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

[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………

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Obama wasn't taking a shot at business owners, he was intentionally provoking the GOP.

Once again, this is the problem when you form opinions from sound bites.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so the President, once again engages in bomb throwing, intentionally provoking one segment of American Society or another.....which I guess is what you do when you are a community organizer, but not when you are an American President....and while many business owners clearly took it as a "shot", we're told, and even chastised by his defenders, that it is wrong to either react to the intentional provoking, or foolish to not understand the true and brilliant nature of the actual provoking, not the sound bite provoking, which can only be gleened from reading the complete comments over and over or, more likely, arrogantly regurgitating the talking points that were prepared for response to the reaction to the intentional provoking.....this is great

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

so the President, once again engages in bomb throwing, intentionally provoking one segment of American Society or another.....which I guess is what you do when you are a community organizer, but not when you are an American President....and while many business owners clearly took it as a "shot", we're told, and even chastised by his defenders, that it is wrong to either react to the intentional provoking, or foolish to not understand the true and brilliant nature of the actual provoking, not the sound bite provoking, which can only be gleened from reading the complete comments over and over or, more likely, arrogantly regurgitating the talking points that were prepared for response to the reaction to the intentional provoking.....this is great

Yes. And what is as telling as Obama's "sound bite" that somebody else built your business is that his defenders have yet to actually agree with his comment. We are told to read the rest of the transcript, as if that were a defense or agreement. Well, the rest of the transcript is political gibberish. It is pablum to be fed to intellectual infants who have not learned to think critically and accept the words of those who feed them. The "sound bite" IS the true meat and heart of the rest of the transcript. It is what supports the whole notion of government uber all. It is the reason to vote for him and his party. Discussing the "sound bite" does get at the heart of the matter without being deflected to distracting arguments of fairness, or which class is the important one, or which class the government should fight for. It should fight for us all and defend us against those who would divide us. We are Americans first. Whatever class someone wants to analyze and divide us into is peripheral to what we are about. We are about liberty. That is an individual thing, not a class thing. And if some of us, like fburnsey931, or JohnnyD, create businesses, which in turn creates wealth and jobs, they have already done more to perpetuate what our free market system of liberty needs, than any politician or theory of class struggles.

[buckman]

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."

Zimmy..What??? do the math on this

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by buckman

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."

Zimmy..What??? do the math on this

The other 90 percent is too busy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Why do you bother?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Why do you bother?

Its amusing.

And do you see how much he hates this site?
Disgusting isn't it?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Give it a rest Gents.....Likwid, stop poking the dragon Please

[likwid]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Give it a rest Gents.....Likwid, stop poking the dragon Please

More like a skink.

[JohnnyD]

Since this is yet another Political Forum thread that has turned into poo poo... I'm just going to post semi-relevant pictures that amuse me.







And my favorite...

[buckman]

That last one made me laugh JD

[striperman36]

I'll pay in 4 states this year. Not all reciprocial

[sburnsey931]

I am a Business owner in Mass. 10 years as a Commercial Drywall Company.
It's not glamorous but it's what I do.
Every job I get is a competive bid against a number of similar firms. Then further negotiated. I then proceed to build say Walmart or say maybe an offfice building. I have to purchase the material and provide the manpower to complete the job profitably. Oh yeah I finance the job also......at best in 90 days I'll start to see a monthly payment on the job. Most smaller jobs are completed out of pocket. the joke is every morning I wake up and say" I'm all in". the risks are high. After I make this gross profit of 17-20% I pay my matching FICA of 7.5%on my payroll, though I think I get a 1.5% break(bush tax cut). then 7% workers comp then 3% liability and don't forgot 12% uneployment on the first 14k per man...I have 30. I have 3 trucks and office estimator and secratary. My monthly gas bill is $1600. When it is all said and done we strive for 8-10% net profit. Depending on volume I will owe 33-35% federal plus my social security being self employed and then my mass state tax.
in the end I get 5% of the money or 1/2 the profit......It's sad but true.
Personally I would think employing 30 men would be enough of a contribution.
I pay about a 100k in just matching FICA yearly...that's more than most.
now if I do well in a given year......They would llike me to "contribute" more.
As the risk taker/owner I should be encouraged not discouraged or worse made to be the greedy owner.
The real problem as I see it the american worker is lazy and unproductive.
They think they are great...why because you showed up.....ya right.....
I always say you have no problem sticking your hand out friday for your check....well I have no problem on tuesday asking for you to work.....
everyone knows people they work with that do nothing all day...if they never showed up again the company would be just fine.... maybe they spend the day on the internet or talk to the girlfriend or my favorite...just brag all day how they don't do anything...
They are the problem...the keep costs high and force companies to build their products elswhere. Or the local tax on real estate is so high because when you hire a 24 year old fire fighter you will pay for him until he dies.....
I tell my 3 sons 1 thing ...work hard...it doesn't matter what someone else does...the system will flush them out...just like if my company can't compete and be profitable the system will flush it out...
Lately a lot of people are having a hard time finding work and corporate profits are up... sounds like the system is working....

