McCain Views himself as similar to Teddy Roosevelt

[Carl Ragadamn]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/13/america/mccain.php

An interesting read.

[Fro]

If american politics didn't bore me i would read it.

[Killuminati]

If american politics didn't bore me i would read it.

You bore me.

[Spinewire]

teddy is a stupid name

[Fro]

You bore me.

But you still read my posts.

[Killuminati]

But you still read my posts.

No

[Fro]

No

You're cool..

[Killuminati]

You're cool..

Don't tell me what I already know. Its a waste of time.

[Fro]

Don't tell me what I already know. Its a waste of time.

So you do read my posts.

[Killuminati]

So you do read my posts.

No, I fap to them.

[Viluin]

I bet McCain feels like a Rough Rider when he rides his boyfriend.

[Killuminati]

I bet McCain feels like a Rough Rider when he rides his boyfriend.

I lol'd irl

[Mulambo]

these fucking candidates are so stupid, all they can do is try to compare themselves to the hosers of old. Obama with his borrowed 'i haz a dreams' and mccain with his "my friends, I am just like the best parts of ronald reagan and teddy roosevelt, my friends" crap.

sooooooooooooooooooooooo bullshit.

[Jarkovii]

I bet McCain feels like a Rough Rider when he rides his boyfriend.

LOL !!!!!!

[Kietharr]

John McCain is obviously a faggot, where is his facial hair? You can't be teddy without the mustache. You also need charisma and the ability to take a bullet to the chest without dieing, I highly doubt McCain has any of that.

[MrSilverZ]

Proposed Changes In Taxes After 2008 General Election:

Capital Gains Tax

Mccain
0% On Home Sales Up To $500,000 Per Home (couples) Mccain Does Not Propose Any Change In Existing Home Sales Income Tax.

Obama

28% On Profit From All Home Sales

How Does This Affect You?

If You Sell Your Home And Make A Profit, You Will Pay 28% Of Your Gain On Taxes.

If You Are Heading Toward Retirement And Would Like To Down-size Your Home Or Move Into A Retirement Community, 28% Of The Money You Make From Your Home Will Go To Taxes. This Proposal Will Adversely Affect The Elderly Who Are Counting On The Income From Their Homes As Part Of Their Retirement Income.

Dividend Tax

Mccain 15% (no Change)

Obama 39.6%

How Will This Affect You?

If You Have Any Money Invested In Stock Market, Ira, Mutual Funds, College Funds, Life Insurance, Retirement Accounts, Or Anything That Pays Or Reinvests Dividends, You Will Now Be Paying Nearly 40% Of The Money Earned On Taxes If Obama Become President.

The Experts Predict That 'higher Tax Rates On Dividends And Capital Gains Would Crash The Stock Market Yet Do Absolutely Nothing To Cut The Deficit.

Income Tax

Mccain (no Changes)

Single Making 30k - Tax $4,500
Single Making 50k - Tax $12,500
Single Making 75k - Tax $18,750
Married Making 60k- Tax $9,000
Married Making 75k - Tax $18,750
Married Making 125k - Tax $31,250

Obama
(reversion To Pre-bush Tax Cuts)
Single Making 30k - Tax $8,400
Single Making 50k - Tax $14,000
Single Making 75k - Tax $23,250
Married Making 60k - Tax $16,800
Married Making 75k - Tax $21,000
Married Making 125k - Tax $38,750

Under Obama Your Taxes Will More Than Double!

How Does This Affect You? No Explanation Needed. This Is Pretty Straight Forward.

Inheritance Tax

Mccain 0% (no Change, Bush Repealed This >> Tax)

Obama Restore The Inheritance Tax

How Does This Affect You? Many Families Have Lost Businesses, Farms And Ranches, And Homes That Have Been In Their Families For Generations Because They Could Not Afford The Inheritance Tax. Those Willing Their Assets To Loved
Ones Will Not Only Lose Them To These Taxes.

