The Ever Changing Obama Tax Threshold ($250,000? $200,000? $150,000) … How Low Will it Go and include All?


There are three certainties in life, death, taxes and that Democrats will always raise your taxes. For months Barack Obama has stated that he would only raise taxes on those families making more than $250,000 a year. It has been questioned that Obama once in office would lower this amount to fit the massive spending initiatives that he has proposed. As Joe the Plumber had warned and we at Scared Monkeys had questioned as well, when will Obama’s sliding threshold lower to include many more in the middle class than originally stated.

Obama’s position in the past was that he would raise taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000.  But in his new ad, “Defining Moment,” he seems to lower it to $200,000 for families. “Here’s what I’ll do as president,” Obama says in the ad.  “To deal with our current emergency I’ll launch a rescue plan for the middle class That begins with a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans. If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you’ll get a tax cut.” That seems kind of ambiguous, but the graphic on the screen says clearly: “Families making less than $200,000 get tax cut.” Now, the McCain campaign is pointing out something that Joe Biden said in a Pennsylvania TV interview yesterday:

Obama, what happened to families making $250,000? Obama is already lowering the threshold.

Listen to Joe Biden now say that the threshold for middle class is $150,000 a year. So what is it Obama-Biden, $250,000, $200,000 or $150,000? How soon will it be before the middle class is considered below $100,000? Think all voter who consider themselves middle class should be concerned … YOU BETCHA!!!

UPDATE I: Is It No Wonder that Joe Biden is being Kept Under Wraps by Obama Campaign

As Time Magazine calls it, HIDDIN’ JOE BIDEN. The MSM has wanted to focus on Sarah Palin and how much of a detriment she has been to John McCain; however, it is Joe “gaffe a minute” Biden who has been the issue during this Presidential campaign. Is it any wonder that Obama has put a leash on Biden and if possible would have ordered a judge to put a gag order on his own VP. It must be bad if even Karen Tumulty of Time states that Biden is less accessible than Sarah Palin.

But traveling with Biden during this campaign has sometimes been like reporting on a politician packaged in shrink-wrap. While his windy, off-point pontification was the stuff of legend among his Senate colleagues, Biden is now leashed to a teleprompter even when he is talking in a high school gym that is three-quarters empty. The exposure hound who in recent years appeared more often than any other guest on the Sunday talk shows is a virtual stranger to the small band of reporters on his plane — less accessible than even Sarah Palin is to her traveling pack of bloodhounds. And Biden keeps to a schedule that provides a minimum of off-the-cuff encounters with voters, except across a rope line. See Joe Biden’s defining moments here.

The muzzling of Joe Biden

Joe Biden, The Quiet Man

The muzzling of Biden seems unnatural and inhumane, like taking a proud lion into captivity. Biden, who once scolded Sarah Palin for ducking reporters, hasn’t given a news conference since Sept. 7. The king of the rhetorical jungle hasn’t taken questions from voters in a town hall forum since Sept. 10, when he famously said that Hillary Clinton is “more qualified than I am to be vice president” and “might have been a better pick than me.” He doesn’t even do much chitchat with supporters at events since he was caught on tape on one such occasion contradicting Obama’s energy policy.

Now even Palin takes questions from reporters on her campaign plane. But the wordiest man in Washington has to make his remarks short, sweet and canned.



If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • Barack Obama Sliding Tax Scale, $250K …$200K … $150K and Now $120 Per Obama Surrogate Bill Richardson
  • Daily Commentary – Monday, May 14, 2012 – Tabloid Gossip About Michelle Obama, Oprah … Did Obama Campaign Try and Pay Off Rev. Wright, and More…
  • Thanks Barack Obama and Democrats … 250,000 Colorado Healthcare Plans Cancelled Under Obamacare
  • If You Wonder Why You Should Have a New Home Inspected?
  • Charles Krauthammer Blast Latest Lawless Obamacare Delay: ‘This Is Stuff That You Do in a Banana Republic’

  • Comments

    48 Responses to “The Ever Changing Obama Tax Threshold ($250,000? $200,000? $150,000) … How Low Will it Go and include All?”

    1. Rusty Bridges on October 29th, 2008 7:54 am

      Wow, this is great incentive to cut back on all that overtime that I have been working for the part 12 years. I could use the break anyway. Hey congress, I need some of that bailout money to pay my mortgage!