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by sburnsey931

Depending on volume I will owe 33-35% federal plus my social security being self employed and then my mass state tax.

That percent you give is before deductions and not effective tax rate. I am sure you pay a lot in taxes since that is a top tax bracket, but that is not the actual percent payed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by zimmy

That percent you give is before deductions and not effective tax rate. I am sure you pay a lot in taxes since that is a top tax bracket, but that is not the actual percent payed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You own a business? If so, then you'll completely understand that what Uncle Scam calls "Effective Tax Rate" and the actual taxes that a business pays due to the multitude of required payments to Uncle Scam are extremely different - and typically not for the better, might I add. Shall I list them all out again?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You own a business? If so, then you'll completely understand that what Uncle Scam calls "Effective Tax Rate" and the actual taxes that a business pays due to the multitude of required payments to Uncle Scam are extremely different - and typically not for the better, might I add. Shall I list them all out again?

you'd think he'd understand this as he was just recently arguing that the nearly 50% of Americans whose "effective federal tax rate" or federal income tax liability is currently "0"... are actually paying their "fair share' in taxes because they are paying things like sales tax etc.....guess it doesn't work both ways

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You own a business? If so, then you'll completely understand that what Uncle Scam calls "Effective Tax Rate" and the actual taxes that a business pays due to the multitude of required payments to Uncle Scam are extremely different - and typically not for the better, might I add. Shall I list them all out again?

This post, in a nutshell, demonstrates the dilemma we are in. If Zimmy's facts are correct as they were presented, it might be rational to conclude that the tax problem is overblown by conservatives. JohnnyD, who has owned businesses, explains why Zimmy's assumptions are flawed, and distort the conclusions.

If JohnnyD is correct, (having never owned a business I don't know firsthand, but I haven't seen any outrageous misrepresentations by him, ever) I'm curious to see Zimmy's reaction. Because in my experience, it's difficult, if not impossible, to have a rational conversation with a liberal about economics. Once they buy into the liberal economic agenda, they cannot be persuaded by common sense, not even by facts.

Assuming JohnnyD is correct, he has destroyed the premise of Zimmy's post.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

You own a business?

Yes, we do.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[sburnsey931]

I am taxed as married filing seperately. After 185k the 2011 rate is 35%.
They want to return to the rates under clinton of 39.6% as a top rate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[sburnsey931]

Since I have owned my business for more than a year I think my income should be taxed as a long term gain at the 15% capital gains rate. Kind of like a hedge fund guy...
But you see noone in washington is looking out for me...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIJIMMY]

im not self employed

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

im not self employed

Do you own a business? It is the same tax. Typically it is paid by the employer. Small business owners pay it themselves. If you own a company, you pay it for yourself and your employees. If you work for someone else and you are at 45%, you might need a new accountant.

[scottw]

"falling on deaf ears" comes to mind..............

I'm just hoping for more brilliant analysis like this....

Originally Posted by zimmy

Do you own a business? It is the same tax. Typically it is paid by the employer. Small business owners pay it themselves. If you own a company, you pay it for yourself and your employees.

maybe while he's on a roll he can also answer Buckman's question(if he saw it)...wondering if those who "pay their fair share" with taxes like sales tax while having no Federal obligation and pay for their goods and services with some sort of government transfer payment which we know is a direct transfer from one American to another less the Ferderal bureaucracy processing costs.....who is ACTUALLY paying that fair share?

The New American Dream
Government assistance expands
By Tami Luhby @CNNMoney February 7, 2012:

More than a third of Americans lived in households receiving government assistance in 2010.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- More than one in three Americans lived in households that received Medicaid, food stamps or other means-based government assistance in mid-2010, according to a new report.

And when Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits are included, nearly half of the nation lived in a household that received a government check, according to the analysis of third-quarter 2010 Census data done by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a libertarian-leaning think tank. That's more than 148 million Americans.

Those numbers are on their way up thanks to the Great Recession and its aftermath, which have pushed record numbers of people onto public assistance programs. In particular, the stubbornly high unemployment rate has left millions of Americans in dire straits.

In 2008, one-quarter of people lived in households receiving a government lifeline and about 45 percent a government check, according to the Census Bureau.


The federal government sent a record $2 trillion to individuals in fiscal 2010, up nearly 75% from 10 years earlier.




we do know who built this..................

[PaulS]

Who implemented the income tax in Conn? Didn't we just have years of Repub. govs?