New Taxes Being Proposed By Obama

* New Government Taxes Proposed On Homes That Are More Than 2400 Square Feet

* New Gasoline Taxes (as If Gas Weren't High Enough Already)

* New Taxes On Natural Resources Consumption (heating Gas, Water, Electricity)

* New Taxes On Retirement Accounts


And Last But Not Least....

* New Taxes To Pay For Socialized Medicine So We Can Receive The Same Level Of Medical Care As Other Third-world Countries!!!

[EAZYmfE]

he's still not as commie as Osama.

[GFH_Spike]

"I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption." -McCain

Much stupidity can be dissected from the above statement. He needs to take a look at heterosexual divorce rates.

[Dreadknought]

"I think that we've proven that both parents are important in the success of a family so, no, I don't believe in gay adoption." -McCain

Much stupidity can be dissected from the above statement. He needs to take a look at heterosexual divorce rates.

Why do you care? Are you gay?

[Eyrothath]

oops

[Red Morgan]

Bush thinks the same thing. It's too bad Bush already declared Putin to be his soul mate, McCain is probably closer to the truth.

[Mulambo]

Why do you care? Are you gay?

Yeah, cause only a *** would care that McCain, Republican nominee for president of our country, is stupid.

[Renithir]

Bush thinks the same thing. It's too bad Bush already declared Putin to be his soul mate, McCain is probably closer to the truth.

Putin may be his soul mate, but Georgie was making out with Lieberman in the stands at his inauguration... he's SUCH a slut!

Besides, I doubt you could break the Bob Dole viagra love lock off of MCee Cain.

[GFH_Spike]

Why do you care? Are you gay?

You aren't being tortured, why would you care if others are? Torture is illegal and should be illegal, the other isn't legal (in many states) and should be legal.

Both involve human rights.

[Dazarthas]

McCain has actually gained negative respect with me... if he's Teddy Roosevelt, then I'm the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Renithir]

Proposed Changes In Taxes After 2008 General Election:

Capital Gains Tax

Mccain
0% On Home Sales Up To $500,000 Per Home (couples) Mccain Does Not Propose Any Change In Existing Home Sales Income Tax.

Obama

28% On Profit From All Home Sales

How Does This Affect You?

If You Sell Your Home And Make A Profit, You Will Pay 28% Of Your Gain On Taxes.

If You Are Heading Toward Retirement And Would Like To Down-size Your Home Or Move Into A Retirement Community, 28% Of The Money You Make From Your Home Will Go To Taxes. This Proposal Will Adversely Affect The Elderly Who Are Counting On The Income From Their Homes As Part Of Their Retirement Income.

Dividend Tax

Mccain 15% (no Change)

Obama 39.6%

How Will This Affect You?

If You Have Any Money Invested In Stock Market, Ira, Mutual Funds, College Funds, Life Insurance, Retirement Accounts, Or Anything That Pays Or Reinvests Dividends, You Will Now Be Paying Nearly 40% Of The Money Earned On Taxes If Obama Become President.

The Experts Predict That 'higher Tax Rates On Dividends And Capital Gains Would Crash The Stock Market Yet Do Absolutely Nothing To Cut The Deficit.

Income Tax

Mccain (no Changes)

Single Making 30k - Tax $4,500
Single Making 50k - Tax $12,500
Single Making 75k - Tax $18,750
Married Making 60k- Tax $9,000
Married Making 75k - Tax $18,750
Married Making 125k - Tax $31,250

Obama
(reversion To Pre-bush Tax Cuts)
Single Making 30k - Tax $8,400
Single Making 50k - Tax $14,000
Single Making 75k - Tax $23,250
Married Making 60k - Tax $16,800
Married Making 75k - Tax $21,000
Married Making 125k - Tax $38,750

Under Obama Your Taxes Will More Than Double!

How Does This Affect You? No Explanation Needed. This Is Pretty Straight Forward.

