Is Obama a Republican bitch or a liar? Tax cuts for the rich

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
May 13, 2002
49,944
47,801
113
44
Seattle
www.socialistworld.net
#1
At a Tuesday press conference President Obama defended his deal with the Republican Party to extend for two years Bush-era tax cuts for the rich.

The deal is in fact a total victory for Republicans and the wealthy. It includes the continuation of tax cuts for the highest percentile of income earners, couples with incomes above $250,000 per year or individuals whose income is over $200,000 per year. It exempts fortunes of up to $5 million from inheritance tax, up from the previous mark of $3.5 million, and sets the rate at 35 percent, well below the 45 percent level that would have taken effect January 1 under current law. The plan also includes new and continued tax loopholes for big business.​


CHANGE
 
Apr 30, 2008
3,505
176
63
41
hatemachine.us
#2
And hopefully the House will say no to everything democrats try to pass for the next two years. It looks like republicans might get an even bigger victory at the moment with all Gitmo detainees being prohibited from being brought to the mainland for any reason.

(Reuters) - A federal spending bill the House of Representatives was expected to pass on Wednesday would bar the transfer of terrorism suspects from Guantanamo Bay prison to U.S. soil, a blow to the Obama administration's efforts to prosecute them in criminal courts.

The proposed legislation prohibits moving such prisoners to the United States under any circumstances by prohibiting the administration from spending any money to do so.

In the past, the government was allowed to bring detainees, including the self-professed mastermind of the September 11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, to U.S. ground to face trial.

The provision was tucked in legislation to fund the U.S. government's operations through the end of the fiscal 2011 year, September 30, 2011.

Its inclusion drew an angry rebuke from the Justice Department, which argued that Congress should not restrict how President Barack Obama can prosecute cases.

"We strongly oppose this provision. Congress should not limit the tools available to the executive branch in bringing terrorists to justice and advancing our national security interests," said Justice Department spokesman Matthew Miller.

The House measure would also have to pass the Senate and its future there was not certain.

The first detainee held at the Guantanamo prison was brought to the United States last year and was prosecuted in a federal court in New York. He was acquitted on all but one of the 285 charges against him in the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa.

That verdict involving Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani drew stinging criticism from Republicans over the sole guilty verdict, which carries a sentence of 20 years to life in prison. They said terrorism suspects should face special military commissions.

Obama administration officials have countered that scores of terrorism suspects have been prosecuted in criminal courts and they should have both venues as options in the future, including detainees held at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba prison.

There are still 174 detainees at Guantanamo prison and about three dozen were set for prosecution in either U.S. criminal courts or military commissions. Republicans have demanded that the trials be held at Guantanamo.

Republicans and some of President Barack Obama's fellow Democrats blasted plans by Holder to prosecute Mohammed and four of his accused co-conspirators for the September 11 attacks in New York. They expressed concerns about security and whether the suspects were entitled to full U.S. legal rights.

The White House then shelved that plan and is now reconsidering how to move forward with those trials. Holder has defended his plan.

The spending ban makes it impossible for Obama to follow through on his campaign pledge to close the prison at least through next September, when the spending bill expires, soon. (Editing by Doina Chiacu)
 
May 20, 2006
2,240
10
0
61
#14
I sorta remember a lot of people trying to tell you something alone those lines about 2 years ago....



true dat, but i sure wasn't going to vote for John McCain. I'll still vote for him again, if my only other option is Sarah Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, or Romney......


Run Sarah Run..........:cool:
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#15
true dat, but i sure wasn't going to vote for John McCain. I'll still vote for him again, if my only other option is Sarah Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich, or Romney......


Run Sarah Run..........:cool:
Why vote? Haven't you figured all of this out by now? This is the Quigley formula at it's finest hour. You don't control this, my buddies do but it's nice to pretend and play important every four years (or even two years.)

We'll be serving more pills, creams and dreams soon! Stay tuned people!
 
May 20, 2006
2,240
10
0
61
#17
Why vote? Haven't you figured all of this out by now? This is the Quigley formula at it's finest hour. You don't control this, my buddies do but it's nice to pretend and play important every four years (or even two years.)

The right to vote isn't about national politics. The Civil Rights Movement, that southern Blacks fought, died, and demanded, was for equal voting rights in LOCAL political decisions..........

I vote out of respect for all the people that died in the struggle to get African-Americans the right TO vote.

most of the times when i do vote, it's is about LOCAL issues.....

if i didn't vote, my local sales tax rate would be higher to subsidize a football stadium (kc chiefs), if i didn't vote, a corrupt county prosecutor, will still be in power in my county, if i didn't vote, my kids school district would be in a worse state than it already is...........

i respect anyone's choice, not to vote

but there are always opportunities to exercise the, right-to-vote, that don't have anything to do with national politics..........
:cool:
 

HERESY

THE HIDDEN HAND...
Apr 25, 2002
18,326
11,459
113
www.godscalamity.com
www.godscalamity.com
#18
The right to vote isn't about national politics. The Civil Rights Movement, that southern Blacks fought, died, and demanded, was for equal voting rights in LOCAL political decisions..........
Southern blacks weren't the only ones to fight, die and demand equal voting rights in local political decisions. The blacks in the north were being treated just as bad, and there were many whites who fought for blacks as well.

I vote out of respect for all the people that died in the struggle to get African-Americans the right TO vote.
I can see why a person would but if they knew what they were truly fighting for, better yet, if they knew how all of this actually goes down do you think they would fight for those so-called rights? I don't think so.
 
May 20, 2006
2,240
10
0
61
#19
@Heresy

I know that the south wasn't the only region in America where racism and segregation was the institutional way of life.

The simplist form of participation in American govt. to me, is voting. That privilege of voting was originally reserved for white male landowners.

So without women, and people that weren't white male landowners, fighting for a voice, that voice would be ignored and forever suppressed....

anybody that doesn't stand up, and speak out for their beliefs or feelings are probably content with accepting the pills, creams, and dreams your friends are distributing........