    2. Rusty Bridges on October 29th, 2008 8:08 am

      I wonder if any of the early voters are having buyers remorse. I can still here Biden telling people at an Ohio rally last week to make sure to get out and vote early. It so reminded me of a high pressure salesman it made me sick. I thought to myself that what he was really saying is vote now before you find out the truth.

    3. Miss-Underestimated on October 29th, 2008 8:11 am

      Mr. Staton, I am not stupid and I am not illiterate, but thank you for caring. I am hoping after my wealth is redistributed, I can afford a new wireless keyboard.

    4. scott on October 29th, 2008 8:42 am

      I love the excuses the Obama “talking heads” are using to cover this “gaffe.” They are saying Biden used that number as an “example” of what a middle class family could make? Really? Since when? Then you have an ad released by Obama that says $200K!

      So what is it? $50K or a $100K is a HUGE DIFFERENCE either way! The $150K number fits into the link I posted last week showing Obama’s tax plan vs. current law.

      I know now I’m royally going to be bent over, greased with vasoline and screwed by the Obama COMMUNIST Administration, all so, Joe Scum living on a park bench can get a check each month with my tax money!


    5. on October 29th, 2008 8:51 am

      Scott: the Obama campaign has an answer for everything if you are just looking for a sound bite. It’s like their “answer” for the Supreme Court” tape, claiming that Obama wasn’t supporting the Court monetarily equalize things. The problem is that if you accept that, it’s inconsistent with other Obama statements just as his statement about the type of judges he’d appoint and his “spread the wealth” comment.

      Obama doesn’t give a wit about the American Constitution. His criteria for appointing judges is blatantly illegal. Justice is suppose to be “blind” to the parties circumstances.

      And yes, you darn well better believe the “no tax increase” is a moving target – the eventual answer will depend on the amount of money they need. Obama has not compunction about nationalizing yours and my earnings.

      As I’ve said before – every worker is America is Joe the Plumber.

    6. SUPER DAVE on October 29th, 2008 8:59 am

      befor long it will be your kid’s lemonade money she made on the sidewalk. think this is the change he talks about wait until he gets his hands on our country. we are in some serious trouble if voters don’t see the blatant screwing that he telling us we will receive.
      joe biden is a worthless puppet and a weakling.

    7. dennisintn on October 29th, 2008 10:03 am

      the usual old democrat party trick of “buying” the vote by promising tax reductions on the working class and taxing the rich to pay for it is working as usual. if i had any money after paying my own taxes, i’d bet that obama will do like clinton before him, promise the moon and deliver a piece of gravel disguised as a moon rock. this is supposed to be “a new direction”? it’s just pure lies by the king of rhetoric and deception. just another empty democrat suit.

    8. john staton on October 29th, 2008 10:54 am

      To all literate observers of this site, which includes Miss- Underestimated, Excellent article in today’s WSJ by Steven Calabresi. Four years from this day there will probably be no rights to Life, Liberty and Property in the US..JS

    9. atlmetroguy on October 29th, 2008 10:59 am

      I have said it before and will say it again…check both candidates records. Therein lies the truth…

      One candidate has spent his life serving his country

      One candidate has spent his life serving himself

      Who are you going to vote for?

    10. Susan on October 29th, 2008 10:59 am

      Where’s that “October Surprise”, Reverend Jeremiah WRONG?!?!? Hurry up, we need it now!!

    11. Miss-Underestimated on October 29th, 2008 11:32 am

      8. The constitution will be gone. Not amended, just gone.
      The pursuit of happiness will have fled to another country.
      The Great State of Chicago (JS, pun intended here as we ppl from Illinois say that Mayor Daley thinks Chicago is Illinois) cast our vote for 4 more years of corruption. (Yes Obama was the man for Illinois who voted PRESENT) Let it be known that we have the National trophy for Murder Capital of The United States.

    12. EURobert on October 29th, 2008 11:55 am

      Here’s yet another view on Barack Obama: Barack Obama’s role in the US geo-politics. “Who is Barack Obama.”

      Don’t know what this little documentary is worth but its not a pretty picture on the near future.

      Do you know this writer Webster Tarpley?

    13. Para2legal on October 29th, 2008 11:56 am

      Do we need the French to point this out to us? “BARRACK OBAMA is utterly immature and empty of content” -SARKOZY

    14. nurturer on October 29th, 2008 1:08 pm

      Obama told a crowd today, “Together, with your help, we can change this country.”

