HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Lawrence O'Donnel: Obama ...

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:11 PM

Lawrence O'Donnel: Obama DOES play 3 deminsional Chess !!!

...basically says 250,000.00 was rich 20 years ago so in today's dollars rich is 390k or 3.6% at 10t during Clinton years!!

Obama got more than expected if what ODonnell is talking about is right


on now

72 replies, 4453 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 72 replies Author Time Post
Reply Lawrence O'Donnel: Obama DOES play 3 deminsional Chess !!! (Original post)
uponit7771 Jan 2013 OP
loyalkydem Jan 2013 #1
CatWoman Jan 2013 #2
elleng Jan 2013 #3
CatWoman Jan 2013 #43
naviman Jan 2013 #4
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #6
naviman Jan 2013 #9
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #13
naviman Jan 2013 #14
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #16
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #24
naviman Jan 2013 #27
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #50
CatWoman Jan 2013 #25
naviman Jan 2013 #28
CatWoman Jan 2013 #29
naviman Jan 2013 #32
CatWoman Jan 2013 #34
LuvLoogie Jan 2013 #44
CatWoman Jan 2013 #45
malaise Jan 2013 #62
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #64
phleshdef Jan 2013 #40
cliffordu Jan 2013 #55
Bandit Jan 2013 #65
ProSense Jan 2013 #17
naviman Jan 2013 #19
ProSense Jan 2013 #20
naviman Jan 2013 #26
CatWoman Jan 2013 #35
bhikkhu Jan 2013 #47
indepat Jan 2013 #66
rufus dog Jan 2013 #23
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #7
nenagh Jan 2013 #8
naviman Jan 2013 #12
nenagh Jan 2013 #15
Solindsey Jan 2013 #57
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #5
Jack Sprat Jan 2013 #10
avebury Jan 2013 #11
bowens43 Jan 2013 #18
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #22
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #46
caledesi Jan 2013 #52
DirkGently Jan 2013 #21
Cha Jan 2013 #30
DirkGently Jan 2013 #68
Cha Jan 2013 #72
Whisp Jan 2013 #38
DirkGently Jan 2013 #69
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #48
DirkGently Jan 2013 #70
iemitsu Jan 2013 #31
Whisp Jan 2013 #33
CatWoman Jan 2013 #36
naviman Jan 2013 #39
nenagh Jan 2013 #41
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #49
Skittles Jan 2013 #61
DirkGently Jan 2013 #71
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #37
aaaaaa5a Jan 2013 #42
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #51
ProSense Jan 2013 #53
Cha Jan 2013 #59
OldDem2012 Jan 2013 #63
graham4anything Jan 2013 #54
mzmolly Jan 2013 #56
awoke_in_2003 Jan 2013 #58
hfojvt Jan 2013 #60
uponit7771 Jan 2013 #67

Response to uponit7771 (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:15 PM

1. you know what the haters are going to say (grin)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:16 PM

2. the "he caved" people really need to tune in

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:17 PM

3. Yes, but they may not want to!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to uponit7771 (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:18 PM

4. 600 billion in revenue

That's 1 trillion less than what Obama promised.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:20 PM

6. He didn't 'promise' anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:22 PM

9. Boehner was offering 800 billion

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:26 PM

13. No I'm just saying Obama never actually promised it, semantics matter.

There's a difference between a promise & a plan, a plan can be negotiated. I'm not saying I disagree with you, I wish we would garner that much revenue. Especially if we're serious about paying down the deficit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:29 PM

14. But he did promise increasing taxes over 250k

I haven't watched LoD's show yet and he may yet convince me that 250k isn't rich but Obama did promise to make 250k the threshold. And he talked about it ALL the time. And he could have easily done it by going over the cliff. In fact, we did go over the cliff yet Obama still offered 450k.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to naviman (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:48 PM

24. The point is in todays dollars 250 = 390k with inflation in todays dollars

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:56 PM

27. Makes sense but

doesn't change the fact that Obama broke his promise and it would have been relatively easy for him to keep it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 12:20 AM

50. And how do you suppose he would have been able to get the House to extend long term unemployment?

He used the 400K threshold to bargain for things the country really needed. Of course it would have been "easy" to just extend the Bush tax cuts for $250K and below...IF THAT IS ALL YOU CARED ABOUT. But he also wanted to make sure the 2 MILLION long term unemployed who were about to lose all of their benefits were not suddenly on their own, their families facing homelessness and untold misery. He also got the AMT fixed that caught so many middle class families. You see, this isn't just a game for him. He really cares about all Americans. He wants to do the most good for the most people--even those with no lobbyists in Washington.

