"You didn't get there on your own"

[Stephanie]

Glad Dems have finally stepped out of their NeoMarxists closet. Please run against US Small business

Embrace your Inner Mao

Obama stepped in it big time with this speech..

I think it's great four months before the election

Keep talking Obama

 

[saveliberty]

And then there is the matter of major corporations who not only pay no corporate taxes, they get money from the government. That's right, they have a NEGATIVE tax rate!!!!!! These are not poor little startups, they are highly profitable Fortune 500 companies.

Those weren't businesses Obama was talking about are they. Oh, and it was Obama who gave Solyndra $.5 B. Might want to pick your battles more carefully. You have lost on every count so far.

 

[Listening]

.

Many of us who don't like what Obama said began losing this argument when they tried to respond to the "roads and bridges" straw man. A masterful job of diversion by the Left.

.

You lost the argument because Obama was telling the truth.

"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."

Thomas Paine

Unfortunately, that does not speak to Obama's comments.

47% of the nation currently does not pay any federal income tax. If we "do things together", then he should be pushing to put a minimum income tax on all people.

 

[edthecynic]

Then there's the little matter of corporate tax which is paid AGAIN by the individuals who own the company. It is a double tax in most cases.

And then there is the matter of major corporations who not only pay no corporate taxes, they get money from the government. That's right, they have a NEGATIVE tax rate!!!!!! These are not poor little startups, they are highly profitable Fortune 500 companies.

Those weren't businesses Obama was talking about are they. Oh, and it was Obama who gave Solyndra $.5 B. Might want to pick your battles more carefully. You have lost on every count so far.

Couldn't help but notice you edited out your stupid claim that corporations who have a NEGATIVE tax rate are "double taxed" that the chart was a reply to and then you desperately tried to change the subject.

 

[edthecynic]

.

Many of us who don't like what Obama said began losing this argument when they tried to respond to the "roads and bridges" straw man. A masterful job of diversion by the Left.

.

You lost the argument because Obama was telling the truth.

"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."

Thomas Paine

Unfortunately, that does not speak to Obama's comments.

47% of the nation currently does not pay any federal income tax. If we "do things together", then he should be pushing to put a minimum income tax on all people.

Hold on a minute there Slick! The Bush tax cuts doubled the number of people who pay no income tax and the GOP and the Right want to make those tax cuts permanent. Are you now saying the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire? Are you now saying it is good to raise taxes on the poor in a recession?

 

[saveliberty]

Then there's the little matter of corporate tax which is paid AGAIN by the individuals who own the company. It is a double tax in most cases.

And then there is the matter of major corporations who not only pay no corporate taxes, they get money from the government. That's right, they have a NEGATIVE tax rate!!!!!! These are not poor little startups, they are highly profitable Fortune 500 companies.

Those weren't businesses Obama was talking about are they. Oh, and it was Obama who gave Solyndra $.5 B. Might want to pick your battles more carefully. You have lost on every count so far.

Couldn't help but notice you edited out your stupid claim that corporations who have a NEGATIVE tax rate are "double taxed" that the chart was a reply to and then you desperately tried to change the subject.

You are the one who changed the subject, which was the point of my post. I tend to keep posts short, so I usually just keep one I'm responding to. BTW, I never said what you claim, but we are used to your lies EdtheLiar.

 

[saveliberty]

Hold on a minute there Slick! The Bush tax cuts doubled the number of people who pay no income tax and the GOP and the Right want to make those tax cuts permanent. Are you now saying the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire? Are you now saying it is good to raise taxes on the poor in a recession?

Obama wants to make things fair, he said so. Seems you and Obama can't see fair. The reference was to middle class not paying in as much. Again, you have no shame for lying.

 

[edthecynic]

.

Many of us who don't like what Obama said began losing this argument when they tried to respond to the "roads and bridges" straw man. A masterful job of diversion by the Left.

.

You lost the argument because Obama was telling the truth.

"Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."

Thomas Paine

Unfortunately, that does not speak to Obama's comments.

47% of the nation currently does not pay any federal income tax. If we "do things together", then he should be pushing to put a minimum income tax on all people.

Hold on a minute there Slick! The Bush tax cuts doubled the number of people who pay no income tax and the GOP and the Right want to make those tax cuts permanent. Are you now saying the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire? Are you now saying it is good to raise taxes on the poor in a recession?

Obama wants to make things fair, he said so. Seems you and Obama can't see fair. The reference was to middle class not paying in as much. Again, you have no shame for lying.

