Obama thinks $9,000 is “chump change”. I’d say someone’s certainly a chump.

Tell me n one is surprised by this. During one of the debates. Obama said the 14 billion that McCain would save by vetoing earmarks was nothing. In the next sentence, he said the 4 billion in tax breaks going to Exxon etc was huge.

It isn’t even a needs based program, who is to say the low income person doesn’t have significant assets that don’t necessarily create income? How do you know they need the money? Anyway, giving $500 to a low income person once a year just isn’t going to have much of a positive effect, but it will have a significant negative effect on small business’s ability to create and sustain jobs. The cost benefit analysis on Obama’s plan just sucks.

Say you make $300k. Right now, you will pay 18,000 in taxes just on the portion above $250k. Raise the tax rate to 39.6%, that generates an additional $1,800. That’s it. Because the way the tax code works, you only pay at the rates for money made in that bracket. For instance, you pay 25% on all the income you earn between $32,550 and $78,850. Once you hit 78,851, you pay 28% on all the income from there to $164,550. So, unless Barry is going to change the way the tax code works, and make it one rate for all income, he will barely raise anything from this change.

In effect, he is making a pie in the sky promise with little income to actually redistribute.

Obama, Clinton, Kerry, Gore – have they EVER worked in the private sector outside of a law firm?

Obama especially has spent his entire adult life spending money other people gave him as he sat on charitable boards or tax money extracted from the public in the Illinois State Senate and in the Senate in Washington.

George W. Bush was an oilman and sports team owner. John McCain was a naval aviator and commander. Neither one of these guys spent their adult lives spending money other people just handed to them before they entered politics.

So yeah, Obama would consider 9,000 chump change. After all, when he sat on the Annenberg Board with William Ayers, he helped spend over $110,000,000 of grant money that was simply given to them on education projects.

UnderstandingisPower on November 3, 2008 at 11:51 AM

Nice work. Jeez, I hope you’re wrong, though!

They will produce using recycled biomass; they will be soft, brownish and have a “special” Olfaction counterfeiting properties.

Sorry couldn’t resist

For one, check here, back in September.

A quote from that post:

FINALLY, THE ONE SAYS: “I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

Sure. That is just what your average sensible, law-abiding, taxpaying, patriotic American citizen wants . . . some wild-eyed or dim-witted do-nothing, a pugnacious, true-believer, nanny-state loving, demi-socialist getting “in their face” and trying to convince him or her to participate in just turning over the reins of the federal government — and the entire future of the United States of America — to an inexperienced, gutter-ball throwing, first term U.S. Senator, who spent several years agitating for “change” to no good effect in Chicago, and who is now running on an empty promise of change for the entire nation! THAT is chump change we do not need!

(my emphasis supplied)

A $9K reduction in my employer’s income could mean he would have to eliminate the jobs of 2-3 of his seasonal employees, assuming he intends to maintain his personal income level.

The seasonal employees whose jobs would be on the chopping block are college students who will also, stupidly, be voting for Obama. I know my job is safe because I know my stuff better than any of the college kids, and I’ve never shown up for work stoned or hung over. Can’t say the same for the pro-O chumps.

Good luck out there, Generation D’oh!

Well, someone’s a chump
Barack Obama gave an interview to MTV and got challenged on his
redistributionist tax policies. In answering, Obama called his
increases “chump change” to those making over $250,000 a year — a……

Obama is once again giving new meaning to the term “chump change.” Quoth the Moonbat Messiah: Well, right now, [those making at least $250,000] are getting taxed at 36 percent. Under Bill Clinton in the 1990s, they were being taxed……

How exactly does Obama’s “bottom up” economics work? Nobody seems to have questioned this throughout the campaign, yet it’s pivotal to everything Obama stands for.

Does He expect America to ask the welfare cases, the junkies, and the homeless for jobs? Does Obama expect all the mom and pop shops to double their staff for His $1000/$750/$500/$250/$…? “magic beans” handout?

Does He expect them to re-open factories while keeping below His $250k/$200k/$150k/$120k/”do not pass or my taxes will stomp you” threshold?

Does He expect big business owners (i.e. distinct from Wall St. financiers) to voluntarily keep jobs in America under his social doctrine masquerading as a “tax plan”?

Will Obama harass the homeless and those on welfare for not providing enough jobs? Should America?

How did this whole “bottom up” economics of His acquire any credibility never mind traction? The only “bottom up” economics I know of is “belly up”!

Hey America! “Here’s a few hundred for every American, maybe even a thousand. Now go and re-build the economy!”

So, you know, 36 + 3.6 + 12.4% + 2.9% = 53.9%.

gekkobear on November 3, 2008 at 1:19 PM

Let’s not forget the 7% for his new medical care program, and the 5% for the Social Security, take two.

Why is that “amazing to” Obama?
He’s been selling his tax plan on what it would do for the individual person.
“Joe the plumber” would be much better off under my plan.

Who is “we” in this sentence? The government didn’t make these people wealthy. They made themselves wealthy because the government didn’t take as much their wealth away from them as they did before Reagan’s tax cuts. The Dow was around 8,000 in 2003. Under the Bush tax cuts, it grew to over 12,000 by the 2006 elections, and during wartime. He doesn’t have a clue why the economy grew during these periods. He thinks it’s magic or something.

Increased taxes do not create wealth but they do create a huge disincentive to do so. And wealthy people don’t look at their assets as chump change. When taxes go up, they take shelter.

Obama thinks $9,000 an additional taxes is chump change to someone making $250,000. Well, it would pay for a year of college for their own kid. And yes, people’s primary concerns are themselves and their own families, but it’s also true that Americans give more of their wealth away in voluntary charity than anyone else in the world. Certainly more than Obama.

“But it could make a big difference for that young person who is trying to figure out whether they can go to college or not”

So if you’re a high school graduate making half a million, a million dollars, a 3.6% increase in your taxes MIGHT affect your decision as to weather or not your going to college?
Just how many Americans are we talking about here?

Is this just the teen Hollywood MTV crowd?

And if your not going to college your just a chump?