Regardless, I don't see it as a broken promise. His promise was to protect the middle class, his goal was to end Bush tax cuts for those above $250k. He didn't quite reach his goal, but he kept his promise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:50 PM

25. perhaps you need to tune in

then.

it was the DEMOCRATS (Pelosi and Schumer) who wanted to go BEYOND the 250k threshold......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:57 PM

28. Of course Schumer wanted to go beyond

He represents Wall Str.. wait I mean New York. And it doesn't change the fact that Obama broke a promise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:59 PM

29. what PROMISE????

Just because you keep saying that does NOT make it true.

And what of Pelosi? How the fuck could Obama get anything out of the house without her support?

Some people are just plain stuck on stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:01 PM

32. The promise to not extend the Bush tax cuts on incomes over 250k?

Remember that? And which House member would have voted against a tax cut on incomes below 250k?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:05 PM

34. I don't recall the president promising ANYTHING along those lines.

I do recall him him promising to negotiate, and $250k was the starting point of the negotiation.

You need to get those voices out of your head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:38 PM

44. None, because there wouldn't have been a vote at $250,000.

Bohner would not have the 85 republican votes that gave him the cover for lifting the Hastert Rule.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to naviman (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 03:11 AM

62. Who do you represent? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malaise (Reply #62)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:59 AM

64. +100. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:20 PM

40. Meh, who cares. He got what he could get and it was still a lot better than I ever hoped to see...

...with this Republican crazy congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 12:48 AM

55. Purist dreck.

Sorry Santa had to negotiate some shit.

Sorry about your sad.

Your claim that 'he could have easily.......' is the tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #13)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 08:52 AM

65. Hate to be picky but so many people don't seem to know the difference between deficit and debt

You don't pay down the deficit... Deficits happen when you overspend your budget. You pay down debt. Debt accumulates from having to many deficits...What it takes to eliminate deficits is to balance the budget. When that happens you can actually create surpluses as Clinton did his last few years.. Clinton was actually beginning to pay down the Debt as well, but Republicans did not like that one bit, hence the shape the country is in at the moment..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:32 PM

17. Seriously?

You think Boehner's offers were worth considering?

Boehner was offering $850 billion to $1 trillion with more than $1 trillion in cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

Boehner's offers were despicably shitty.

The President got $600 billion and Boehner got nothing, meaning no cuts...nada...zip...zero: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022117451

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:36 PM

19. Remember the sequester and the debt ceiling

This is not the end. Let's tally the result in 2 months and see how much medicare and social security is cut. Remember Obama already offered chained CPI for no reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #19)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:37 PM

20. Now you're switching the subject? OK. Here's

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:53 PM

26. I did not change the subject

because what happens in 2 months is part of the same process.

As for that article, after 4 years of Obama and the Republicans I just do not believe we will get a good deal with the debt ceiling. I would LOVE to be proven wrong but I think that what we will get is a crappy deal but some Liberals will find some BS reasons to defend it anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:05 PM

35. yes you did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:57 PM

47. I know exactly what's going to happen in 2 months

There will be another round of negotiations, and another round of predictions that now the real cuts are coming, now Obama will finally get what he's wanted all along - to slash social programs! He may even mention Social Security by name - and heads will explode, hair will spontaneously combust, forums will light up all across the interverse!

And then after a week or so of violent rhetoric, absurd posturing, dire predictions and obsessive media coverage, we'll get a pretty good deal pushed through and no cuts to social spending.

Sounds about right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:06 PM

66. The 'pukes' governance and mantra are holistically despicable and putrid in their entirety

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:48 PM

23. What did Boner specifically promise

other than that number you stated.

does Boener lie?

did you look at the Christy comments today? I answered my own question, Boner lies!

