Wash. Times distorted Richardson's, Obama's remarks on tax policy
SUMMARY: The Washington Times falsely suggested that Gov. Bill Richardson said Sen. Barack Obama would raise taxes on Americans making more than $120,000, stating that Sen. John McCain "continued to hammer the Democrat over his plan to tax Americans making more than $250,000 -- a number that has crept down, first to $200,000, then to $150,000 and finally to $120,000." In fact, the number hasn't "crept down," and during the interview to which the Times was referring, Richardson said that under Obama's plan for "those in the middle class, anybody under $250,000, there is no tax increase."
In a November 2 article, Washington Times reporters Joseph Curl and Christina Bellantoni falsely suggested that Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) said Sen. Barack Obama would raise taxes on Americans making more than $120,000. Curl and Bellantoni stated that Sen. John McCain "continued to hammer the Democrat over his plan to tax Americans making more than $250,000 -- a number that has crept down, first to $200,000, then to $150,000 and finally to $120,000, although the Obama campaign said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a campaign surrogate, simply misspoke Friday on the latter figure." But the Times' assertion that the "number" -- the threshold below which people would have no tax increase under Obama's plan -- has "crept down" is false. In the October 31 interview on Denver's KOA radio to which Curl and Bellantoni were referring, Richardson did not say that Obama would raise taxes on Americans making $120,000 or more. He said that under Obama's plan for "those in the middle class, anybody under $250,000, there is no tax increase."
Indeed, Obama has proposed raising taxes only on individuals earning more than $200,000 per year and families earning more than $250,000 per year.
Additionally, Curl and Bellantoni falsely claimed that in a 2003 television interview, Obama advocated for "tax relief only for people making less than $80,000 a year" (emphasis added). As Obama's comment -- which they provided in the next paragraph of the article -- shows, Obama did not assert that tax cuts should "only" go to those with incomes less than $80,000, but said that he supported cutting taxes that are "really burdensome on families that are making 50, 60, 70 thousand dollars a year." From Obama's 2003 television interview:
OBAMA: You know, the problem was is that [the Bush tax cuts] weren't targeted at the short-term stimulus of the economy. What we should have done is, if we were gonna initiate tax cuts -- and I am a strong supporter of tax cuts for working families like the Earned Income Tax Credit -- to, to initiate things like cuts in the Social Security tax, and other taxes that are really burdensome on families that are making $50-, $60-, $70,000 dollars a year. Those tax cuts I think would have stimulated the economy. But the money that we've given up directly affects Illinois in its potential in terms of job growth, because it means that transportation dollars are not in the state of Illinois, heath care dollars are not in the state of Illinois. There's enormous needs around the state that we could be using that money for.
From the October 31 KOA interview:
STEFFAN TUBBS (host): You know, you continue to talk on behalf of Barack Obama. He continues to be criticized for the "spread the wealth" type comments and people in our listening audience certainly equate Barack Obama to a socialist basically. Your reaction to that?
RICHARDSON: Well, that's unfounded because what Senator Obama has proposed is actually more tax cuts than Senator McCain's. Specifically, under Obama's plan, 95 percent of the American people get a tax cut -- those in the middle class, anybody under $250,000, there is no tax increase. So what you have for individuals is basically a wider spread of tax incentives and tax cuts. For small business Obama's proposing, for start-up companies, no capital gains tax. In addition to that, he is saying if you're a company and you hire somebody, you'll get a tax break. If you pay over the prevailing wage, you get a tax incentive.
Those are pro-growth economic policies. What Senator McCain wants to do, he makes -- he wants to make the tax cuts permanent for the upper 2 percent, and Senator Obama doesn't want to do this. So this claim that Obama wants to raise taxes is just totally fallacious. He's taken away the tax cut argument from the Republicans.
APRIL ZESBAUGH (co-host): What about the small businesses that make over $250,000? Doesn't it make sense to try to give businesses, whether it be small or big, tax breaks so that that kind of trickles down to the rest of us and we pay less for products and services?
