Obama's Deception

[MsgMills]

I read the following info and thought I'd pass this important Tax information on to the voters. This guy wrote and submitted this letter to the Courier-Journal in Louisville, KY. No wonder Obama's $ 250,000 income level for tax cuts sounds so good. The truth is now in black and white below.... Another reason I'm not voting for a Democrat to be put into Office as President.

Obama’s Deception

Last Tuesday night’s presidential debate seemed uneventful to me. However, one comment from Sen. Barack Obama caught my attention. Obama stated that he would reduce taxes for everyone earning less than $250,000 per year. I was ecstatic. My taxes are going down!
But my natural instinct for cynicism told me this was too good to be true. How is is possible that Obama can promise to keep our Military strong, reduce the deficit, strengthen social safety nets and lower taxes for 95 percent of Americans all at the same time? I went to Obama’s Web site and found his comment about reducing taxes for all Americans earning less than $250,000 and kept reading. The figurers are there and they look credible.
I became more confused. I then went to the McCain Web site in search of a clue to Obama’s financial magic. And there I found the clue I was looking for. Sen. John McCain says he wants to extend the Post - 9/11 tax cuts that will “expire” next year unless Congress extends them. I then went back to Obama’s Web site and after more analysis found the answer to the magic. Obama, if elected, will reduce middle class taxes from the restored “Higher” rates that take effect next year.
This means that instead of the promised tax reduction I heard Tuesday night he really means net increases of several trillion dollars to be paid by the middle class tax payers like me. Regardless of how one feels about Obama’s political agenda and social philosophy, one has to admit this is a great deception being played on America’s voters.

From: Manny Carralero
Louisville, KY. 40204

[Col Forbin]

Keep in mind this is info from McCain's site. Not really the first place I would go fact checking about Obama's agenda.

[kyfanatic]

Obama has tried to cover up his past,hid records,done his best to distance himself from his radical,terrorist friends,denied his upbringing,and made claims of all the wonderful things he intends to do,that we all know he couldn't possibly do.
Has been a US Senator for less than 1 year and spent that time campaigning,no real experience other than money raising to buy votes through ACORN,pretty bad that he has to ILLEGALLY buy votes,one homeless guy in the Cincinnati area was on the news this morning had been paid to register 73 times by Obama's ACORN friends.

[bassin_bug]

I was listening to the news this morning at 5:30 and heard a news reporter say that 80% of the news media was promoting and inflating Obama hype. He went on to say that those same reporters were taking McCain's statements out of context, or just taking only portions of what he said and turning them into half-truths in favor of Obama.

This person said he thinks that a lot of Obama supporters will think, "Well, Obama has a huge lead over McCain," and actually will not go to the polls and vote. I had never though of such a thing happening.

I know that I have a tight schedule for election day and am supposed to be traveling on very important business. I've chosen to delay my trip so I can go and vote (for McCain) and leave later in the day; it will cause me, a woman, to have to travel alone all night.

Me and Go'fer (my Glock 9mm) will be sitting close together for the entire trip. I named it Go'fer because I have it trained to go'fer whatever I point it at and tickle it's trigger.

[JBryant]

Has been a US Senator for less than 1 year and spent that time campaigning

Just one thing I noted, he was elected to the US Senate in 2004. He was a state senator from 1996 until 2004. He has had quite a bit more experience than 1 year. He still doesn't have a lot of experience, but it's more than most people give him credit for. I do find it ironic though, that we all want to throw the bums in Congress out because none of them actually care about the people that elected them, but then we criticize others because they haven't been around those people enough. I do it as well, though. I always look at a candidate's amount of experience, but then complain about others in office who have been in it for years and actually have the experience. Just thought about that and thought it was kind of funny.

Source: http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=9490 which is a completely non-partisan, non-opinion site. All it has is records information for all politicians, right down to the county level.

[RoadToad]

I then went to the McCain Web site in search of a clue to Obama’s financial magic. And there I found the clue I was looking for. Sen. John McCain says he wants to extend the Post - 9/11 tax cuts that will “expire” next year unless Congress extends them. I then went back to Obama’s Web site and after more analysis found the answer to the magic. Obama, if elected, will reduce middle class taxes from the restored “Higher” rates that take effect next year.
This means that instead of the promised tax reduction I heard Tuesday night he really means net increases of several trillion dollars to be paid by the middle class tax payers like me. Regardless of how one feels about Obama’s political agenda and social philosophy, one has to admit this is a great deception being played on America’s voters.