Inheritance Tax

Mccain 0% (no Change, Bush Repealed This >> Tax)

Obama Restore The Inheritance Tax

How Does This Affect You? Many Families Have Lost Businesses, Farms And Ranches, And Homes That Have Been In Their Families For Generations Because They Could Not Afford The Inheritance Tax. Those Willing Their Assets To Loved
Ones Will Not Only Lose Them To These Taxes.

New Taxes Being Proposed By Obama

* New Government Taxes Proposed On Homes That Are More Than 2400 Square Feet

* New Gasoline Taxes (as If Gas Weren't High Enough Already)

* New Taxes On Natural Resources Consumption (heating Gas, Water, Electricity)

* New Taxes On Retirement Accounts


And Last But Not Least....

* New Taxes To Pay For Socialized Medicine So We Can Receive The Same Level Of Medical Care As Other Third-world Countries!!!
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=606311Sean Hannity is your source? Sadness abounds...


Welcome to the forum, Mr InaccurateCopyPasta!

You should know that Ron Paul has discredited all of the lies and smears you posted against Mr Obama, and has gone so far as to officially endorse Mr Obama in the upcoming election as the only candidate who offers a real chance for the continued success of our nation.

In the future, please refrain from posting unsourced lies on the forums, and enjoy your stay!

[Thrill_KIll]

You should know that Ron Paul has discredited all of the lies and smears you posted against Mr Obama, and has gone so far as to officially endorse Mr Obama in the upcoming election as the only candidate who offers a real chance for the continued success of our nation.


This is the closest thing I could find to support what you said:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_l6UO_a85k&feature=related

Unless I am missing something, I would hardly call that an official endorsement.

Also, every quote in that copy/paste is taken from an Obama quote (pardon my copy and paste skills, but note sources after each bullet):

Barack Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As "Massive New Domestic Spending." "Obama's transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?" (James Pethokoukis, "Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?" U.S. News & World Report's "Capital Commerce" Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)


Barack Obama Also Called For A Tax On Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: "What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas." ("Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama," San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)


Barack Obama Called For A Windfall Profits Tax On Oil Companies. Obama: "I think it is appropriate for us to impose a windfall profits tax on our oil companies." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At A Campaign Event, Charlotte, NC, 5/2/08)


"[Obama] Wants To Raise Taxes Even Above The Levels Of The Clinton Era, Including A Huge Increase In The Payroll Tax." (Editorial, "The Obama We Don't Know," The Wall Street Journal, 6/4/08)


U.S. News & World Report's Michael Barone Said Obama's Fiscal Policy Is Akin To Herbert Hoover's -- Raising Taxes And Backing Protectionist Trade Policies During An Economic Slowdown. "On fiscal policy, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton want higher taxes, at least on high earners. They want to let at least some of the Bush tax cuts expire in 2010, as scheduled. On trade, they oppose new free-trade agreements and want to renegotiate NAFTA with Canada and Mexico. As it happens, another president embraced such policies in a time of economic slowdown and financial market turbulence: Herbert Hoover raised taxes on high earners sharply and, ignoring a letter signed by 1,000 economists, signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930. The results were not pretty. Until now, his example has not commended itself to Democrats. One wonders whether voters will agree that tax increases will stimulate the economy." (M ichael Barone, Op-Ed, "Uncle Sam Pays? Sure, Whatever," U.S. News & World Report, 4/21/08)


Barack Obama Voted In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget, Which Would Raise Tax Rates For Americans Earning As Little As $31,850:

Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats' FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85, Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

The Democrats' Budget Would Raise Taxes On Individuals Earning As Little As $31,850. "Under both Democratic plans, tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent brackets. At present, the 25 percent bracket begins at $31,850 for individuals and $63,700 for married couples. The 35 percent bracket on incomes over $349,700 would jump to 39.6 percent." (Andrew Taylor, "Presidential Hopefuls To Vote On Budget," The Associated Press, 3/13/08)