RICHARDSON: Well, but Obama does give tax cuts on capital gains. He dramatically reduces capital gains for those small businesses over 250,000. What he is -- I think if you look at the upper bracket -- the upper 2 percent that President Bush wants to make permanent -- Obama does say, you know, let's not make those tax cuts permanent. Let's look at a whole range of tax fairness across the board. While Senator McCain doesn't have those same tax cuts for America's middle class that Obama has. So I just think that it's Obama who wants to incentivize renewable energy companies and aviation companies and the new emerging sector that is so prevalent in states like Colorado by giving them tax incentives to hire more people, purchase more plant equipment, and find ways to expand their operations.
TUBBS: Governor Bill Richardson on the 850 KOA Newsline and on the campaign trail. He's joining us live from Virginia this morning. One argument you hear, Governor, is "Hey, wait a minute. Forty percent of the population pay little or no taxes, so how do you -- you know, do the math -- Obama, do the math for me," I can hear some people say. How do you propose a 95-percent tax break or, you know, nobody's going to pay new taxes, but 40 percent of the population already isn't contributing anything?
RICHARDSON: Well, what Obama wants to do is he is basically looking at $120,000 and under, among those that are in the middle class, and there is a tax cut for those. So I think you do the math. And I don't think even Senator McCain -- I'll give him credit -- he's not proposing to have tax increases for those that don't pay taxes. I think we're talking about those that do pay taxes and the middle class. I think Senator Obama has looked at two income couples. He's trying to broaden the base so that more get those tax incentives that are needed as a way to incentivize the economy because we have a real deficit.
And Republicans have caused this last deficit. My God, I mean, we're -- with this last bailout, $750 billion added to the 450 billion that we had under President Bush. I mean, look, this argument that the Republicans are the tax-cutters and the budget-balancers is totally out the window in this last eight years.
From a November 2 Washington Times article by Joseph Curl and Christina Bellantoni, "Nominees sprint toward the finish line":
The poll came as Mr. McCain continued to hammer the Democrat over his plan to tax Americans making more than $250,000 - a number that has crept down, first to $200,000, then to $150,000 and finally to $120,000, although the Obama campaign said New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a campaign surrogate, simply misspoke Friday on the latter figure.
"Interesting how the definition of rich has a way of moving down," Mr. McCain said at a rally in Springfield, drawing boos and jeers from the crowd. "Classic liberal left - tax and spend, redistribute the wealth." He contended that Mr. Obama was "running for redistributor in chief; I'm running for commander in chief."
Also Saturday, Fox News unearthed a 2003 interview in which Mr. Obama supports tax relief only for people making less than $80,000 a year.
"You know the problem was that they weren't targeted at the short-term stimulus of the economy," the Democrat says in the interview. "What we should have done is, if we were going to initiate tax cuts, and I'm a strong supporter of tax cuts for working families like the Earned Income Tax Credit, to initiate things like cuts in the Social Security tax, and other taxes that are really burdensome on families that are making 50, 60, 70 thousand dollars a year."
The McCain campaign teed off on the tape, calling it more proof the Democrat plans to raise taxes for many more Americans than he claims.














This is sort of like the way they've cut and pasted Obama's words from his 2001 interview to say what they want it to say. It just reflects the fundamental dishonesty of the Republican Party in the era of Karl Rove. That slimey tub of goo has infected the GOP and corrupted it beyond recognition. A landslide defeat tomorrow would be the best thing that could happen to the Party that Lincoln would not recognize.
Kyle, it looks like Biden said 150k and Richardson said 120K. I'm not sure if these are just screwing up the numbers in the course of interviews or speeches, or if they're throwing out random numbers within the group below the line, but they really should watch it. The increasingly shrill and crazy GOP machine is latching onto anything.
