Obama Spokeswoman Says Obama Has Been “Unequivocal” on “$250,000”, Then Lowers Threshold to $45,000 – $50,000

**PLEASE NOTE** This blog has been relocated. For updates to this post and to view more recent postings, click here.

$120,000 must be the new $150,000, no, it’s the new $200,000, no, the new $250,000. Huh??

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, in a radio interview on Denver, Colorado radio station 850 KOA today stated that people with incomes under $120,000 would receive tax cuts:

After months of stating that Obama would give tax cuts to “all working families” that made less than $250,000, that number has changed four, perhaps five times this week.

Those numbers for people who will have tax bulls-eyes tacked to their foreheads just keeps changing. In the whole “spreading” or redistributing the wealth scheme, those who will have their wealth “spread around” seem to be making less and less from one day to the next.

On Wednesday, “Oh, That’s Just Joe Being Joe” Joe Biden said the Obama-Biden tax plan would lower taxes for everyone making less than $150,000:

Perhaps in a “slow economy” or “financial crisis”, we just need to redefine the definition of “rich”. Wednesday, apparently, rich was $150,000, during Obama’s thirty minute indoctromercial, it was $200,000.

Perplexed by the four different numbers now floating, Fox News Stuart Varney, filling in on Neil Cavuto’s Your World, invited an Obama spokeswoman on to clear things up.

**Warning – Duct Tape Alert**

Please wrap your head securely in Duct tape prior to viewing as your head is likely to explode about 90 seconds in:

This link will take you to the Fox News site where you can view the video.

Miss Law seems to lower the threshold now to $45,000 – $50,000 if I get anythinng that makes any sense out of what she said.

If Mr. Obama, his running mate, a former Ambassador to the U.N. and sitting governor, or his “spokeswoman” can’t walk a straight line, let us do so here. Let’s examine some of the ways in which Miss Law tried to tap dance around directly clarifying which particular number is the one we are to believe:

  1. $150,000 and $120,000 were amounts used because they fall inside $250,000, and so does $200,000
  2. It’s not Mr. Obama who stated anything but $250,000, it was Joe Biden, and Governor Richardson
  3. Since it wasn’t Mr. Obama himself, we’d have to ask Joe Biden and Gov. Richardson what they meant
  4. Gov. Richardson and Sen. Biden were just saying those particular amounts because of the people they were talking to probably don’t make more than those amounts of money
  5. Mr. Obama did say $250,000 and then $200,000, but that’s not equivocating
  6. The discrepancies in amounts just reflect the struggle to define what “middle-class” is
  7. Middle-class is really $45,000 – $50,000

Miss Law really cleared things up, didn’t she? Let’s see if we understand her correctly, taking these explanations, one at a time and correcting the circular logic:

  1. It’s not a question of what falls inside the amount in question, and that’s not the context or language that was used by any of the speakers. It’s a question of where the threshold lies.
  2. First, it was Mr. Obama who was among those confusing the issue. But also, if a candidate or campaign sends out someone to speak on their behalf, they are obligated to have their facts straight. If they don’t have those facts straight, don’t send them out. If they say something that represents the candidate’s point of view, we will take the person at face value. Otherwise, the candidate himself should call a press conference and clear things up. Besides, since Miss Law was speaking on the campaigns behalf, hence the word, “spokeswoman”, are we not to believe anything she says either.
  3. We don’t need to ask Biden or Richardson anything. They already spoke. Were they rogues out there without campaign permission? Can we have Miss Law’s cell phone number so we can call and ask her what she meant?
  4. So the campaign is admitting that they say things to different people in different places?
  5. Huh?? Then what the heck is it?
  6. The discussion is not regarding the “struggle to define middle-class”, it’s an effort to nail down a dollar amount at which certain incomes will be taxed higher and others given cuts. Apparently we are being clearly told that until the “struggle” is resolved, we’re not going to be clear on that murky middle-class definition. Hence, the threshold for “rich” is TBD. In other words, we won’t really know what the amount is until after Sen. Obama is elected.
  7. Now we’re getting down to it. That $45,000 figure is suspiciously like the $41,600 figure we’d heard about earlier in the campaign: Sen. Obama had at one point in the U.S. Senate voted to raise taxes on  people with incomes above that amount.

Let us examine the definition of the word “equivocate”, courtesy of Merriam-Webster’s:

equiv·o·cate

1 : to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive 2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

2 : to avoid committing oneself in what one says

Seems like the whole loopy discussion is the definition of “equivocate”.

Finally, let’s move totally into the land of common sense and sound reasoning. Is there any real doubt about what’s going on here? We’re being bombarded with so many amounts at this stage, so later, if elected President Obama can stake a claim on whichever amount is most convenient.



Lynn De Rothschild: “Obama Tax ‘Cuts’ Are Biggest Welfare Program Since Welfare Began

**PLEASE NOTE** This blog has moved. You can read this story and recently added posts by clicking here.

After Wednesday night’s debate, FoxNews‘ Greta Van Susteren interviewed Lynn Forester De Rothschild, a prominent former Hillary Clinton supporter and fundraiser who recently came forward to support John McCain.

Mrs. De Rothschild informed Greta that Sen. Obama’s purported tax cuts for 95% of Americans is not a tax cut at; it’s a welfare program disguised as a tax cut. She pointed out that the Obama campaign fails to mention that under the Obama plan, 40% of the 95% are people who currently pay not taxes at all. The 40%, some 60 million people who again, currently don’t pay any taxes, would receive money from the government through a “tax credit”. Mrs. De Rothschild stated further:

It’s the biggest welfare plan in the guise of a ‘tax cut’ since welfare began. This is not a tax cut.

In addition, she pointed out that analysts have confirmed that this plan would cost $1 trillion dollars. Greta then asked how the plan would be funded.

Barack Obama isn’t going to get all that money from the other 5% of taxpayers.

Greta inquired:

So, you’re saying the rest of the taxpayers, would have to pay for it?

Mrs. De Rothschild replied in the affirmative. She concluded by explaining that John McCain’s tax plan would cut taxes for people who are paying taxes today.