This letter at the very least, misrepresents the facts, and if you ask me, that statement that "he really means net increases of several trillion dollars to be paid by the middle class tax payers like me" is an outright lie. First off, the tax cuts were 1.2 trillion dollars in the first place, so even if they all expired, it wouldn't be "several trillion dollars." And of that $1.2 trillion, $380 billion of those cuts have already been extended through 2013, namely the extension of the 10% tax bracket, the $1,000 per child tax credit, reduction of the so-called marriage penalty and various tax cuts for people serving in the military and national guard. In other words, the ones most likely to affect middle class taxpayers like you and me. The ones that are still in place are the ones we liberals always complain about, the ones aimed at the richest few, who need them the least. And they expire in 2010, not "next year."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-13-senate-tax_n.htm

http://www.nysun.com/national/senate-democrats-reject-bush-tax-cut-extension/72898/

[Devils Horse]

You cannot find anyone who believes the government is capable of doing a good job on anything. In light of that FACT (run that through snopes if you need to), could the liberals answer the following questions with a straight answer?

How can you vote for a candidate who wants to increase the size and role of the federal government?

Don't just cop out say BO will change the government after the evil George Bush is out of office, we all know that's a load of crap. Don't spew liberal talking points either, we've heard them all already. Let's hear how you personally justify your obvious myopia on this key ISSUE.

[RoadToad]

You cannot find anyone who believes the government is capable of doing a good job on anything.

The only absolute in this world is the lack of absolutes. And I'm surprised I need to point this out to you, but if nobody believed the government was capable of doing a good job on anything, then there wouldn't BE any liberals, would there?

In light of that FACT (run that through snopes if you need to), could the liberals answer the following questions with a straight answer?

How can you vote for a candidate who wants to increase the size and role of the federal government?

Don't just cop out say BO will change the government after the evil George Bush is out of office, we all know that's a load of crap. Don't spew liberal talking points either, we've heard them all already. Let's hear how you personally justify your obvious myopia on this key ISSUE.

Despite what I see as your misuse of the word "fact," I have to give you credit for at least asking a question that goes to policy and agenda, and isn't just some mud cooked up using skewed information. I myself don't want to see the overall size of the federal government expanded. I don't claim to be an expert on the federal budget, but I'm sure there's lots of fat that could and should be trimmed. But at the risk of "spewing liberal talking points," I do think that the government has a role to play, and there may be areas where expanding that role is justified. Government itself isn't the problem, BAD government is.

[Devils Horse]

The only absolute in this world is the lack of absolutes. And I'm surprised I need to point this out to you, but if nobody believed the government was capable of doing a good job on anything, then there wouldn't BE any liberals, would there?



Despite what I see as your misuse of the word "fact," I have to give you credit for at least asking a question that goes to policy and agenda, and isn't just some mud cooked up using skewed information. I myself don't want to see the overall size of the federal government expanded. I don't claim to be an expert on the federal budget, but I'm sure there's lots of fat that could and should be trimmed. But at the risk of "spewing liberal talking points," I do think that the government has a role to play, and there may be areas where expanding that role is justified. Government itself isn't the problem, BAD government is.

Typical softshoe on a central issue 'toad. Why can't a liberal ever just give a straight answer? "The only absolute in this world is the lack of absolutes." Heavy man. I'm surprised you had to tell me that too.

Let's see if I caught the gist of your response. You disagree the federal government does a lousy job and you want them to have an expanded role in our lives.

You try and come to terms with yourself by contradicting your own stance on the issue, saying the government should cut some programs to check it's fiscal growth.

Totally irrational. Next?

[Mean Morone]

Here's your "role". Protect me from our enemies and let me be free to succeed or fail on my own. I dont want a hand up hand out or a hand across my face. Has anyone on here ever gotten a letter from our beloved Government threatening to come and take all your property away. I have. You know what, they can do it and there isn't anything you can do about it. I feel the same way our forefathers felt. Oppressed, over taxed, and over regulated. I say the Government needs to get off my back. I don't want to be burped at birth and then taxed again after I die by my Government. I don't think Socialism is OK just because we think we can do it better than the Europeans. I don't think rich people are evil and I don't want their money. They give me a job and thats enough for me. I've never worked for a homeless person, but I have worked for some wealthy people. I can't figure out how we now look at success as something we need to penalize. Does anyone think rich people pay high taxes? Yes they do, but they also pass those taxes on down the line. I know this for fact. It's the middle class and the poor that pays most of those taxes. Call it "trickle down economics". Of course we have been told that that doesn't really happen. Yeah right.

I don't think my 80 yr old parents should have to continue to work hard just to make a "rent" payment to the Government in the form of property taxes. They paid off their house many years ago but are afraid they will lose their house if they can't keep up the property taxes. Do you think you own your own home. Think again. You rent your house from the Government. One last thing, I have a God and he doesn't live in the White House.

[Tom523]

I've been ordering the "Don't blame me.I voted for Obama" bumper stickers. How many should I put you down for?

[kyfanatic]

I've been ordering the " Blame me.I voted for Obama" bumper stickers. How many should I put you down for?

Fixed that for you.