I've heard other commentators use a number below the line (as in "Let's say somebody making 100,ooo with a wife and two kids...), and I think it's an attempt to mix it up, to keep from repeating the same figures, but it sort of annoys me that they think they need to spice up the story with different scenarios. Just stick to the facts.
It bugs me the same way as ads that say "Save up to 50-60-70%!", or save up to $20 or more !"
Let's say I am a working mother who makes $20,000 a year, working part-time as a secretary for my husband, who is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company.
Barack Obama would raise my own personal taxes, if only to punish me for having a successful and wildly rich husband.
Why does Obama want to raise taxes on mothers making as little as $20,000? He must hate poor people and/or mothers.
So, did Rev. Moon come up with the $150k and $120k himself, and then passed it down to his henchmen who run the Wash. Times? Where did those amounts even come from?
Rev. Moon has a special term he uses when referring to dolla amounts like $150K and $250K:
"Chump Change".
I see, but is there really a conflict there?
Can't you cut taxes for those making under $150k, and still not increase taxes for anyone making under $250k?
I don't think those comments are at odds. Obama thinks if you make between $150k and $250k, you're paying a reasonable share of the tax burden, so you don't get a cut or an increase in your marginal rate.
If that's the case, then why didn't Joe just say that those making under 250,000 should get a break, remain the same, etc, instead of throwing out some arbitrary number like 150,000? Did he not know how the media would jump on this?
And as a side note, how come nobody is reporting on BHO's aunt being here illegally?
Why isn't the media jumping all over Palin for being stupid enough to get fooled by Canadian prank callers?
Why isn't the media jumping all over Palin for being stupid enough to get fooled by Canadian prank callers?
I can see it now: a typical phone call at the Governor's Mansion in Alaska:
****RING****
Gov. Palin: "Palin here."
Caller: "Is your refrigerator running?"
Gov. Palin: "You betcha!!"
:-)
:-)
Good side note, Dave. Why is nobody reporting on that? Actually, I don't even know what you're talking about... how could I, since it hasn't yet been reported by anyone?
And why is nobody reporting on Palin's misunderstanding of the 1st Amendment of the Constitution, or the duties of the VP of the United States (the office for which she has been selected by McCain)?
And speaking of confused Republicans and The Constitution, just moments ago,my Wingnut co-worker (the same one who just a few months ago remarked that he didn't think America was ready for a Muslim president), chimed in on Prop. 8.
He straightened me right out, explaining that The Constitution clearly defines marriage as between one man and one woman.
And once that one man and that one woman get married, no one else can. The trick is findind out specifically which man and which woman they are referring to.
They are like Elvis, they have left the building (years ago).
I think it's found right before that section which declares the United States a Christian Nation.
It's right in there somewhere, Nerz. I think EasyTRW had a good catch on the "one man,one woman" technicality.My co-worker is busily perusing an on-line Constitution right now, looking for the marriage part. I'm going to lunch.
I think you have to have those special glasses to read it.... James Madison wrote it in invisible ink.
And the tinfoil hat/dish package.
Hey, where can I get one of those?
Available at Wingnut Hut . Coming soon to your neighborhood.
I heard that Circuit City will be closing 155 stores (I guess all that prosperity didn't trickle down to them)..... maybe they'll have this item on sale.
"And as a side note, how come nobody is reporting on BHO's aunt being here illegally?"
People who have informed themselves about this "issue" have also learned that the irresponsible leaking of his aunt's immigration status has legal implications:
Early this morning, the matter was refered (sic) to Inspector General and ICE's Office of Professional Responsibility for action. They are looking into whether there was a violation of policy in publicly disclosing individual case information.
Perhaps the media knows this as well and doesn't want to be a party to violating the law.
Yes, but doesn't
2 wrongs = 1 right?
No, but three lefts do (make a right, that is).
And as a side note, how come nobody is reporting on BHO's aunt being here illegally?