Again you dishonestly edit out the post I was replying to. Have you no shame??

Obviously the post I replied to said nothing about the middle class, exposing you as the liar once again.

 

[Murf76]

All you do is pontificate, like the "zombie" you linked to. Post some real numbers that show corporations paying "their share and more."

Corporations contribute 7.4% of federal revenues, wage earners 84.6%, and capital gains tycoons 2.5%.

It's not 'pontification', Ed. It's patience. I come here to talk... not to fight with people. Talking is actually fun when one doesn't make a chore of it. And while I enjoy talking with the like-minded, debating opposing views is also entertaining. But less so, when people keep repeating the same lame misunderstanding of the situation time after time.

Obama's not just trying to raise taxes on corporations. When he's talking to most of these small business people, he's talking income tax.

Translation: I checked and found out that only about 3% of small businesses net over $250,000 and would be hit by letting the Bush tax cuts expire.

Of course none of this has anything to do with the fact that corporations pay only 7.4% of federal revenue and wage earners pay 84.6%.

It's a BS statistic, Ed. And on more than one front too.

How many businesses that will face higher taxes is not the economically meaningful statistic here. What is meaningful is (1) how many people earning over $200,000 have business income and (2) how much business income will be taxed at a higher rate.

While S-Corporations and partnerships earning over $200,000 [1] a year may represent a small percent of all personal income tax returns – just 1.2% in 2010 according to the IRS, they represent nearly 5% of adjusted gross income (AGI) in the U.S. More importantly, S-Corporations and partnerships earning over $200,000 a year represented more than 97% of all income earned by these entities in 2010 due to net business losses at lower income levels.

(cont...)Size Matters - Why "Just" Taxing 3% of Small Businesses is Misleading | Tax Foundation

So, basically anybody that's actually making any money in their small business gets a tax hike.

And this 7.9% figure you keep giving me is meaningless as well. Corporations the size of GE and in bed with the Obama administration are paying nothing. What has he done about closing those loopholes?... not a damn thing. That must be pretty devastating for guys like you who froth at the mouth at the mere mention of the word "corporation". Your hero is closeted up with such as Big Pharma and you toddle out to the polls in worship of him.

Of course, that would be your beef, not mine. I'm wily enough to know that the onerous taxation of business in nothing more than a hidden consumer tax. The government hikes tax rates; the businesses hike prices. So, no matter how much greed and envy you folks on the left are possessed of... the rich will be rich and the poor will be poor and we in the middle will be squeezed. And you fight like rabid dogs over the only remedy to that situation, which would be LIMITING the scope and power of government.

You know, the sad part of all of this back and forth on "taxing the rich" is that it's all just an election gimmick from your Dear Leader anyway. Raising taxes on only "the rich" nets the government about 28 billion next year. They've got a deficit of over a trillion expected. Not much to plug the hole with on our sinking ship, is it?
If he goes ahead and lets the Bush Tax Cuts expire on everyone though... that'll bring him about 300 billion, still not enough, but a nice chunk of change that'll take him two-thirds of the way or so to servicing our national debt for a year.

But he's not got the balls to look into that camera and raise taxes on everyone, does he? Let me answer that for you... No. He doesn't.

So why is it that Republicans don't want those taxes raised on ANYONE right now? Obama and his minions are out there telling us it'll only affect 3% of small businesses. We KNOW that it's just a measly 28 billion in revenue, so why are they fighting it?....
....because they know something you don't. They know why Keynes worked for Reagan but didn't work for Obama.

Imagine the economy as a plate spinning on a stick, kind of like what performers used to do at circuses and vaudeville shows. The plate slows, wobbles, and the performer gives it a little nudge with his finger... and it spins faster.

The influx of government cash to the economy is kind of like that little nudge. But other forces are at work, making that plate spin and keeping it from wobbling. Cash in the hands of consumers raises Demand, Demand raises Production, Production raises Jobs, Jobs raise Cash... which sustains Demand. And the plate spins.

But just as things like centrifugal force and gravity work on the plate unseen, so too do necessary but invisible forces work on the economy... consumer confidence, predictability, optimism. Ronald Reagan exuded these things, not only in his demeanor with the American People, but in his policies. Barack Obama is the polar opposite, negative, threatening, unpredictable. Obamacare, Card Check, Cap-and-Trade, higher taxes, onerous regulatory law, etc.... all undermine those hidden, but necessary, invisible forces.