In 2004, Barack Obama Voted For A $304 Million Tax Increase On Businesses In Creating The Tax Shelter Voluntary Compliance Act. (H.B. 848, Illinois Senate Floor Third Reading, Passed 30-28-1, 5/20/04, Obama Voted Yea; Dave McKinney, "Blagojevich Threatens Up To 5,000 State Layoffs," Chicago Sun-Times, 5/21/04)

The Legislation "Triggered A Huge Outcry From Business Groups," Which Contended It Would "Drive Companies Out Of State" And Cost Jobs. "The governor's bid to raise taxes and fees by close to $400 million and reel in another $300 million-plus in corporate tax breaks has triggered a huge outcry from business groups, which contend the moves will drive companies out of state and cause Illinois to lose jobs." (Dave McKinney and Leslie Griffy, "Blagojevich Threatens Up To 5,000 State Layoffs," Chicago Sun-Times, 5/21/04)

In 2003, Barack Obama Voted For A Bill "That Raised A Huge Number Of Fees And Taxes" On Businesses And Licenses. "Obama voted for a bill during the 2003 Illinois General Assembly legislative session that raised a huge number of fees and taxes for businesses and licenses to cover day-to-day expenses of state government." (Terrence L. Barnich, Op-Ed, "4 Partisan Questions For Obama," Chicago Tribune, 7/29/04)

The Legislation Negatively Impacted Illinois' Trucking Industry, Costing The State 25,000 Licensed Trucks In 2005. "Almost 17,000 fewer commercial trucks and 2,700 fewer trucking companies have been registered in Illinois for 2005, fueling the trucking industry's claim that Gov. Rod Blagojevich is driving businesses out of the state with his new fees and business taxes." (Brian Wallheimer, "Governor's New Fees Are Driving Trucking Firms Out Of Illinois, Industry Says," St. Louis Post- Dispatch, 5/5/04)

In 2003, Barack Obama Voted To Tax Natural Gas Purchased Outside Of Illinois. (S.B. 1733, Bill Status, www.ilga.gov, Accessed 2/11/08; S.B. 1733: Concurrence In House Amendment #4, Passed 31-27-00, 5/31/03, Obama Voted Yea)

· The Natural Gas Tax Made Natural Gas More Expensive For Industrial Buyers Such As Manufacturers. "The natural gas tax. A new policy under Blagojevich's budget will make natural gas more expensive to industrial buyers. Currently, Illinois offers an exemption on the sales tax paid for natural gas, but the new budget ends that exemption, a move that could become a major expense for steel mills and other factories that use large quantities of natural gas." (Kevin McDermott, "Area Dodged Legislative Hit On Schools, Roads," St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 6/8/03)

Barack Obama Voted For The Natural Gas Tax, Which Threatened Jobs, At The Same Time That Illinois Was Leading The Nation In Jobs Lost. "Just as harmful to the state's economy are the large taxes on natural gas brought from out-of-state suppliers and the rolling stock sales tax. Both of these taxes will negatively affect important businesses as well as the employees who are dependent on these Illinois companies. I have received phone calls and letters from all sectors of the business community who reported that the projected loss of revenues due to these increased taxes and fees may well cause them to close their facilities in Illinois and move to a more business-friendly surrounding state while still serving Illinois customers. Illinois leads the nation in jobs lost. We cannot afford to drive more businesses from our state." (State Rep. Carolyn Krause, Op-Ed, "Increase Tax Incentives, Not Taxes For Businesses," Chicago Tribune, 6/13/03)


In 1999, Barack Obama Voted In Favor Of S.B. 1028 To Create The Illinois First Infrastructure Program, Which Raised 146 Taxes And Fees. (S.B. 1028: Senate Floor Third Reading, Passed, 58-0-0, 3/23/99, Obama Voted Yea; S.B. 1028: Senate Conference Committee Report, Passed, 42-17-0, 5/21/99, Obama Voted Yea; Editorial, "Jack Ryan Woefully Unprepared For Attack On Obama," The State Journal-Register, 4/18/04)




Everthing above is backed by Obama interveiws and government votes he participated in. Note how a few different bullets mention that Illinois LEADS THE NATION in jobs LOST. Ever think there is a coorelation between Obama and pals tax increases and all the businesses LEAVING the state?