You mean the unknown half-sister of the father Obama almost never saw in his life? You really are desperate.
It's been reported that the illegal leaking of the details of this woman, who asked for asylum, may have endangered any family she may still have in Kenya.
Also, isn't Dick Cheney a distant cousin of Obama's?
Obama should be ashamed of what he allowed his relative to do to this country.
I'm voting for McCain, whose relatives are all good, wholesome, non-criminals! (except for a couple of them)
You mean like his brother Joe?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/23/mccains-brother-calls-911_n_137345.html
Ha! That is a hilarious link.
I was actually referring to McCain's Pa-in-Law, but brother will do just fine :)
McCain has a Pennsylvanis-in-law?
Exactly, that's what the law does, prevent retribution, vigilanteism, etc.
Unknown half sister? BHO mentioned her in his book. I don't know about how she endangered anyone in Kenya, or about any illegal leakings, but some Fed judge said get out.....so get out.
OK, how about a deal then. Obama supporters will acknowledge that Barack should have known that his aunt was here illegally IF McCain supporters acknowledge that John knew his father-in-law had mob ties, and that most of his wealth was obtained illegaly by Jim Hensley.
So we can deport Obama's aunt, and John and Cindy can give back all of the money they inherited from dirty business transactions? Right? Justice is served, and all is once again right in America.
If that's what the investigation leads to, I have no problem with any of it. Justice is served and all is right in America. Illegal is illegal.
If someone in the Bush administration leaked this story to help the Grampy campaign, they may have broken the law. Illegal is illegal, right?
If they've broken the law by leaking it, then YES. Illegal is illegal.
And as a side note, how come nobody is reporting on BHO's aunt being here illegally?
I saw it reported yesterday on CNN, and heard it this morning on ABC Radio News.
Whatever, Dave. Kyle is right.
Apart from that, you do know it was a Republican who started the progressive tax rate, don't you?
Republicans are so ignorant of their own history. You just take the opposite position of the liberal don't you?
I don't always take the opposite side of a Liberal. I just wait patiently for a Liberal candidate to say "I'm going to cut programs, lower taxes, and save you tax money." I'm still waiting.
Then you haven't been listening to Obama. Color me surprised.
And I guess you had no idea it was a Republican who started the idea of taxing the rich more and everybody else progressively less.
I've heard Obama. He has promised to raise my taxes. But only because I deserve it.
You poor thing. How will you ever scrape by with only a couple hundred thousand a year? How will you be able to offer more jobs to lazy and unsuccessful Americans such as teachers and firefighters?
Let me know if you'd like some cheese with your 'I hate the government and everything it does for me (which is nothing!)' whine.
owned.
You mean, just like good Republicans used to believe, Obama is going to raise taxes on those who least need a tax cut.
I swear to God, Republicans have sold out on their core principles and are only capable of making arguments that serve the interests of wealthy elites.
Dave, we can only imagine how much you make. Assuming you make $300,000, Obama proposes to raise your taxes by $1,500. How ever shall you cope?
"Assuming you make $300,000, Obama proposes to raise your taxes by $1,500"
I've seen this number before and I can't figure out where it comes from.
If you make $250,000 and are taxed at 34% - your taxes are $85,000
If you make $300,000 and are taxed at 34% - your taxes are $102,000
If the tax rate is raised to 39% on income ABOVE $250,000 - then you will be paying 5% more on $5000...which is only $250 more, not $1500
Doggone-
I thought the highest marginal tax rate is currently 36%, not 34%.
So... 300k - 250k = 50k
50k * 3% = $1500
The 3% is the difference between old and new top brackets (39% - 36% = 3%)
Does that make sense? I could be mistaken about the 36%, but the rest makes sense to me.
oops! You're right! I should never try to squeeze in this stuff while I'm working! My math skills go all to heck!
That's the way I understand it. The additional 3% only applies to income over 250,000.
...and I'm still waiting for a Republican candidate to follow through on the whole 'cutting spending' promise!