      Change the country from what to what EXACTLY?

      To change the country to a competely SECULAR society, where the individual’s feelings, whether that individul is productive or not, criminal or not, trumps the needs of the societal good overall.

      This guy wants to tell you how to live your life, how to raise your children, whether or not you can protect your property, or your life, and how. Anything that pertains to “Liberty” as it was intended from England under rule of King George, is going to be regressed by King Obama.

      I believe that if this guy gets in, his first move will be gun confiscation. There’s nothing a Liberal govenment hates more than an armed electorate.

    15. Rusty Bridges on October 29th, 2008 1:44 pm

      “What you won’t hear from this campaign or this
      party is the kind of politics that uses religion
      as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon — that
      sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge,
      but enemies to demonize.”

      – Barack Obama, June 3, 2008

      Huh? I’m confused, did he really say this?

      Who said;

      “Clinging to bibles and religion”

      “Unpatriotic not to pay taxes”

      I think he forgot to add that they won’t use smears our racism, since they are lying anyway.

    16. SUPER DAVE on October 29th, 2008 1:55 pm

      it’s simple, we’ll just have to fight back !!

    17. Maggie on October 29th, 2008 4:47 pm

      The former editor in chief of Ms. magazine (and a Democrat) on what she learned on a campaign plane with the would-be VP.

      It’s difficult not to froth when one reads, as I did again and again this week, doubts about Sarah Palin’s “intelligence,” coming especially from women such as PBS’s Bonnie Erbe, who, as near as I recall, has not herself heretofore been burdened with the Susan Sontag of Journalism moniker. As Fred Barnes—God help me, I’m agreeing with Fred Barnes—suggests in the Weekly Standard, these high toned and authoritative dismissals come from people who have never met or spoken with Sarah Palin. Those who know her, love her or hate her, offer no such criticism. They know what I know, and I learned it from spending just a little time traveling on the cramped campaign plane this week: Sarah Palin is very smart.

      I’m a Democrat, but I’ve worked as a consultant with the McCain campaign since shortly after Palin’s nomination. Last week, there was the thought that as a former editor-in-chief of Ms. magazine as well as a feminist activist in my pre-journalism days, I might be helpful in contributing to a speech that Palin had long wanted to give on women’s rights.

      What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.

      Now by “smart,” I don’t refer to a person who is wily or calculating or nimble in the way of certain talented athletes who we admire but suspect don’t really have serious brains in their skulls. I mean, instead, a mind that is thoughtful, curious, with a discernable pattern of associative thinking and insight. Palin asks questions, and probes linkages and logic that bring to mind a quirky law professor I once had. Palin is more than a “quick study”; I’d heard rumors around the campaign of her photographic memory and, frankly, I watched it in action. She sees. She processes. She questions, and only then, she acts. What is often called her “confidence” is actually a rarity in national politics: I saw a woman who knows exactly who she is.

      Many of those—not all—who decried the sexist media treatment of Hillary Clinton have been silent as Palin has been skewered in the old ways that female public figures are skewered, as well as a host of sexualized new ways as well. Some feminists have weighed in; “Even the reportedly clear glasses she wears to play down her beauty queen credential and enhance her gravitas can’t make up for experience,” writes my heroine Suzanne Braun Levine, former editor of Ms. Oppose her on policy? Fine. But how sad for feminist leaders to sink this low, especially when Palin has worn glasses since she was 10 years old.

      Last month a prominent feminist blogger, echoing that sensibility, declared that the media was wrongly buying into the false idea that Palin was a feminist. Why? Well, just because she said she was a feminist, because she supported women’s rights and opportunities, equal pay, Title IV—that was just “empty rhetoric,” they said. At least the blogger didn’t go as far as NOW’s Kim Gandy and declare that Palin was not a woman. Bottom line: you are not a feminist until we say you are. And there you have the formula for diminishing what was once a great and important mass social change movement to an exclusionary club that rejects women who sincerely want to join and, God forbid, grow to lead.

      But here is the good news: women, citizens of America’s high and low culture, the Economist and People magazine readers, will get it. They got it with Hillary even when feminist leaders were not supporting her or doing so half-heartedly. Yes, Palin is a harder sell, she looks and sounds different, and one can rightfully oppose her based on abortion policies. If you only vote on how a person personally feels about abortion, you will never want her to darken your door. If you care about anything else, she will continue to intrigue you. As Time’s Nancy Gibbs noted a few weeks ago, quoting bioethicist Tom Murray, “Sympathy and subtlety are seasonings rarely applied to political red meat.” Will Palin’s time come next week? I don’t know. But her time will come.