And while I like Ron Paul, I will take someone like Ben Stein or Steve Forbes' word over Ron Pauls on things like the economy. And they absolutely do NOT endorse Obama's economic plan.

Now go chant "change" somewhere else.

[Renithir]

Thrill, nice job with the wall of text. I honestly mean that.

My point to the hack I replied to was that he should source his materials, which you did, and he should avoid posting propaganda as people here can smell it a mile away. Which suprises me why you didn't spot my Ron Paul piece as complete satire...

[Renithir]

Now, a little of my own copy pasta from factcheck.org in regards to Obama wanting to raise taxes on those making 32k and under...

The $32,000 Question
July 8, 2008
Updated: July 11, 2008
The McCain campaign falsely claims that Obama voted to raise income taxes on individuals earning "as little as $32,000 per year."
Summary
The McCain campaign claims that Obama voted to raise income taxes on individuals who earn as little as $32,000 per year. That's wrong.


The resolution Obama voted for would not have increased taxes on any single taxpayer making less than $41,500 per year in total income, or any couple making less than $83,000. The $32,000 figure is approximately the taxable income of a single person making $41,500 per year, after all deductions and exclusions.



Obama's vote (for a non-binding budget bill) does not change the fact that his own tax plan would provide a tax cut of $502 for a non-married taxpayer earning $35,000.
Update, July 11: After this article was posted the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee aired a radio ad in two states repeating the bogus $32,000 figure. The campaign also sent an e-mail to reporters defending it, but failing to note that it refers to taxable income and not total income.
Analysis
Sen. John McCain's "economic adviser" Steve Forbes pushed the $32,000 claim July 7 in a conference call with reporters and in news interviews. Here's what he said in the call:
Forbes: Senator Obama has a series of tax proposals and tax actions that would devastate the American economy. For example, he has voted to increase income taxes on individuals earning as little as $32,000 a year. He doesn't make much of that on the campaign trail, but he did that in the Senate.
We can certainly see why Obama wouldn't "make much of this" – especially since it's not true.

What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. (The McCain campaign relies on an AP article which puts the cutoff at $31,850, but that figure is from 2007 (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/individual_rates.pdf), not this year.) So the McCain campaign claims that anyone making "as little as $32,000" would be affected by the rate increase.

But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that's not actually how income taxes work. We don't pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our "taxable income." The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center's Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that "people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that." In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?DocID=474&Topic2id=30&Topic3id=38) to a standard deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.

What Would Barack Do?


Forbes refers to Obama's March 2008 vote (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00085) for a non-binding budget resolution (http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/110/sc/sc70.pdf) that would have set general revenue and spending targets for congressional tax-writing and appropriations committees. The resolution does not contain a specific provision to raise tax rates, but rather assumes that most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire as scheduled in 2011. It also bears no relation to Obama's proposed economic plan. In fact, Obama has stated repeatedly that his plan would increase taxes only for those making more than $250,000 per year:
Obama (June 12, 2008): If you are a family making less than $250,000 a year, my plan will not raise your taxes. Period. Not income tax, not payroll tax, not capital gains tax, not any of your taxes. And chances are you will get a tax cut.
The most comprehensive nonpartisan analysis (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf) of Obama's tax proposal available is the Tax Policy Center's comparison of McCain's and Obama's economic plans. That analysis mostly supports Obama's claim that his plan won't raise taxes, though it says that families earning between $169,480 and $237,040 would see an average tax increase of $486 under Obama's plan. All those earning less than $169,480 would see tax cuts. In fact, that hypothetical taxpayer with the $32,000 in taxable income would get a $502 tax cut (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=1839) under Obama's plan. McCain's plan, by contrast, would leave that person's taxes unchanged.

Obama the Flip-Flopper?