It is irresponsible to cut taxes without cutting spending. I'm sure you'd agree with that, as a so-called 'conservative'.
Kyle,
I agree wholeheartedly. You can't cut taxes without cutting spending.
And the conservatives have been sooo good at that.
If you can find one Conservative, other than Newt, in the past 20 years of US politics, let me know.
You mean the Newt who cheats on his wife, and then rails against others for cheating?
Or is hypocrisy now a conservative value?
Yes, that Newt. And if you can find a quote of Newt railing against "cheating on one's spouse", it would definately make him a hypocrite, but he would still be a sound fiscal Conservative.
OK, well here's the first thing that came up on Google:
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, May 18) -- Further escalating his recent war of words against President Bill Clinton, House Speaker Newt Gingrich accused Clinton of degrading the presidency, through his handling of the Monica Lewinsky investigation, to "a level of disrespect and decadence that should appall every American."
The American presidency is viewed world wide as a "rough equivalent of the Jerry Springer show," Gingrich wrote in a commentary for the conservative weekly publication, Human Events.
Also - a quick search of Wikipedia shows that Gingrich was sanctioned by the House Ethics Committee for cheating on his taxes.
Of course, Sarah Palin assures me that trying to avoid paying U.S. taxes is the most patriotic thing you can do!
Newt is a true, patriotic American.
Like it or not, it's going to take considerable spending to get ourselves out of this crisis. You don't go on an eating freeze to ease your hunger any more than we can freeze spending to quell this financial crisis.
Well of course, just like when families find themselves in a financial crisis the first thing they do is go on a "considerable spending" spree.
Suit yourself. If you think the country can get out of trouble by sitting back and letting the market take care of it, you are far stupider than I imagined.
Well if you and your family go on a spending spree when you're in a financial mess. then that is the height of stupidity.
Please, boy. Stop polluting this thread with your ignorant insistence that government spending on infrastructure, education and healthcare is the same as a family budget.
Actually it is different, your family has to live within it's means, it can't go to public trough like you feel government can whenever it feels like.
And stop throwing out your childish insults, it only makes you look foolish.
If you can't stand terse language then go away and don't talk to me, because all I have to say to your response is, duuuuhhhhhh, government is a public entity. Government IS the public trough and should do everything it can to fix the mess that the market fundies, in their lust for less and less restraint, have created.
And don't even pretend to be outraged about excessive spending until you are prepared rage against the waste of public funds that is the Iraq occupation.
You never really respond to what a person posts, do you, Tommy? You have to run it through the non sequitur translator in your head before replying to a remote tangent of someone's ideas.
If you're referring to the silly nonsense you post regularly, No, I don't respond with any seriousness.
Actually, I wasn't, but thanks for the example of non sequitur translation.
"Well of course, just like when families find themselves in a financial crisis the first thing they do is go on a "considerable spending" spree."
I disagree. They find a way to deal with their debts. One of those ways, the most responsible, would be to pay the debts.
I think "spending" was the wrong term, since what we're dealing with a max out of the national credit card. The "spending" has already occured. It's time to pay it back.
Well you don't pay a debt by spending more, which is what Roundhouse advocates. That is asinine.
Making good on a debt requires an expenditure, paid to the debtor. I'm giving Round the benefit of the doubt and assuming that's what he meant and advocated.
"government spending on infrastructure, education and healthcare"
I don't think he meant paying down any debt.
I was looking at the original post, not the subsequent replies. I agree then.
Well, if you agree with Tommy, Pete, you can answer for Tommy. How do tax cuts pay off the debt? (Maybe not a good question for you. You're not a flat earth regressive tax guy.) Honestly, though. What is the debt anyway? How does it effect you and me? Is the debt what's causing jobs to go over seas, wages to flatline? Is the debt causing inflation, soaring healthcare and education costs?