      For all those old enough to remember Senator Sam Ervin, the brilliant strict constitutional constructionist and chairman of the Senate Watergate Committee whose patois included “I’m just a country lawyer”…Yup, Palin is that smart.

      So no simple task then, this speech on women’s rights. For the sin of being a Christian personally opposed to abortion, Palin is being pilloried by the inside-the-Beltway Democrat feminist establishment. (Yes, she is anti-abortion. And yes, instead of buying organic New Zealand lamb at Whole Foods, she joins other Alaskans in hunting for food. That’s it. She is not a right-wing nut, and all the rest of the Internet drivel—the book banning at the Library, the rape kits decision—is nonsense. I digress.) Palin’s role in this campaign was to energize “the Republican base,” which she has inarguably done. She also was expected to reach out to Hillary Clinton “moderates.” (Right. Only a woman would get both those jobs in either party.) Look, I am obviously personally pro-choice, and I disagree with McCain and Palin on that and a few other issues. But like many other Democrats, including Lynn Rothschild, I’m tired of the Democratic Party taking women for granted. I also happen to believe Sarah Palin supports women’s rights, deeply and passionately.

    18. Maggie on October 29th, 2008 4:48 pm

      btw Joe I hear … 100,000…. 90,000

      He has to read from a teleprompter now..He’s not allowed to speak without one.

    19. Maggie on October 29th, 2008 5:13 pm

      Found in a rundown Boston estate: Barack Obama’s aunt Zeituni Onyango
      James Bone in Boston, Rob Crilly in Kogelo and Ben Macintyre

      Barack Obama has lived one version of the American Dream that has taken him to the steps of the White House. But a few miles from where the Democratic presidential candidate studied at Harvard, his Kenyan aunt and uncle, immigrants living in modest circumstances in Boston, have a contrasting American story.

      Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Mr Obama’s best-selling memoir Dreams from My Father, lives in a disabled-access flat on a rundown public housing estate in South Boston.

      A second relative believed to be the long-lost “Uncle Omar” described in the book was beaten by armed robbers with a “sawed-off rifle” while working in a corner shop in the Dorchester area of the city. He was later evicted from his one-bedroom flat for failing to pay $2,324.20 (£1,488) arrears, according to the Boston Housing Court.

      The US press has repeatedly rehearsed Mr Obama’s extraordinary odyssey, but the other side of the family’s American experience has only been revealed in parts. Just across town from where Mr Obama made history as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review, some of his closest blood relatives have confronted the harshness of immigrant life in America.

      In his book Mr Obama writes that “Uncle Omar” had gone missing after moving to Boston in the 1960s – a quarter-century before Mr Obama first visited his family in Kenya. Aunt Zeituni is now also living in Boston, and recently made a $260 campaign contribution to her nephew’s presidential bid from a work address in the city.

      Speaking outside her home in Flaherty Way, South Boston, on Tuesday, Ms Onyango, 56, confirmed she was the “Auntie Zeituni” in Mr Obama’s memoir. She declined to answer most other questions about her relationship with the presidential contender until after the November 4 election. “I can’t talk about it, I just pray for him, that’s all,” she said, adding: “After the 4th, I can talk to anyone.”

    20. Maggie on October 29th, 2008 5:15 pm

      kind of sounds like noones been spreading any wealth to her.

    21. MBS on October 29th, 2008 6:05 pm

      “After the 4th, I can talk to anyone.”

      Wonder what she will say then?

    22. Michelle on October 29th, 2008 6:44 pm

      Why doesn’t Mr. Obama lead by example and “spread his wealth” to his family? hmmmm

      Interesting isn’t it? Oh that’s right, he didn’t mean “spread his wealth” he meant spread the wealth of the hard working middle class families…..

      Wake up people! Is this who you want for President??????

    23. MBS on October 29th, 2008 7:11 pm

      I believe Obama made over a million dollars in 2006, and over $4 million in 2007. His income increased greatly over the last 2 years from his book sales. I don’t think he’s going to be spreading any of that wealth to his extended family. The tax returns he released indicate he and Michelle gives less then 1% of their income to charity.

