PDA

View Full Version : $250,000.00?

Snag
02-28-2009, 10:02 AM
BO keeps telling us that those that make over $250,000 should pay more taxes.

Where did this number come from?

Is anything above that amount considered as "bad"?

If BO can just pick a number, can't he just as easily say any thing over $100,00 is bad?

Someone please help me understand.
Boris
02-28-2009, 10:13 AM
Where did this number come from?


Focus groups. It's the lowest number he could get away with. Those below $250K will pay more taxes in many other ways and will never connect the dots. We are a pot of frogs that need to be boiled.
boxcar
02-28-2009, 10:28 AM
Focus groups. It's the lowest number he could get away with. Those below $250K will pay more taxes in many other ways and will never connect the dots. We are a pot of frogs that need to be boiled.

And as the economy worsens, the number will get lower.

Boxcar
Tom
02-28-2009, 11:16 AM
EVERYONE will pay more taxes. 100% certainty.
NJ Stinks
02-28-2009, 12:29 PM
BO keeps telling us that those that make over $250,000 should pay more taxes.

Where did this number come from?

Is anything above that amount considered as "bad"?

If BO can just pick a number, can't he just as easily say any thing over $100,00 is bad?

Someone please help me understand.

You can't understand if you don't want to understand, Snag. As a matter of fact, that could be the motto here in "Off Topic - General (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5)". :)
Marshall Bennett
02-28-2009, 12:39 PM
That figure is bound to change , just like almost every other issue he's dealt with since the election , including Iraq . He's running his presidency on the fly .
boxcar
02-28-2009, 12:58 PM
BO is a serial liar. Rush nailed it when he said we shouldn't pay attention to what he says but to how he says it.

Boxcar
Secretariat
02-28-2009, 01:19 PM
There have been monetary divisions in the progressive income tax system since day one it was instituted. Even the beloved Republican Reagan made divisions.

I beleive Obama made the 250K division since 95% of taxpayers were below that line. His pledge during the campaign was to work towards this goal. His budgetary objectives and goals were based on factoring the amount of revenue received. He could have gone to 260 or 240 and there was even talk of 200. Maybe he should have just done what the Republican Eiensehower did and tax the wealthiest 90% of their income, but he choose a more conservative approach.
JustRalph
02-28-2009, 04:05 PM
Money and jobs are flying off shore right now like never before..........
Tom
02-28-2009, 04:29 PM
Money and jobs are flying off shore right now like never before..........

That's a fact!
skate
02-28-2009, 06:38 PM
Focus groups. It's the lowest number he could get away with. Those below $250K will pay more taxes in many other ways and will never connect the dots. We are a pot of frogs that need to be boiled.



You can say that again.

Just think about the $645B Lic fees for the anti-smog-greenies-guys. They'll have to get paid a bunch for those type Lic fees.

We'll only need about 15%/20% inflation to keep up with all the new fees.

But hay hay hay now, the voters sure enough asked for "IT" on a stick, good luck.
Snag
02-28-2009, 08:25 PM
You can't understand if you don't want to understand, Snag. As a matter of fact, that could be the motto here in "Off Topic - General (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5)". :)

NJ, are you making an assumption that I "...don't want to understand"?

If that is your point, please help me understand. Do you know a basis for the amount?
JustRalph
02-28-2009, 11:48 PM
great cartoon Tom
NJ Stinks
03-01-2009, 12:00 AM
NJ, are you making an assumption that I "...don't want to understand"?

If that is your point, please help me understand. Do you know a basis for the amount?

I suggest you read Post #8 (Secretariat's) in this thread, Snag. I believe the answer is there or at least much of it.
kenwoodallpromos
03-01-2009, 01:57 AM
The # came from Hillary Clinton during the debates.
Snag
03-01-2009, 09:53 AM
I suggest you read Post #8 (Secretariat's) in this thread, Snag. I believe the answer is there or at least much of it.

I discounted Sec's comments when he tried to tell us that BO "...choose a more conservative approach." BO and conserative don't go together. Besides, backhanded slaps at other Presidents doesn't support any numbers.

Now I read that BO is changing his number again. See link.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79319
JustRalph
03-01-2009, 02:24 PM
That's an article from October............08
Snag
03-01-2009, 09:34 PM
That's an article from October............08

JR, see, nothing should be considered as "the number" when it comes from BO. It changes from day to day. Not ever 4 months old and it has changed.
PaceAdvantage
03-02-2009, 05:25 AM
You can't understand if you don't want to understand, Snag. As a matter of fact, that could be the motto here in "Off Topic - General (http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=5)". :)But..but...but...you're part of "Off Topic - General" too my friend. You're the "voice of reason."
NJ Stinks
03-02-2009, 04:33 PM
But..but...but...you're part of "Off Topic - General" too my friend.

That's true! It applies to almost all here including me. :)