So, why do you agree with, Tommy? Why do YOU think cutting spending on domestic programs will get us out of this crisis? Don't let me down, Pete. Tell me. Tell us.
C'mon, Pete. I'm truly patiently waiting. I will take your answer into consideration.
Lay some trickle down on me, Pete.
You're asinine. People are hurting, families are hurting. It is time to invest in working families, put them to work for the greater good. Build roads and bridges, recruit an army of teachers, institute healthcare for all. Build the economy from the bottom up and erode the debt when the country is back to full employment.
But your standard answer is always tax cuts. Talk about ignorant, how do tax cuts pay off the debt? What is the debt anyway? How does it effect you and me? Is the debt what's causing jobs to go over seas, wages to flatline, inflation, soaring healthcare and education costs?
Build roads and bridges, recruit an army of teachers, institute healthcare for all. Build the economy from the bottom up and erode the debt when the country is back to full employment. RH
That sounds like a cheap fix....where is all this money coming from? The bottom 95%?
Screw that. It comes form everybody chipping in their part.
I mean seriously, the 5 percenters have been eating our lunch for decades and have given nothing but flat wages and economic ruin in return. So spare me the crybaby routine.
Cheap fix? We don't need bridges and roads, and an educated workforce for our long-term stability and competitiveness?
And if it is a cheap fix, your cheap-skate heart should be enthralled.
How are the 35-40 percent who pay no income taxes "chipping" in their part?
Build a strong middle-class tax base, then the poverty-level income earners will be fewer. Righties love the 40% talking point, but I think it exposes something tragically wrong with America. Having 40% of your people earn so little money that it's deemed not taxable by the government is not something to be proud of.
That's what always hits me, Pete. I know I paid taxes when I worked at a gas station in high school, just above minimum wage. If it's true that this many Americans make a less-than-living wage, my reaction is that there's something seriously wrong with the way "the wealth's being spread around" under our current system.
Pretty sad that the cons reaction is that these people are running some kind of scam, or aren't pulling their weight. Amazing how easy it is to redirect the anger of the suckers, while getting them to worship and defend those making 100 times what they make.
Pete, I agree with your statements. Just curious as to how we can lift that 40% when, unfortunately, some don't have or desire the skills to grow in their jobs. I don't mean to demean anyone in particular, but when I review job applications and many can't even spell the title of position they are seeking, or if hired are unwilling to show up for work consistently, or don't seem to be interested in acquiring new skills, etc. This is a concern of mine and should be a concern for many of us. As the work force ages and retires over the next several years, where is the experience going to come from to replace them. Not everyone can be a video game programmer, a webmaster, etc., we will still need skilled tradesmen/women and I see few that are inclined to go that way in their career choices.
Did you hire this guy, OTG?
I get to scan the applications, maybe interview and make recommendations, but the hiring decision is made a little further up the line. Two spelling errors would not be a big deal, but using a comma in place of a period (after mim) would probably have placed the application near the bottom of the pile when it came to making an offer.
As bad as the application is, OTG, the 'comma' (as you refer to it), isn't a comma at all. It's the dot to the 'i' in the word below ('hier').
I'm curious as to how we do it, too. FDR got the gears turning again by putting people back to work improving the nation's infrastructure. His answer was not giving people handouts, it was giving them a job. Obama seems to have the same idea, coupling it with creating jobs in the alternative/green energy sector, touting them as jobs that can't be exported. But times have changed, and as you've observed, people have changed.
I'm only speculating, but if America has become disenchanted with the blue-collar nine-to-fiver, it may have something to do with the mass exportation of good manufacturing jobs overseas, and the willful destruction and weakening of labor unions. In 1983, 20% of our workforce was unionized, by 2007, it had dropped to 12%. I still believe in the American work ethic and people that genuinely want skilled labor positions. But if those positions aren't going to pay well, provide decent benefits, and let them earn a good pension, people won't consider them to be worth the time and effort of acquiring the skills and knowledge it takes to perform them.