He's got to go. It's the only way our economy can recover. Mitt Romney might not be Ronald Reagan. No one is. But he's not going to go out of his way to present himself as a threat to the American people or to the economy we depend upon. And... he does understand how it works, not only in the abstract, but in detail. Step one, when you've been knocked off your feet, is to get back up. Obama's not going to let that happen.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Go back and re look Sewerboy.

Nicde try. Obama screwed himself. And this won't be the last time. He has a string of hits. THIS TIME he took off the last mask.

Yes, he sure did.

This was intended as just the typical class warfare that Obama is known for. He wanted to stir his mindless followers up with red meat, get them hating, which is the standard mode of an Obamabot.

But in this digital world, things get out, and his words flowed to the sentient Americans. Now his war on business, including small business, is hitting home. The message is "this guy doesn't just want to rob Walmart, Microsoft (but Apple is off the table, Algore is on the board) and Whirlpool, he wants to strong arm the mom and pop shops as well." Obama wants to take the bread out of the mouths of small business owners and that means a lot of regular people are threatened by him.

 

[flacaltenn]

Then there's the little matter of corporate tax which is paid AGAIN by the individuals who own the company. It is a double tax in most cases.

And then there is the matter of major corporations who not only pay no corporate taxes, they get money from the government. That's right, they have a NEGATIVE tax rate!!!!!! These are not poor little startups, they are highly profitable Fortune 500 companies.

Those weren't businesses Obama was talking about are they. Oh, and it was Obama who gave Solyndra $.5 B. Might want to pick your battles more carefully. You have lost on every count so far.

Couldn't help but notice you edited out your stupid claim that corporations who have a NEGATIVE tax rate are "double taxed" that the chart was a reply to and then you desperately tried to change the subject.

Why is it that the anti-corporate left put up charts like this and PRETEND that they have NO IDEA why GE and all these (primarily energy companies) pay negative taxes.. Certainly they are still TAXED at outrageous rates -- they just recieve massive CANDY from the govt that feeds them to produce goods that they would have produced anyway WITHOUT the subsidies. GE gets GREEN candy invented and protected by the eco-nut wing of the left.
They get $125 for every f'ing washer/dryer they sell to SAVE THE EARTH. They get $75 tax break for every f'ing dishwasher. And MASSIVE tax breaks for their wind turbine, and biomass programs.

So they run those cute "green as a tree frog" commercials and serve as ADVISORS to the Prez so that the ECO-Snacks keep coming..

It's really no mystery.. Has NOTHING to do with their Tax Rate. But you knew that -- you just hate corporations in general -- even when they are getting rich doing your political agendas..

 

[Uncensored2008]

All you do is pontificate, like the "zombie" you linked to. Post some real numbers that show corporations paying "their share and more."

Corporations contribute 7.4% of federal revenues, wage earners 84.6%, and capital gains tycoons 2.5%.

Is that right, edtheliar?

So 84.6% of all federal revenue is from income tax on wage earners?

Wait a minute, income taxes don't even make up 50% of the federal revenue stream. How could income tax on wages be 84.6% then?

Oh, that's right - you're a ******* liar - you're a leftist and you'll say anything to promote your shameful party. Like all Obamabots, you don't have so much as a shred of integrity..

 

[Foxfyre]

Go back and re look Sewerboy.

Nicde try. Obama screwed himself. And this won't be the last time. He has a string of hits. THIS TIME he took off the last mask.

Yes, he sure did.

This was intended as just the typical class warfare that Obama is known for. He wanted to stir his mindless followers up with red meat, get them hating, which is the standard mode of an Obamabot.

But in this digital world, things get out, and his words flowed to the sentient Americans. Now his war on business, including small business, is hitting home. The message is "this guy doesn't just want to rob Walmart, Microsoft (but Apple is off the table, Algore is on the board) and Whirlpool, he wants to strong arm the mom and pop shops as well." Obama wants to take the bread out of the mouths of small business owners and that means a lot of regular people are threatened by him.

And seriously folks, it was probably a Freudian slip on the part of the President, but he did let the cat out of the bag and showed his true colors.

If the free market lovers of this country, most especially those of us who see our ever more bloated and self serving government as a hindrance rather than a help to the average citizen's freedoms and prosperity, don't keep this alive and fresh in the mind of the electorate, we are all fools.

Don't let them change the subject.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And then there is the matter of major corporations who not only pay no corporate taxes, they get money from the government. That's right, they have a NEGATIVE tax rate!!!!!! These are not poor little startups, they are highly profitable Fortune 500 companies.