    24. Todd on October 29th, 2008 7:20 pm

      Those who make less than $250,000 will not see a tax increase.

      Those who make less than $200,000 will see a tax cut.

      That means that those who make between $200,000 and $250,000 will not see a change in their taxes.

      There’s been no change–read the first two sentences carefully and it will make sense.

    25. on October 29th, 2008 7:40 pm

      Todd: You’ve been reading the Obama spin on their latest gaffe. If you actually believe it, I’d like to talk with you about a bridge I have for sale really cheap.

      What about $150,000?

    26. MBS on October 29th, 2008 7:43 pm

      Todd that’s not correct. Families making less than $250k will supposedly receive a tax cut, Obama has repeatedly promised that. For individuals, the amount varies depending on who you talk to, either $150,000 or $200,000.

      However, if you really believe Obama can pay for the 1.2 trillion dollars in spending he has promised without increasing taxes on a whole lot more people, you are kidding yourself. His record, what little there is of it, shows a tendency to promise tax cuts during campaigns, and vote for tax increases once he is in office.

      Here is a good article on Obama’s tax plan in the Washington Post

    27. David on October 29th, 2008 7:45 pm

      Okay, for those of you who need it spelled out — the difference is this: No families who make less than $250,000 will see a tax increase. Families who make less than $200,000 will definitely see a tax cut. Those between 200,000 and 250,000 may see a decrease or may not but will not see an increase. Got it?

    28. Todd on October 29th, 2008 7:50 pm

      Katablog–I have seen the clip of Biden mentioning $150,000. I believe that he just misspoke. I will not hold that against him.

      Nor do I hold it against McCain when he refers to the attendees of his political rallies as his “fellow prisoners”, or when Senator McCain tells attendees at a rally that he agrees with the statements of Murtha. Did McCain really mean these things? Of course not.

      These candidates have tons of speaking enagagements and tiring schedules–on both sides. Everyone has misspoken at one time or another–it happens. Nobody’s perfect.

      But to suggest that they are lying and changing figures is narrow-minded and ignorant, in my opinion.

    29. Todd on October 29th, 2008 8:04 pm

      MBS, read closely–you’re confusing semantics. Direct quote from the Obama campaign website:

      “Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase.”

      2004 is over. Right wing fear-mongering won’t get in the way of the facts–not this year.

    30. MBS on October 29th, 2008 8:20 pm

      Whatever, why don’t you just watch the tapes of his actual speeches? I just watched a clip of him on television, saying no family making less than $200,000 would see their taxes increase. The number does keep moving. I guess he’s having trouble making up his mind.

    31. MBS on October 29th, 2008 8:23 pm

      The problem with Obama’s tax plan is that it makes no sense economically, at least for those that can add.

      “Furthermore, there is no free lunch. Obama’s middle-class tax relief would have to be paid for, either now or later. Middle-class tax cuts might make sense if they were paid for by spending cuts, but that is not Obama’s plan. Like his opponent, Obama points to vague savings from reducing waste, the kind of savings that never seem to materialize. He also hopes to reap savings by accelerating our redeployment from Iraq, a project with an uncertain fiscal impact. At the same time, he proposes a wave of new spending on health-care, education, energy and infrastructure programs and declares his opposition to reforms that would reduce the growth of Social Security and other entitlement benefits.

      So where would the money come from for the tax cuts and new spending? Largely from raising other taxes: the ones that have the biggest impact on economic growth. Obama would let key parts of the Bush tax cuts expire, causing the top tax rate on ordinary income to go back to 39.6 percent, up from 35 percent today. The capital gains and dividend tax rates would rise to 20 percent from today’s 15 percent. Obama might also impose Social Security tax at a rate of up to 4 percent on wages and self-employment income above $250,000, starting in 2019.”

    32. MBS on October 29th, 2008 8:31 pm

      It’s funny, I’ve seen comments almost identical to Todd’s on other blogs, under other names. It’s almost like a script that went out to lots of different people, to be used to counter McCain’s latest ad.

    33. MBS on October 29th, 2008 8:33 pm

      Here is McCain’s statement re: Obama’s infomercial:

      “As anyone who has bought anything from an infomercial knows, the sales job is always better than the product. Buyer beware.”

    34. Susan on October 29th, 2008 8:46 pm

      Some of our military retirees believe that if Obama is elected, and all hell breaks loose due to certain circumstances, our nation will surely be faced with another Civil War…

      Stock up on your guns and ammo folks…we may need ‘em!

