Is it even possible to be in a 60's percent tax bracket???

[Anonymous]

The sad thing is o isn't through with his plans to tax the rich.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clearly he needs a better accountant. Or better math skills

He just needs to stop talking out of his ass. He sounds like those Republicans who were all set to fire their employees and head off into the sunset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recipe for collapse. By 2016 Obama will make bush look like the worlds most interesting man.

That's what you said last time. You keep pushing out the collapse.

Did you hear his inaugural speech? He no longer has to listen to his constituents. Clinton is already warning him about pushing things too far (i.e. gun control). Wait for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recipe for collapse. By 2016 Obama will make bush look like the worlds most interesting man.

That's what you said last time. You keep pushing out the collapse.

Did you hear his inaugural speech? He no longer has to listen to his constituents. Clinton is already warning him about pushing things too far (i.e. gun control). Wait for it.

Really, Clinton is reeling him in on gun control. Tell me more...

[Anonymous]

Hey, maybe Phil is being ironic, the Joaquin Phoenix of golf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The sad thing is o isn't through with his plans to tax the rich.

The folk in this thread can make fun all they want, but it WILL come back to bite them. I don't think average dems quite understand what a progressive dem truly stands for (that it's a euphemism for socialism)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recipe for collapse. By 2016 Obama will make bush look like the worlds most interesting man.

That's what you said last time. You keep pushing out the collapse.

We were well-aware of the fact that Obama wanted a second term and that he was going to temper himself until he was re-elected. Any wise conservative knows this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recipe for collapse. By 2016 Obama will make bush look like the worlds most interesting man.

That's what you said last time. You keep pushing out the collapse.

Did you hear his inaugural speech? He no longer has to listen to his constituents. Clinton is already warning him about pushing things too far (i.e. gun control). Wait for it.

Really, Clinton is reeling him in on gun control. Tell me more...

Do you people even read?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/bill-clinton-guns-_n_2512588.html

[Anonymous]

Um....no. Not unless the headline supports their views.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recipe for collapse. By 2016 Obama will make bush look like the worlds most interesting man.

That's what you said last time. You keep pushing out the collapse.

Did you hear his inaugural speech? He no longer has to listen to his constituents. Clinton is already warning him about pushing things too far (i.e. gun control). Wait for it.

Really, Clinton is reeling him in on gun control. Tell me more...

Do you people even read?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/bill-clinton-guns-_n_2512588.html

Do you? He said not to patronize anyone . Then he went on to say: ""Why does anybody need one of those things that carries 100 bullets?,""

He's not telling him to back off of gun control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A recipe for collapse. By 2016 Obama will make bush look like the worlds most interesting man.

That's what you said last time. You keep pushing out the collapse.

Did you hear his inaugural speech? He no longer has to listen to his constituents. Clinton is already warning him about pushing things too far (i.e. gun control). Wait for it.

Really, Clinton is reeling him in on gun control. Tell me more...

Do you people even read?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/19/bill-clinton-guns-_n_2512588.html

Do you? He said not to patronize anyone . Then he went on to say: ""Why does anybody need one of those things that carries 100 bullets?,""

He's not telling him to back off of gun control.

Gun control is all about how you go about it. Clinton understand this. Obama doesn't

[Anonymous]

How you go about it is by forcing the asshole NRA to come up with an actual reason not to enact it. That hasn't happened and won't happen because there is no reason.

[Anonymous]

That's not how law works. Law is on the 'asshole NRA's' side. Therefore, it's not them that needs to come up with a reason not to enact it. It's up to Obama to come up with valid reasons TO enact it. And if he had those, he would not be using executive order.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:Cry me a river. Obama raised his taxes 3%. That man makes millions of dollars a year for hitting a ball. He doesn't even have to carry his own clubs.

To get back on topic. Mickelson wasn't just referring to the recent Obama/Congress agreement tax raise. He was also referring to what is going on in California. Which is why he made a point of mentioning federal and state (income and real estate) taxes.

Mickelson knows, with his bad arthritis, that his playing days are numbered. I don't blame him for wanting to hold onto more of his money to do other things. He's been very upfront that tax changes at both the federal and state level have caused him to back out of an ownership deal with the Padres. And he certainly wouldn't be the first wealthy person to leave California for a more tax friendly state. Hell Tiger Woods admits it's the reason he left for Florida 15 years ago.

(besides Phil needs all his money to support his expensive gambling problem)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Cry me a river. Obama raised his taxes 3%. That man makes millions of dollars a year for hitting a ball. He doesn't even have to carry his own clubs.

To get back on topic. Mickelson wasn't just referring to the recent Obama/Congress agreement tax raise. He was also referring to what is going on in California. Which is why he made a point of mentioning federal and state (income and real estate) taxes.

It still doesn't add up. Sorry, the math does not support his claim.