In economic speech, Obama reveals true colors (and reveals he is insane)

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by spence

Read the full transcript and I'd wager a clear majority of voters would agree with him.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now why would anyone want to do that? Half the country doesn't give two craps what the America-hating foreign-born Muslim was actually getting at.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Half the country doesn't give two craps what the America-hating foreign-born Muslim was actually getting at.

Zimmy, please show m ethe data that suggests that half the country thinks Obama was not born here?

Obama says something that is clearly stupid and divisive. I call him on it. Your immediate reaction is to dismiss me as a kooky hate-monger.

I believe he was born here. I also believe he hates much of what the country stands for, and I'm not crazy for concluding that. I'm just oblectively lookingh at the facts.

Obama's wife admitted that she was never proud of the country before he got elected.

Obama's spiritual advisor (Rev wright) clearly hates the country. The man said that the US Govt invented the AIDS virus to eradicate the black man.

Obama's political mentor is an unapologetic domestic terrorist named Bill Ayers, whose group planted bombs in police cars, targeting policemen who had done nothing wrong. Ayers hosted a fundraiser in his home for Barack Obama. That indicates a close relationship.

Obama's wife, spiritual advisor, and political mentor, clearly dislike the country. And many of Obama's apologies suggest he doesn't view America they way many Americans do.

Facts, Zimmy. No crazy, unsubstantiated conjecture, just facts.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama
Obama

The only thing here thats crazy is your mancrush on Obama.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Likwid, if you read my post and concluded that I hate John R, you desperately need to take an elementary school reading comprehension course.

.

Jim, I agree that you didn't say that.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Zimmy, please show m ethe data that suggests that half the country thinks Obama was not born here?

but did Zimmy say 1/2 the country thinks Obama was not born here?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim, I agree that you didn't say that.



but did Zimmy say 1/2 the country thinks Obama was not born here?

"Jim, I agree that you didn't say that."

I figured you knew what I meant...

"but did Zimmy say 1/2 the country thinks Obama was not born here"

In my opinion, yes he did...he said this...

"Half the country doesn't give two craps what the America-hating foreign-born Muslim was actually getting at."

I took that as Zimmy specualting that half the country (the conservative half) thinks Obama hates America and wasn't born here...

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Jim, I agree that you didn't say that.



but did Zimmy say 1/2 the country thinks Obama was not born here?

That is classic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Now why would anyone want to do that? Half the country doesn't give two craps what the America-hating foreign-born Muslim was actually getting at.

Just as Spence, above the fray of us "funny" folk, instructed us to read the full transcript, but disdained from helping us understand Obama's true message with examples from the speech, you also dismiss us (from a better place than we occupy?) also without explaining what Obama was getting at.

I DO understant you were being sarcastic (nice). And, as I responded to Spence, with no return reply on his part, I DID read the whole transcript and found that other than the "sound bites" being discussed here, the rest of it was the usual platitudes, lies, distortions, contradictions, and promises one would expect from a politician running for office. So, in response to your "why would anyone want to do that?" I read it again, with the same conclusion.

Some examples:

His opposition's "theory is the economy grows from the top down . . . if the wealthy investors are doing well, then everybody does well." No, not just wealthy investors, most of us have some investments of some kind. If investments are doing well, it is a sign that the ecomony is doing well. Some investments, including those by wealthy investors may not do well . The economy may do well anyway. Investments, as a whole, do well when that in which is invested does well. But the economy is symbiotic. It requires more than wealthy investors, but it does well with them and with the investment of others. "Trickle down" requires a down as well as an up from which it trickles, and that obviously implies the necessity of the down, not an elimination of it. If you want to make a class warfare argument, then you separate all the elements and point to the element of your choice (that which gives you the most votes), and "fight" for it.

He goes on "So if we spend trillions of dollars on more tax cuts mostly for the wealthy, that's somehow going to create jobs, even if we have to pay for it by gutting education and gutting job training programs and gutting transportation projects, and maybe seeing middle-class folks have a higher tax burden." More class warfare rhetoric--"gutting" various programs and projects some of which are not doing what their supposed to do, or not performing well, or are not really Federal Government responsibilities, and would be done better by some States and would actually empower the middle class in those States by giving it the power to accept or reject or improve those programs.

He goes on: "they believe if you tear down all the regulations that we've put in place . . . that somehow the economy is going to do much better. So those are their two theories. They've got tax cuts for the high end, and they've got rollback regulation. . .Now here is the problem. You may have guessed--we tried this. We tried this in the last decade and it did not work." More warfare rhetoric--"tear down all the regulations"--who wants to "tear" them ALL down. Actually tax cuts have historically worked to improve the economy not only in the past ten years but the last 30, and 50, and more. And many regulations were actually added, including even in the "past ten years." I don't point this out to endorse Bush, merely to point out the gibberish that we who read the transcript are supposed to discover to be the true message of Obama.

He says: "I believe that the way you grow the economy is from the middle out." More class warfare. Choose a section to divide, then promise to fight for it, not for everybody.

Then he changes his mind: "I believe that you grow the economy from the bottom up." Well, maybe he considers the middle class the bottom.

He says: "I believe when working people are doing well, the country does well." DUH! And none work harder than business owners.

He says: "I believe in fighting for the middle class because if they're prospering, all of us will prosper." Good old divide and conquer class warfare.

