determine how much of the product is refined and put > out on the market. To me, that sounds like a very good idea." > > *House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-IL) June 19, 2008 Press > Conference.* > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 2:19 PM, VT VirtualTruth > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > So the socialism you keep harping about, is that the > > TARP, or the AUTO Bailout? Both were under Bush so > > how is that Obama's fault? If this is not the case, then > > point out where you are seeing this socialism? > > > The tax policies? He cut the taxes for those EARNING > > under $250,000. He extended benefits for those who paid > > into unemployment before they lost their jobs! > > > He is allowing the tax cuts to the richest sunset as > > the LAW dictates! > > > So please explain the socialism? > > > On Apr 20, 2:13 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sean, > > > > Let me clarify something. I was opposed to the Bush Bailouts. I still > > > remain opposed to the Bush Bailouts. > > > > Having said that, it is sheer lunacy to try and pin this crazy > > socialistic > > > attempt to end our very way of life and our economy that has worked for > > two > > > centuries on President Bush! He has nothing to do with the current > > budget, > > > period. Obama makes Bush look like a fiscal conservative, which we both > > > know is not the case!!! > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:59 PM, VT VirtualTruth > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > LMAO, I never saw someone dance so fast, > > > > > My FIRST post to this was to ask for a clarification > > > > of the 8 year BUDGET post, because you DID word > > > > it wrong, so I wanted to give you the benefit of doubt. > > > > > My second post was to point out the flaws of the > > > > fact that you did not include the Bush deficit and > > > > Bailout carry forwards. The total Bush deficits > > > > equals the rise in the US Debt from 2001 to 2009 > > > > some 5 Trillion to 6 Trillion dollars to 11 Trillion! > > > > > To say that Obama doesn't have the balls to end > > > > the deficit causing programs of HLS, the Medicare > > > > Drug program and the Bailouts is sheer idiocy. > > > > > I also noticed you didn't address the 2008 bailouts, > > > > why is that? Because if you do, Obama's deficit > > > > he actually OWNS is far less than the BS line > > > > Republicans are pedaling, so try again! > > > > > On Apr 20, 1:40 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > SugarShack, > > > > > > Let's Review: > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:44 PM, VT VirtualTruth < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > So people here have a better Idea of why you cut and ran on the other > > > > > board... > > > > > Your message was confusing because it was wrong. > > > > > > (Keith Resonds: Sugarshack, once I thought I was wrong, but I was > > > > > mistaken. You need to check your figures Buddy!!!) > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > - You were comparing Obama's 'record deficit' to all eight > > > > > > years of Bush's BUDGETS and THEN said it was 4 TIMES\the size! > > > > > > *Keith Responds: * > > > > > > I said that Obama's budget deficit is four times the size of Bush's > > > > deficit, > > > > > for the past eight years. This is a correct assessment. > > > > > > In fact, the Obama proposed 10 year budget would expend over ten > > trillion > > > > > dollars over the next ten years, which exceeds not only the last > > eight > > > > > years, it exceeds the last 232 years of our entire history!!! > > > > > > =============== > > > > > > - So forgive me if I challenged it especially when your > > > > > > proof did not support this comment. > > > > > > ============== > > > > > > *Keith Responds:* > > > > > > Sean, Sean, Sean, > > > > > Any way you try to spin it, we have never, ever seen the kind of > > deficit > > > > > spending that the Obama Administration is proposing over the next ten > > > > > years. More importantly, the Obama Administration is attempting to > > > > expand > > > > > the federal government to something, once again, we have never seen. > > In > > > > > essence, President Obama is attempting to do away with a free market > > > > ecomony > > > > > in this Nation, (as well as the United States Constitution, and you > > > > somehow > > > > > are either attempting to ignore this fact, and/or brush over the > > > > financial > > > > > numbers!!!) > > > > > > ================ > > > > > > - I will read your post, look at the facts, then explain the > > > > > > results to you. > > > > > > ============ > > > > > > *Keith Responds:* > > > > > > Please do, before you throw out any more bogus numbers of out-dated > > > > facts!! > > > > > ============= > > > > > > For instance, the 2008 Bailouts though added to the 2009 > > > > > Budget are deficits Obama inherited. Also I want to > > > > > make sure interest is not also added to the figure. > > > > > > Obama inherited a $600,000 Billion deficit BEFORE > > > > > the 2008 Bailouts were even added on > > > > > > $600 Billion X 8 Years is already $4.8 Trillion > > > > > of Inherited Deficits that are a carry over from Bush > > > > > > ================== > > > > > > *Keith Responds:* > > > > > > Sugarshack, Sugarshack, Sugharshack, > > > > > > Your Numbers are not correct. The Bush Deficit was less than five > > > > hundred > > > > > billion. Your premise is also correct. Obama could stop eliminate > > the > > > > Bush > > > > > Administration's 480 billion budget deficit tomorrow, but that is > > not > > > > > Pelosi's Reed's or Obama's goal. The socialist-elitists' goal is > > just > > > > that, > > > > > socialism, elitism, and to expand federal government to heights we > > have > > > > > never seen!! > > > > > > It is disengenuous to suggest that this is somehow a "Bush > > carryover". > > > > It > > > > > would be like suggesting that President Clinton left some kind of a > > > > national > > > > > debt surplus, (not a budget surplus) when we both know this isn't > > true. > > > > > > Add to this the cost of the 2008 Bailouts and that > > > > > > > is another $1 to $1.5 Trillion! > > > > > > > To say this is Obama's Fault and to blame him > > > > > > for this deficit spending is truly disingenuous! > > > > > > > Obama inherited HLS and the Medicare Drug Program > > > > > > and the AIG, TARP, AUTO, Merrill Lynch, and > > > > > > other bailouts. Remember this fact. > > > > > > > Oh and for the record your actual words, not your > > > > > > revised version was this...... > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 5:17 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The "record deficit" that you reference, is a small drop in the > > > > bucket as > > > > > > > compared to the current "record deficit" which is four times the > > size > > > > of > > > > > > all > > > > > > > eight years of the Bush Administration's budgets..... > > > > > > > > You still don't get it!!! > > > > > > > BIG DIFFERENCE!!!!!!! Now try again. > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 9:25 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Good Morning SugarShack! > > > > > > > > What is it that you want me to post? I have clearly established > > > > that > > > > > > > President Obama's budget quadriples the budget deficit of the > > former > > > > > > > Administration's. That the proposed budgetary plan clearly > > expands a > > > > our > > > > > > > federal government to proportions unheard of. > > > > > > > > I have provided you factual links, some from the Congressional > > Budget > > > > > > > Office, some from other governmental sites which clearly > > establish > > > > these > > > > > > > facts. > > > > > > > > What is it that you think I should respond too? Your contention > > that > > > > you > > > > > > > didn't understand my post, or that somehow you take issue with my > > > > > > > semantics? > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