Say edtheliar, #2 on your list is GENERAL ELECTRIC, you know, the folk that own a 70% stake of Barack Obama...

 

[Meister]

I think we need to outlaw teleprompters, we get to see the real person when teleprompters aren't around.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You lost the argument because Obama was telling the truth.

Obama Akbar indeed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

And?

Obama's a fuckwad. Why did you need to ask?

 

[kaz]

This is just another stupid liberal trick. Yes, business owners and Olympians didn't do what they did in a bubble. There are two fundamental differences between them.

1) Obama is using it as a rationalization to take away from the business owner that which they built. Other people helped you, so we're taking your money. Romney is taking nothing from the Olympians, he's just saying to appreciate how much they helped you.

2) Obama's not even advocating the people who actually helped the business owner. He's just saying someone helped you, so I'm taking it and giving it to someone else. Romney is advocating the people who actually did help Olympians.

It's just one of the stupid games liberals like to play. Here are things that sound similar, but actually are clearly not to someone with even a modicum of intelligence. So it's the same. Yeah. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't it was lame.

Yes, you're right.

Presenting the facts, in the exact context they were presented, is a "Liberal Trick".

Obama is not "using it as a rationalization" for anything.

He's pointing out that business owners didn't get there on their own, they had workers, families and communities that supported them.

Which is exactly what Romney did in that speech.

Apparently, in your Bizarro universe, a "modicum of intelligence" is code for "years worth of right-wing brainwashing".

Re-reading my post, I already gave you a pretty good description of how they are different. What's not clear is in what possible way they are the same. Romney was helping athletes and telling them to appreciate others. Obama is crushing small business owners. But he says the same words and you say it's no difference, he just appreciates us darn it. It has nothing to do with wanting to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone but us, escalating our unemployment taxes, throttling us with the cost of Obamacare. Just because Obama's not taking our money and giving it to the people who helped us, he's giving it to the people he wants to help him, doesn't mean he doesn't have a soft spot in his heart for us. He just wants to help us out, and to think otherwise is "bizzaro world." Gotcha, I understand now...

 

[Foxfyre]

This is just another stupid liberal trick. Yes, business owners and Olympians didn't do what they did in a bubble. There are two fundamental differences between them.

1) Obama is using it as a rationalization to take away from the business owner that which they built. Other people helped you, so we're taking your money. Romney is taking nothing from the Olympians, he's just saying to appreciate how much they helped you.

2) Obama's not even advocating the people who actually helped the business owner. He's just saying someone helped you, so I'm taking it and giving it to someone else. Romney is advocating the people who actually did help Olympians.

It's just one of the stupid games liberals like to play. Here are things that sound similar, but actually are clearly not to someone with even a modicum of intelligence. So it's the same. Yeah. I'd say nice try, but it wasn't it was lame.

Yes, you're right.

Presenting the facts, in the exact context they were presented, is a "Liberal Trick".

Obama is not "using it as a rationalization" for anything.

He's pointing out that business owners didn't get there on their own, they had workers, families and communities that supported them.

Which is exactly what Romney did in that speech.

Apparently, in your Bizarro universe, a "modicum of intelligence" is code for "years worth of right-wing brainwashing".

Re-reading my post, I already gave you a pretty good description of how they are different. What's not clear is in what possible way they are the same. Romney was helping athletes and telling them to appreciate others. Obama is crushing small business owners. But he says the same words and you say it's no difference, he just appreciates us darn it. It has nothing to do with wanting to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone but us, escalating our unemployment taxes, throttling us with the cost of Obamacare. Just because Obama's not taking our money and giving it to the people who helped us, he's giving it to the people he wants to help him, doesn't mean he doesn't have a soft spot in his heart for us. He just wants to help us out, and to think otherwise is "bizzaro world." Gotcha, I understand now...

Yes the differences are quite astonishing. To rephrase yet once again:

Romney: Appreciate those who gave you encouragement and funding and moral support and mentoring to make it possible for you to reach for your dream of an Olympic medal. (No suggestion that anybody other than the athlete put in the effort to earn that medal or deserves any part of it.)

Obama: You owe those who did stuff that now benefits you, and therefore everybody deserves a cut of whatever you accomplish.

 

[ConzHateUSA]

And?

Obama's a fuckwad. Why did you need to ask?

god help us, 4.5 billion year old planet and some of the inhabitants are still as dumb as cavemen