He goes on about taxes going up on 98% if Congress doesn't act and calls the extension of Bush taxes a cut when it is merely a status quo. But he doesn't want the status quo for the top 2%, so for them he wants a tax hike. So, net, his opposition wants to maintain the status quo, no tax hikes, but, net, he wants a tax hike. More class warfare.

Then he goes on about the Repubs trying for the 33d time to repeal the HCB which he says the SCOTUS declared constitutional. But it did so as a tax. So he is massively raising taxes on the middle class that he fights for. And he goes on and on about what he's done for us which, including the maintence of tax cuts for 98%, being what people need to succeed--government action, tax those who do well so that they don't do too well and don't tax the rest so they presumably will do well--and it all depends on government not the individual.

So not taxing what he considers the engine of economy, the middle class, is an admission that taxing our economic engine is anti-growth. It's just that he views the train of cars as the engine, and the engine as an obstruction to the train rather than what pulls it.

[Jim in CT]

To the progressives/liberals here -

Let's consider the successful entrepeneur Obama is targeting with his rhetoric and proposed tax hikes. He's talking about folks whose taxable income is above $250,000. To get taxable income over $250,00, let's say your gross income is $300,000.

Here is my question to you. How much of that guy's income do you think it's reasonable for the government (federal, state, local) to confiscate in taxes? What percentage shuold that guy be able to keep?

I keep hearing liberals say "well, tax rates on the rich were more than 70% when Eisenhower was president, and the wealthy Americans got by OK...". Obama himself has used this argument. It's completely dishonest for 2 reasons. First, there were many loopholes and deductions then that don't exist today (for example, back in the day, credit card interest was a deduction), so that virtually no one payed that top rate. Second, other taxes exist today that didn't exist then. In CT, there was no state income tax then. Today, there is an average income tax of 5.5%. So we need to consider total tax burden.

I can't believe that anyone thinks that the public has a right to more than 40% of what anyone else makes.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

To the progressives/liberals here -

Let's consider the successful entrepeneur Obama is targeting with his rhetoric and proposed tax hikes. He's talking about folks whose taxable income is above $250,000. To get taxable income over $250,00, let's say your gross income is $300,000.

Here is my question to you. How much of that guy's income do you think it's reasonable for the government (federal, state, local) to confiscate in taxes? What percentage shuold that guy be able to keep?

I keep hearing liberals say "well, tax rates on the rich were more than 70% when Eisenhower was president, and the wealthy Americans got by OK...". Obama himself has used this argument. It's completely dishonest for 2 reasons. First, there were many loopholes and deductions then that don't exist today (for example, back in the day, credit card interest was a deduction), so that virtually no one payed that top rate. Second, other taxes exist today that didn't exist then. In CT, there was no state income tax then. Today, there is an average income tax of 5.5%. So we need to consider total tax burden.

I can't believe that anyone thinks that the public has a right to more than 40% of what anyone else makes.

You can include Alternative Minimum Tax to the list.....aka extortion

Governments cute little way to force you to work a little less, make less money and be less productive………

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Piscator

You can include Alternative Minimum Tax to the list.....aka extortion

Governments cute little way to force you to work a little less, make less money and be less productive………

exactly. Also, take into account that many deductions or benefits taxpayers get are reduced the more % you make. For example - parents can take a % of 5k for daycare while they work. but the more $$ you make the % gets less and less. Resulting in a higher % of tax paid aka rate. There are many examples of this. All of which are not captured when you discuss tax rates. Rates are one component.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

exactly. Also, take into account that many deductions or benefits taxpayers get are reduced the more % you make. For example - parents can take a % of 5k for daycare while they work. but the more $$ you make the % gets less and less. Resulting in a higher % of tax paid aka rate. There are many examples of this. All of which are not captured when you discuss tax rates. Rates are one component.

We have been down this road before. The effective tax rates across the board are about as low now as any time in the last 70 years. That takes into account all deductions, loopholes, etc. It is all taxes paid divided by gross income. People can look into it. This link only goes 1979 to 2007, but the numbers haven't changed much in the last 5 years, but one could look it up here http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...edtaxrates.pdf if they wanted.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

It understand it FEELS good to complain about taxes being so much higher today, but the facts don't back it up.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

We have been down this road before. The effective tax rates across the board are about as low now as any time in the last 70 years. That takes into account all deductions, loopholes, etc. It is all taxes paid divided by gross income. People can look into it. This link only goes 1979 to 2007, but the numbers haven't changed much in the last 5 years, but one could look it up here http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...edtaxrates.pdf if they wanted.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

It understand it FEELS good to complain about taxes being so much higher today, but the facts don't back it up.

zimmy if you saw what I pay in taxes you'd crap your pants. the % is significantly higher than the average taxpayer.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

We have been down this road before. The effective tax rates across the board are about as low now as any time in the last 70 years. That takes into account all deductions, loopholes, etc. It is all taxes paid divided by gross income. People can look into it. This link only goes 1979 to 2007, but the numbers haven't changed much in the last 5 years, but one could look it up here http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/fil...edtaxrates.pdf if they wanted.

Historical Effective Federal Tax Rates for All Households

It understand it FEELS good to complain about taxes being so much higher today, but the facts don't back it up.

Most states did not have an income tax before. Many states did not have sales taxes. Most towns did not have car taxes before (here in CT, I pay my town $900 a year in "car tax" for my 3 year old minivan and my 6 year old Accord).

We need to look at TOTAL tax rates. That's what really matters. I presume you chose not to look at total tax rates, because doing so would refute the point you were making...

Zimmy, Johnny D says his rate touched 50% recently. How does that fit into your data?