Forbes is right that Obama voted for a resolution that would have allowed tax rates to return to their pre-2001 levels. Yet Obama's own economic plan makes permanent the tax cuts to the four lowest brackets. So why the shift? Obama told (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/07/1185362.aspx) reporters on July 7 that "the budget resolutions are not tax votes" and went on to describe the budget process as "screwy." We'll certainly grant him that last part. As we have described (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/tax_tally_trickery.html) before, budget resolutions basically set targets for appropriations committees to use. They are more like guidelines than actual rules. And, like many budget resolutions, this one passed on a party-line vote, with just one Democrat and two Republicans crossing party lines.

Certainly Obama's votes indicate a willingness to raise taxes, and Obama has not been shy about saying explicitly that he will raise some taxes. We'll leave it to you to decide what you think about Obama's record and his specific proposals. But we do find that the McCain campaign is simply wrong to say Obama supported raising taxes on those making "as little as $32,000 a year." In fact, according to the Tax Policy Center, only the top 10 percent of earners would see increases under Obama's plan, with most of the burden falling on the top 1 percent.

– by Joe Miller

Update, July 11: The McCain campaign has escalated its use of the false $32,000 claim. The campaign and the RNC have aired a radio ad (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/McCain_RNC_to_hit_Obama_on_radio_.html) in Virginia and Ohio (http://www.daytondailynews.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/ohiopolitics/entries/2008/07/10/antiobama_ad_hits_dayton_radio.html) in which a teacher repeats the false claim, saying: "Barack Obama promises to cut taxes, but he voted to raise taxes on folks earning as little as $32,000." Also, in a July 11 e-mail to reporters, McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin defended the figure:
Holtz-Eakin: In the past three days, much has been written about Barack Obama’s vote in favor of a budget resolution that raises income tax rates by three percentage points for 25, 28 and 33 percent tax brackets. The lowest of these brackets begins at an income level of $31,850.
What Holtz-Eakin fails to say anywhere in his message, however, is that he is referring to taxable income, and not to total income. As we already noted, an unmarried taxpayer with no dependents would need to have an income of at least $41,500 to reach the 25 percent bracket in 2008. A couple would have to earn at least $83,000. In 2008, the cutoff for the 25 percent bracket was $32,500 (not $31,850 as the McCain campaign continues to claim) in taxable income – or income after deductions and exclusions.

Holtz-Eakin is a former director of the Congressional Budget Office, so we were surprised to see him misstate such a basic figure. But he does. The $31,850 number he cites was for income earned last year, 2007, as the Internal Revenue Service notes (http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=164272,00.html) on its Web site. The IRS announced (http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=174876,00.html) last October that the tax brackets for this year would be widened, as they are every year, to adjust for inflation. For 2008, the 25 percent bracket begins at $32,550 of taxable income, as the IRS notes in this procedural manual (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-07-66.pdf).

Furthermore, Obama's vote was on a budget bill for 2009, at which time the bracket will start at an even higher level.

Holtz-Eakin says that Obama’s "words on the campaign trail do not match the actions he has taken. He tells the American people one thing but has a record that is quite different." The McCain campaign is surely entitled to compare Obama's voting record with his campaign promises. But the fact is, Obama didn't vote for raising taxes on persons making $32,000. The resolution could not have affected any single person making less than $41,500 in total income, and no married couple making less than $83,000.

We reiterate: McCain's $32,000 figure is phony.
Sources
Jones, Athena. "Obama Talks Economy, Iraq. (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/07/1185362.aspx)" 7 July 2008. MSNBC: First Read, 8 July 2008.

Len Burman, et. al. "A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411693_CandidateTaxPlans.pdf)" 20 June 2008. Tax Policy Center, 7 July 2008.

Len Burman, et. al. "Change in Tax Liability Under the Presidential Candidate Tax Plans Fully Phased In, for Representative Nonelderly Single and Head of Household Families, Assuming Current-Law Nonitemizers Do Not Have Mortgages, 2009. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/numbers/displayatab.cfm?DocID=1839)" 19 June 2008. Tax Policy Center, 7 July 2008.

