Where’s the contradiction? His tax plan has been consistent, and he never said anyone making under $250,000 will not be taxed, he said they won’t have their taxes raised. To be specific, the $250,000 figures applies to married couples; singles making less than $200,000 will not have their taxes raised.
Perhaps you should do a little research before posting. Here is an article explaining the tax impact under Obama and McCain’s respective plans. As you can see, those in the lowest bracket -making under $19,000- will receive a $567 tax cut. Under McCain, the same bracket would have received a $19 tax cut.
Then your opinion is based on ignorance of the facts.
Where’s the contradiction? His tax plan has been consistent, and he never said anyone making under $250,000 will not be taxed, he said they won’t have their taxes raised. To be specific, the $250,000 figures applies to married couples; singles making less than $200,000 will not have their taxes raised.
Perhaps you should do a little research before posting. Here is an article explaining the tax impact under Obama and McCain’s respective plans. As you can see, those in the lowest bracket -making under $19,000- will receive a $567 tax cut. Under McCain, the same bracket would have received a $19 tax cut.
Then your opinion is based on ignorance of the facts.[/quote]
Thank you GB. I can always count on you to provide informative posts, but also to be snide about one having an opinion.
[quote=“rousseau”] What the phrick? Aren’t you Canadian? If so, here’s a newsflash: he’s not your leader, and he’s not mine (me being Canadian, as I presume you are), and he will have very little impact on your or my life unless he starts pressing buttons connected to nuclear weapons or seals the U.S. airtight in terms of trade.
In fact, if Mr. Obama turns out to be a protectionist, as it is rumoured, his presidency could be somewhat negative for Canada. Hey, I’m happy that the Americans finally got rid of a moron and all, sure, but this exultation about an American election is bizarre. Even more, this great outpouring of praise and worship of this particular politician is unseemly and unnerving. Have otherwise sane people lost their marbles? You’d actually put that much faith in, or would draw that much inspiration from, a politician? Really? Someone who at the end of the day is a cynical, lying and power-hungry opportunist, as all political leaders are to varying degrees?
Jayzus, get a grip. He’s still American, fer crissakes. He’s still going to send the U.S. military into places it shouldn’t go, he’s still going to make big, blundering mistakes, and he’s still going to act with that tiresome sense of entitlement that Americans bizarrely seem to think non-Americans find endearing, etcetera. You think he somehow stops being American because he got elected?
He’s not your leader. Americans are excited because a black man got elected president. Good for them. It doesn’t mean a thing to me as a Canadian, though, and the fact that it obviously does to you is really strange.[/quote]
The good-old-fashioned, stereotypical, bitter, know-it-all Canadian in Taiwan. Thank goodness I am older and don’t go to bars where I have to listen to this stuff and then pick up your beer tab.
But when he was not in power, he wasn’t sensible at all?[/quote]
He said some populist protectionist stuff before he was elected. Once he was Pres it was free trade all the way.
My point is that the same might happen with Obama.
But when he was not in power, he wasn’t sensible at all?[/quote]
He said some populist protectionist stuff before he was elected. Once he was Pres it was free trade all the way.
My point is that the same might happen with Obama.[/quote]
As long as he keeps the interns out of the Oval office, unchaperoned.
Blow jobs and stained dresses are far preferable to protectionism and redistributive taxes.[/quote]
Protectionism and redistributive taxes aren’t impeachable offenses though.
Blow jobs and stained dresses are far preferable to protectionism and redistributive taxes.[/quote]
Protectionism and redistributive taxes aren’t impeachable offenses though.[/quote]
Neither are blow jobs and stained dresses. It was lying to congress that was. Mind you, I actually thought the case against Clinton was pretty weak since he only lied about his private life, and as far as I can see it wouldn’t have succeeded even if he hadn’t run into term limits.
It will be interesting to see what Obama gets impeached over, since impeachment proceedings seem to be business as usual in the US these days.
You make a good point. I think the implicit social contract between politicians and those they ‘serve’ acknowledges that the politician is going to have to use deception and lies in order to conduct the duties of the office.
Well I wouldn’t go as far as that. The case for impeachment was that he lied in a deposition to Congress which is perjury. If he’d lied without it being perjury he would have been safe legally. Mind you I think impeaching someone for lying about an affair is bogus even if it is in a deposition to Congress. Of course from a legal standpoint you could impeach, but from a political one it just seems like small minded and vindictive gamesmanship. Now because of the way the US works that doesn’t matter. Gingrich et al could spin out the impeachment charade which made both them and Clinton and the Democrats look bad and then let someone unconnected with it run for President for the Republican party, i.e the gamesmanship didn’t affect them because they weren’t going to run.
Now if Clinton had perjured himself about his duties as President, impeach away. But IMO he or any other President is totally free to lie if its not perjury or not about his job.
Well I wouldn’t go as far as that. The case for impeachment was that he lied in a deposition to Congress which is perjury. If he’d lied without it being perjury he would have been safe legally.[/quote]
I see your point.
[quote]Mind you I think impeaching someone for lying about an affair is bogus even if it is in a deposition to Congress. Of course from a legal standpoint you could impeach, but from a political one it just seems like small minded and vindictive gamesmanship. Now because of the way the US works that doesn’t matter. Gingrich et al could spin out the impeachment charade which made both them and Clinton and the Democrats look bad and then let someone unconnected with it run for President for the Republican party, i.e the gamesmanship didn’t affect them because they weren’t going to run.
Now if Clinton had perjured himself about his duties as President, impeach away. But IMO he or any other President is totally free to lie if its not perjury or not about his job.[/quote]
That’s what you need in a leader? Speeches and talk? A man of rhetorics?
I’d be very, very wary of a smooth talker in the president’s seat. The better he is at talking, the less likely you are to notice he’s full of shit.[/quote]
Better a smooth talker with smarts than a dynastic successor with a brain impediment.
He lied to a grand jury while under oath. As far as being ‘small minded and vindictive’ tell that to all the people who are doing time in prison for perjury.