    35. on October 29th, 2008 10:25 pm

      MBS: that’s because he lifted it directly from Obama’s site. Those that don’t want to hear, don’t. Checking the campaign site is not a way to get to know about the true candidate.

    36. caesu on October 29th, 2008 11:57 pm

      above 250k tax increase
      150-250k tax stays the same.
      under 150k tax cut.

      not that difficult.

    37. Sharon Chicago on October 30th, 2008 8:06 am

      Bumper sticker seen in Dallas , Texas …

      “I’ll keep my freedom, my guns, and my money. You can keep THE CHANGE.”

    38. JoseTheUndocumentedPlumber on October 30th, 2008 8:39 am

      I caught Bill O’Reilly on radio last night, saying they’ve tallied up O’Bummer’s campaign giveaways (code for vote-buying), and it comes to $4 trillion, so the “no tax increases for those making $250,000″ is a fraud. The money for these handouts has to come from somewhere, and simple redistribution won’t cover it.

      Expect massive tax increases from a runaway “tax and spend” obamanation presidency. The bad news will come early and fast following the coronation, so the sheeples’ memories of the Obamunist’s campaign lies will be old and cold by the time re-election rolls around. Wake up people!!!!!

      O’Bummer/Bidet? No f-ing way!!!!

    39. on October 30th, 2008 8:46 am

      When the in the tank AP says Obama’s not being truthful, you know Obama’s lying through his teeth!

    40. scott on October 30th, 2008 10:20 am

      of course it’s not that difficult for idiots like you who Obama is pandering to with his bullshit tax policies. He’s already gone from $300K (audio of him stating this is available) down now according to Biden, $150K so your little table there caesu is false….

      Tax Policy Center said Obama’s tax of the $250K and above won’t cover his spending needs which is why you are hearing the $200K and $150K number all of sudden. He shifts like a fart in the wind!

      Taxing the top 5% includes taxing 90% of small businesses (the American Dream)…nice

    41. Steve Holloway on October 30th, 2008 11:39 am

      Please let your local RNC know about the link

      My RNC didn’t know anything about the lawsuit. Also contact your local news media and let them know….maybe we can stop this.

    42. SUPER DAVE on October 30th, 2008 2:15 pm

      bama isn’t telling his constituents that there is actually not any money out there for them, but he will use them to get himself in the white house.
      i don’t think he will make it after the tape comes out with him making a toast to his terrorist friends.
      oh and caesu, that’s 39% on the net income, not the gross. you just got suckered.

    43. Susan on October 30th, 2008 3:36 pm

      #42 – Uh, Mr. Super Dave, please don’t insult the fine State of ALABAMA by nicknaming OSAMA bin Laden Barack SADDAM HUSSEIN Obama “bama” :-( We fondly refer to our GREAT state as “Bama” :-)


    44. SUPER DAVE on October 30th, 2008 3:53 pm

      sorry babe, was not done intentionally. Alabama is my neighboring state. hope neil young will remember, a southern man don’t need him around anyhow!

    45. Susan on October 30th, 2008 5:51 pm

      No problem, Super Dave ;-) I’ll forgive you this time…LOL. You are darn straight about Neil Young…a southern man, woman or child doesn’t need him around anyhow!

      God knows our nation doesn’t need Obama in the White House either!!

    46. Ray on October 31st, 2008 1:42 am

      I hope that the people that are waiting for Obama’s tax cut are not holding their breath. I am still waiting for that TAX CUT that Bill Clinton promised back in 1992. Democrats hate tax cuts like a cat hates water.

    47. on October 31st, 2008 8:41 am

      ah yes Dave, remember how Clinton not only increased taxes but turned around and made them retroactive! Expect the same from the one.

    48. Barack Obama Sliding Tax Scale, $250K …$200K … $150K and Now $120 Per Obama Surrogate Bill Richardson | Scared Monkeys on October 31st, 2008 5:23 pm

      [...] Obama having a very difficult time explaining what constitutes the middle class. Barack Obama first stated that those making over $250,000 would experience a tax increase. Then an Obama ad came out just recently that stated something quite different. The tax scale had slid to $200,000. Then VP candidate Joe Biden lowered the middle class to those that make $150K. Now Obama surrogate Bill Richardson says the middle class starts at $120,000. [...]

    Leave a Reply

    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
    E-mail It