Neuman, Johanna. "Obama Takes on McCain Over Taxes. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-campaign13-2008jun13,0,3522950.story)" 12 June 2008. L.A. Times, 7 July 2008.

Tax Policy Center. "Individual Income Tax Brackets, 1945 - 2008. (http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/PDF/individual_rates.pdf)" 4 November 2007. Tax Policy Center, 7 July 2008.

Taylor, Andrew. "Presidential Hopefuls to Vote on Budget. (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1722003,00.html)" 13 March 2008. Associated Press, 7 July 2008.

[Thrill_KIll]

Thrill, nice job with the wall of text. I honestly mean that.

My point to the hack I replied to was that he should source his materials, which you did, and he should avoid posting propaganda as people here can smell it a mile away. Which suprises me why you didn't spot my Ron Paul piece as complete satire...


Ahhhhh

I got ya now man. I am so used to some people just praising Obama blindly, I got carried away. And by no means am I saying Go go go McCain....lol

[Matriel]

[/SIZE]What Would Barack Do?


Why would you trust what he says he will do after the roll over on FISA?

[Renithir]

Obama said he'd support a filibuster of the bill if it included immunity for the telecomms... it doesn't, so he voted for it.

A law needed to be put in place to keep the 4th from being completely shit upon. From what I've read FISA seems a fair compromise.

So, my return question would be... Why are you towing the line of the corporate media?

[Matriel]

Obama said he'd support a filibuster of the bill if it included immunity for the telecomms... it doesn't, so he voted for it.

A law needed to be put in place to keep the 4th from being completely shit upon. From what I've read FISA seems a fair compromise.

So, my return question would be... Why are you towing the line of the corporate media?

Pretty sure the corporate media isn't talking about it so they don't damage pretty boy's reputation no? Either way wouldn't know, don't watch any corporate media. Only even read it if it's linked here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008 And the bill did include telecomm immunity. So I don't know what you're smoking old guy.

[Renithir]

Looking into the immunity thing further I see Obama IS on shakey ground. The bill doesn't give outright immunity, but does allow for judicial review of the telecoms actions. The down side is that so long as the telecoms acted in good faith, and there's never going to be proof that they didn't, then they'll get off scott free. An interesting side argument I came across was set up as a police officer directing you to go through a red traffic light. Do you stop and make sure the officer has the authority to allow you to break the law, or do you follow the lead of the man in authority? I don't see this as a great argument as Qwest managed to do the right thing, but I found it an interesting thought anyway.

The up side to the whole thing is that political officials aren't immune to prosecution for breaking the law, if it can be proved, and the ACLU is going to challenge the law when signed. Have to see which judges side which way...

I guess in the end I'm disheartened by Obama's choice, but at the same time, I have a hard time thinking it was a move to grab votes as most of the people paying attention to this issue are precisely the people Obama has pissed off. That seems just too big of an error for someone to make if this were a focus group kind of conspiracy. Regardless, I still see MCee Cain as a much bigger threat to civil liberties, the economy, our military, ect.

[Spart]

Quick qusetion, why do some people still think it's a good thing to use capital letters to start every word? It's stupid and it actually makes it harder to read.

[Matriel]

I guess in the end I'm disheartened by Obama's choice, but at the same time, I have a hard time thinking it was a move to grab votes as most of the people paying attention to this issue are precisely the people Obama has pissed off. That seems just too big of an error for someone to make if this were a focus group kind of conspiracy. Regardless, I still see MCee Cain as a much bigger threat to civil liberties, the economy, our military, ect.

While perhaps true, at least ole MC is honest about it instead of saying one thing and then doing the exact opposite. The one good thing about Obama in my eyes, he rolled over on like a bitch.

[losinglife]

The one good thing about Obama in my eyes, he rolled over on like a bitch.

wich would be good news if there were enough people in the house/senate that opposed his ideals ;)