Ruppster

What determines how someone is considered a Founding Father? Does it have to be someone that signed the Declaration Of Independence? Someone that was in in office before 1775? How about 1783? Seeing as how the U.S. wasn't created overnight I see a Founding Father as someone that served in our government during the first 40 to 50 years of our Country's development and helped to shape what our Country was to become.

But that's just my view. Is there a legal definition of what makes someone a "Founding Father"?

After I heard Obama speak out against smoking when he was talking about his tobacco bill the other day I waited to see if the left was going to call him a hypocrite for it since he smoked and during the election he said he quit only to find out afterwords that he lied and still smokes. But I have not seen the left coming down on him for this. The left came down on Bristol Palin really hard and called her all sorts of names when she spoke in favor of abstinence saying she was a hypocrite for it so why are the same people not coming down on Obama for being a hypocrite for speaking out against smoking when he too is a smoker?

Personally, I have no problem with Obama speaking about his experience about smoking. Nor do I have an issue with Bristol trying to educate young kids on the problems with having a kid at an early age as she has first hand experience with what happens if you don't. So why is it that when Obama does the same thing he is not being called a hypocrite by the left for doing what they called Bristol a hypocrite for? Why is it okay for one to do it but not the other?

In their fight against McCain Obama supporters keep saying that McCain supports Bush's tax cuts and these tax cuts only helped the rich and not the middle class while Obama will make tax cuts that will help the middle class (this is their "answer" when they are asked how can Obama give "tax cuts" to those in the lower class that don't even pay taxes to begin with).

My wife and I have been making between $35,000 to $50,000 a year over the last 10 years (it has been going up ever year and has mostly gone up over the last 5 years yet I have been working a lot less the last several years then before). Anyhow, since Bush's tax cuts we have been paying less taxes then ever. Last year we made about $50k and our tax bill was something like $537 (compared to 10 years ago $30k in income gave us a $1,500 tax bill). The main tax cut that has helped us was Bush's increase in the child tax deduction (from $500 per child to $1,000), not to mention the increase in individual deductions per person. The child tax deduction was a reduction in the amount of taxes owed, not a deduction from taxable income, so it's impact had more of an effect on what we ended up owing. I think the cut off for the deduction is something like $75,000 (i.e. if you made more then that you did not get the deduction, only those making less then that would get the deduction). Plus the last time I looked $75,000 was not in the "rich" catagory.

I know Bush's tax cuts had additional stuff that was meant to help businesses recover after 9/11 but it also included stuff that helped those making less like my wife and I and we are far from being "rich".

So why do Obama supporters keep saying that Bush's tax cuts only helped the rich when that is not true?