Not only can everyone not be game programmers and webmasters, we can't all make a living out of selling each other knick knacks on E-bay, as much as the Maverick seems to think we can.
So how is it you agree with tommy on this and not me? Are we, you and I, not saying the same thing in different ways? Will it not take considerable spending, (aka investment) on behalf of the the American worker to get us on our feet again? Are things so different now than from FDR's time that our liberal principles of people first have changed?
C'mon, Pete. Show me who you are.
I wasn't clear enough in my agreement. I only agreed with Tommy in respect to what you were actually trying to say. I do agree with New-Deal style work programs to get people working again.
I get it. We're on the same page on a values level. I just don't get how you found agreement with tommy's mischaracterization of my words.
I don't know whether jobs went overseas because of a lack of skilled labor or because of cost reasons. We cannot export jobs that would be used to upgrade our infrastructure (hard to lay a water line in India that would benefit the people of Indiana, for example). Part of the problem with the infrastructure has been the unwillingness of local people (who would benefit from better roads, etc) to be willing to bear the cost of same, whether it be in urban (blue) or rural (red) America. We all want those things, it appears, but we want someone else to pay for it. We want cheap water, electricity, gas/diesel, etc, but we seem to be unwillingly to pay for them with local dollars. This issue crosses party lines. The Federal Government should have primary responsibility for the Interstate Highway system, State Government for State Routes and Locals for the roads in their jurisdiction. This is one reason that I don't have a basic problem with gas taxes as they become users fees in a way. I do have a problem with substantial portions of gas tax revenues going for mass transit for example, subsidizing the riders who should be paying more of the cost as they receive the benefit.
"I don't know whether jobs went overseas because of a lack of skilled labor or because of cost reasons."
Cost and lack of training are pi**-poor excuses to ditch your fellow Americans, Oscar. It says that it's just hunkey-dorey to let companies shirk their country first responsibilities and race to the bottom of the wage barrel for the sake of the profit of the few. You should be ashamed that you have accepted such a profit first attitude as common sense.
"Part of the problem with the infrastructure has been the unwillingness of local people (who would benefit from better roads, etc) to be willing to bear the cost of same, whether it be in urban (blue) or rural (red) America."
That's mostly because conservatives have pounded the cost meme into people. You are having the wrong debate. That unwillingness, that burden, if you will, are investments. Those are projects that could, and should, put those self same local people to work. Dorkwad republicans have framed the common good as a burden instead of a call to service.
God, the right is so stupid in its lust to control that it shoots itself in the foot.
By purchasing the crap that the upper 1% sells or imports.
"How are the 35-40 percent who pay no income taxes "chipping" in their part?"
Again you show us your ignorance, Dave. How you ever amassed a fortune is beyond me. Your success obviously had more to do with luck than diligence. That 40% you condescend to (while they still earn through work) pay taxes; payroll taxes (15.3%, btw. Pretty high for a have nothing), there is no such thing as a working American who pays no taxes. But hey, if you want to argue that 40% of Americans are out of work, I'd be glad to have a debate on how conservative economics have failed in its promise of broad prosperity.
Furthermore, it was Reagan who expanded the earned income tax credit that most directly benefits the 40% that you deem unworthy.
Basically, if you're going to be an ignorant jack-hole, you might as well be silent, and let us imagine the depths of your stupidity rather than open your mouth and give us proof.
My only regret is that I had to go to work today and wasn't around to shove this post down your gullet in real time. Now I have to hope that all the proud MMFA Democrats, who set out to defeat the republicans today, will drop in and see how ignorant I have made you look.
You also can't wage two wars and cut taxes at the same time.
Only two wars?
What about Pakistan? Syria? What about the war in Iran that Sarah Palin wants us to start winning?
SHHHH!!!!
We're not supposed to admit to knowing about those.
We wouldn't wants Gramps and his prom date to start squabbling over whether we should respect the sovereignty of nations this close to the election.