Boener offered jack mother fucking shit! Got it, jack mother fucking shit with no details just a number, so you have a number from a liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:21 PM

7. lol..."what Obama promised" is so 2yrs ago...progressives know crazy congress exist

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:22 PM

8. Lawrence is very optimistic... that Pres Obama will carve out revenue from tax loopholes...

Interesting...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nenagh (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:23 PM

12. But will he cut the corporate tax rate?

Remember it's all about revenue. Just because he closes a few symbolic loopholes, it doesn't mean we don't give a huge handout to large corps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:30 PM

15. Can't wait until Elizabeth Warren is on the job...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:26 AM

57. Negotiations....

Are you familiar with the concept?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:20 PM

5. yes please tune in, it's like ODonnell opened the curtain on Obama's political cunning GOP look like

...ass's

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:23 PM

10. Good gosh almighty

 

Try telling the vast majority that make less than 45K/yr that 250K doesn't look rich to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:23 PM

11. He had a great opening tonight on his show.

I felt pretty good about the deal and, after listening to O'Donnell tonight feel even better about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:35 PM

18. keep spinning......

Obama may play chess but he's not very good at it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:45 PM

22. Biggest income tax increase in 20 years = not good at it?! ...ok

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:53 PM

46. The Obama-Hater strikes again! Don't you get a little tired of being so petty all the time? nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 12:35 AM

52. Good one OldDem! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:38 PM

21. Lawrence will shill politically time to time.

It's what keeps him a class below Maddow, Hayes, et al.

This deal is not the worst that could have happened, nor a huge win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 10:59 PM

30. L O'D doesn't shill just because you don't like what he has to say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #30)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:49 PM

68. No one but shills is calling this a big Dem win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #68)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 04:17 PM

72. Obviously you don't like it.. still doesn't make them "shills".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:07 PM

38. I suppose you aren't happy with O'Donnell because he's not

tearing his hair out and eating it on camera.

but tender subject aside, he is a much better whatevertheycall themselves these days, than either Maddow or Hayes. He gives details about the process that the others don't know about, (but they do have their special niches too) as he did work in the hornets nest a while back in some capacity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #38)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:50 PM

69. He's a party insider with a partisan agenda. Real commentators are

calling the "compromise" what it is -- a laughably huge gift to Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 12:00 AM

48. Not hardly....

....O'Donnell knows what he's talking about based on actual "in the trenches" work experience:

From 1989 to 1995, he was a key legislative aide to Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

* 1989 to 1991: Served as senior advisor to Moynihan.

* 1992 to 1993: Staff director of the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, then chaired by Senator Moynihan.

* 1993 to 1995: Staff director of the US Senate Committee on Finance, once again under Senator Moynihan’s chairmanship. Led the staff of the Senate's tax-writing committee during the consideration of President Bill Clinton's first budget, which Congress enacted in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #48)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:51 PM

70. Exactly what makes him a partisan shill. He's D.C. establishment all the way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:01 PM

31. Fine, if $400,000 is a middle-class income then

that's where the cut-off for collecting SSI tax ought to be. At least this well-to-do, upper, middle-class set would then be helping to strengthen Social Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:03 PM

33. I always believed the 250 was a negotiating number only

and he was looking at something a bit higher for the settle.

You don't give your final price right off the hop if you are dealing

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:06 PM

36. you listening, Naviman????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CatWoman (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:15 PM

39. Or instead of negotiating a number he could have

gone over the cliff and got an even better deal. Oh and we could have had a much better capital gains and dividends rate, which by the way are now permanent at 20%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:25 PM

41. Gone over the cliff and leave 2 million Americans without Unemployment Insurance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naviman (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 12:05 AM

49. Riiiiggghhhhttt! Screw over a couple of million folks who could no longer get their unemployment....

....checks on the HOPE of getting a "better deal"??

Wow. Just wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 03:00 AM

61. wasn't that held hostage the last time too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #49)

Fri Jan 4, 2013, 12:58 PM

71. Translation: "Give in to Republican hostage taking." Not a win. Not even close.

Obama characteristically chose the risk-averse path, so we’ll never know for sure. But there’s good reason to think this was his chance to break the fever without risking a meltdown, because Republicans were in a similar position once before and lost badly. Just over a year ago, House Republicans tried to block the extension of the payroll tax holiday, awkwardly opposing a middle-class tax cut. The condemnation, including from fellow Republicans, was so severe that they quickly folded. Given the scope of the tax increase in the fiscal cliff, that reaction would have been amplified severalfold.

Instead, Obama relented, thereby setting up a triple-threat showdown that dwarfs the cliff. Two months from now, the debt limit, the expiration of the continuing resolution, and the automatic spending cuts known as “sequestration” all kick in at once.

Obama has chosen to keep navigating the same minefield as before in pursuit of a comprehensive deal. It’s a different strategy than was employed by the last Democratic president to strike a big budget deal. In 1995, Bill Clinton stared down Newt Gingrich and let the government shut down. Two years later, the fever having broken, the two signed an accord that ultimately balanced the budget.


http://www.bostonglobe.com/editorial/2013/01/03/obama-inexplicable-budget-flinch/G3IlpIS5sWmDcNVlXkZlDI/story.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whisp (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:07 PM

37. +1!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Original post)

Wed Jan 2, 2013, 11:28 PM

42. O'donnell was brilliant tonight. Its the best show on MSNBC.



How about what he said about Reid? Where else can you get good accurate reporting like that?



He is the most knowledgable man in primetime cable news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 12:29 AM

51. Reality check...

Obama did not "win" this, nor did the GOP, and certainly not the American people. It was a compromise. There was no Nth-Dimentional hyper chess, it was just the usual everyday politics in Washington. They settled in the middle.

Obama broke his pledge on the 250K, the GOP broke their pledge not to raise taxes. Note the pattern.

Both took a political hit. It was probably the best deal that both sides could have hoped for, which means pretty much no one is all that thrilled with it other than that they finally accomplished something.

I understand that some want to view this as some massive sell out by (insert party name here). If so, get over it.
I inderstand that some want to convince themselves that this was a huge win for (insert party name here). If so, sorry, it wasn't.
It was politics.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 12:46 AM

53. Here's a reality check

"Obama did not 'win' this, nor did the GOP, and certainly not the American people. It was a compromise. There was no Nth-Dimentional hyper chess, it was just the usual everyday politics in Washington. They settled in the middle."

...The American people did win, especially low-income and unemployed Americans.

"Obama broke his pledge on the 250K, the GOP broke their pledge not to raise taxes. Note the pattern. "

President Obama's goal was to not raise taxes on incomes below $250,000. That was accomplished. This deal also raises some taxes on incomes starting at $250,000. The Republicans got their ass kicked on not raising taxes and the President got them to stomp the Hastert Rule to death.

From the White House: 7 Things You Need to Know About the Deal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022118640

"Both took a political hit. It was probably the best deal that both sides could have hoped for, which means pretty much no one is all that thrilled with it other than that they finally accomplished something."

You should work for the MSM pushing bullshit false equivalencies. The President got $600 billion in revenues and Boehner got zero in spending cuts. That's not a tie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022117451





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #53)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:23 AM

59. thanks for your Fact Based "reality check" ProSense. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 07:58 AM

63. Democrats won on NO spending cuts and raising taxes on those who should be paying more...

...tell me what you believe the GOP Tea-Nazis won.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 12:46 AM

54. The World is the winner having Barack Obama as President in their hour of need.

 

None will ever be better.

but the whiners will still whine because they get paid to whine

But savor the victories and tell the whiners to go to the store and buy some more whine
Play Pop-a-top on the jukebox all night and whine like its 1955 all over again

and remind them when they are at their lowest that their hero, Bernie Sanders just enthusiastically sold the whiners down the river by enthusiatically supporting the president

of course, if life were perfect for the whiners, they would be out of a job so they have to whine but like Karl Rove on election night, the whiners have been exposed as people to be pitied, but not copied.

checkmate whiners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 12:52 AM

56. Funny as I guessed that inflation would bring the amounts in

synch. Larry O, thanks for verifying my hunch!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 01:44 AM

58. Well, $400k people and above...

losing their tax cut is better than no one. You have to start somewhere. I am willing to oback to Clinton era tax rates, but to many aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uponit7771 (Original post)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 02:46 AM

60. a super rich guy like LarryO does not think $200,000 is rich

quelle surprise

And Obama masterfully negotiated another $90 billion in tax cuts for people making over $250,000.

Which is exactly what liberals were hoping their own Capablanca would accomplish!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hfojvt (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 3, 2013, 05:08 PM

67. It's still "rich" by any sane since, the disgusting thing is 250k is top 3%!!!

So 400k is even higher...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread