You didn't build that

[TracyCoxx]

Obama lets his true feelings show about entrepreneurs in America

That right... extend the recession with your policies, propose a tax increase on the drivers of the economy, and then insult them by telling them they didn't build their businesses. Steve Wozniak, you didn't build that Apple computer in your garage.

Any time in the past this would be the death knell for his 2nd term, as would his policies. But his policy of trickle down poverty is not just incompetence. There's an actual alterior motive there. Increase the number of people on unemployment, the number of people on food stamps, the number of people who don't pay taxes to a certain critical mass and you will have complete victory over republicans. You'll have created a large population that needs the government and is large enough to demand that the rich pay to support them.

Obama says businesses use the roads and bridges tax payers paid for. Why do we even have roads? Because Henry Ford invented the automobile. The government may have invented the internet... let's be specific - the military invented the internet... but it was private industry that brought out its potential and expanded it. Wherever the government builds infrastructure that's paid by tax payers. Tax payers who pay tax for income they receive from their employers.

Obama has no love for American businesses and he has successfully grown our welfare population to the point where he doesn't feel he has to hide that fact anymore.

[GRH]

Yawn...

Could Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or any other entrepreneur built their empire without:

1. Roads, bridges, railways, and other forms of public infrastructure that is used to ship the PC's, iPads, X-Boxes, iPods, etc. to market?

2. An educated workforce of software engineers, chip designers, etc. Would the access to such an educated workforce be possible without public primary schools, universities, etc. And if the educational infrastructure was in place, would Apple or Microsoft have had as large of a talent pool to draw on, had said talent pool not had access to student loans, Pell grants, etc. that helped them attain the education that Microsoft/et al. ended up needing?

3. A legal system that is designed to protect the intellectual property involved in designing said tech gadgets? Currently, Samsung has an injunction against selling one its Galaxy tablets because of the violation of Apple patents. In the absence of such civil protections, Jobs or Gates may have had a great idea, only to have it stolen out from under them.

4. A secure political sphere in which to build a business? When the tech giants built their empires in Cupertino, Silicon Valley, etc. they probably weren't overtly concerned about hostile invasion by a foreign military presence because of the existence of the world's strongest military.

This is just scratching the surface, but the point remains the same. Jobs, Gates, or any other businessman may be the ingenuity and drive behind the success of their respective business. They DID build that. But without the common good-- the roads, universities, student loans, legal protections, etc.-- all their good ideas and ingenuity wouldn't have gone nearly as far. And to be fair-- Microsoft and Apple did NOT build that. They may have helped (through taxes), and it is the existence of such developed infrastructure that in my mind serves as the primary justification for taxing corporations.

Too many corporations want to operate in America and benefit from all of the common good infrastructure that I've just referenced-- but they scream hell when it comes time to pay for such infrastructure. I tell you what...If corporate taxes are so onerous...I've got a suggestion for your business. Move your corporate headquarters to Sudan. I hear Sudan has a pretty lax corporate tax environment. Granted, you probably won't have very good electrical or water utilities to run to your business. And the road/bridge infrastructure probably leaves a lot to be desired. Nevermind that legal protections are non-existent-- especially for a foreign corporation. It's also probably a safe bet to say that you're not going to have a very large graduating class of software engineers every summer-- so you may have difficulty recruiting educated talent to your firm. And it's probably just a small fly-in-the-ointment that civil war could break out at any time and lead to massive destruction. But at least the taxes are low!

As usual Tracy, you present a false dichotomy. Yes, tax revenue is derived from the income that is generated by private sector employment...But I see this as sort of a chicken vs. egg argument. Which comes first? Does business employment follow the development of infrastructure? Or does infrastructure follow the emerging needs of business? I'd argue that both statements may be true to some extent...Thus neutralizing the whole chicken/egg dilemma. I don't know why I bothered wasting 5 minutes of my life replying to you-- because it's not like we're changing each other's minds.

[smc]

Originally Posted by GRH

Yawn...

I don't know why I bothered wasting 5 minutes of my life replying to you-- because it's not like we're changing each other's minds.

Oh, GRH, you took the bait. I was busy writing that this is asinine drivel, and I was wishing the few on this site who will join TracyCoxx's circle jerk a happy "orgasm."

The notion that Obama represents anything but a wing of the ruling rich is absurb in every way.

Now, let's allow this TracyCoxx to die on the vine, as it should.

Originally Posted by GRH

Yawn...

Could Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, or any other entrepreneur built their empire without:

You are right, GRH, you are essentially wasting your time if you are only replying to Tracy Coxx. But I want to thank you for what is an excellent post on the relationship between ?free enterprise? and government infrastructure. Personally I think you should publish what you wrote in the New York Times or other major paper. Very well said.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by GRH

Jobs, Gates, or any other businessman may be the ingenuity and drive behind the success of their respective business. They DID build that. But without the common good-- the roads, universities, student loans, legal protections, etc.-- all their good ideas and ingenuity wouldn't have gone nearly as far.

Yes, private industry benefits from the infrastructures in our country that our capitalist economy enabled us to afford. But in this economy, what was Obama's purpose for making these statements? It sure wasn't meant to encourage the American spirit to persevere and drive us out of this recession. More like incite class warfare... again, and put entrepreneurs in their place. What's more is his comments seem to completely discount the possibility of someone creating something on their own. Does he really not believe that can happen? What did Obama hope to achieve with these comments?

[tslust]

It is true that roads, bridges, railroads, phone lines, water lines, gas lines, all go to help a budding buisness flurish. However there would be no need for the infrastructure if there was no buisness in the first place. Trust me, I've driven across enough gravel county roads to no that the government (Federal or State) doesn't simply lay down four lane black-tops just to be nice. This amounts to not much more than did the chicken (government infrastructure) or the egg (the buisness) come first. In this case, there would be no chicken without the egg.

[smc]

The lack of seriousness underlying the initial post and the entire right-wing "talking point" about Obama's speech is an embarrassment. We can have a serious discussion about whether government should be reduced to the size where it can be drowned in a bathtub (to use the illustrious Grover Norquist's formulation), and we can have a serious discussion about whether we should leave the creation of shared public infrastructure completely to the private sector to create, but why anyone would engage beyond an initial post to point out how asinine this manipulation of a speech really is boggles the mind. It is just so much mental masturbation.

Anyone can make anything sound however they want. Politicians do it all the time, both Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't make it correct. And the bullshit smears the person who manipulates the speech more than anyone else.

I'm glad we can't smell you, TracyCoxx.

[ila]

The attached picture is the way many people interpret what Obama said. I found it at this site, but I have also seen it on tv.

More along the same theme can be found here.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by ila

The attached picture is the way many people interpret what Obama said. I found it at this site, but I have also seen it on tv.

More along the same theme can be found here.

I think for some people, it's like "wow, he's finally admitted it". And for many others, obama put words to a nagging feeling they've had about him. Obama is trying to get away from those comments, but it's not working. It's got too much of the ring of truth (at least that BO feels this way) for people to dismiss it.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I think for some people, it's like "wow, he's finally admitted it". And for many others, obama put words to a nagging feeling they've had about him. Obama is trying to get away from those comments, but it's not working. It's got too much of the ring of truth (at least that BO feels this way) for people to dismiss it.

Shame, shame, shame ... this bullshit about Obama's speech is just more of the attempt to paint him as something "other" than a real American. It is as shameful as the birth certificate bullshit. It is all wrapped up in racism, too. Shame, shame, shame.

Tracy Coxx even uses the "nagging feeling" phrase that is used by some of the worst offenders. Shame, shame, shame.

I don't support Obama, as I've written before, but ... well ... shame, shame, shame on those of you who give any truck to this bullshit. It is so patently un-American.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

this bullshit about Obama's speech is just more of the attempt to paint him as something "other" than a real American. It is as shameful as the birth certificate bullshit. It is all wrapped up in racism, too. Shame, shame, shame.

Seriously? The race card? The defense one uses for the candidate you claim not to support when there is no defense. This has nothing whatsoever to do about race. I find it amazing that you label these values that Obama goes on about unamerican when they are defended by you and your co-thinkers. What that says about you and other "non-obama supporters" I'll leave that to the reader to decide.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Seriously? The race card? The defense one uses for the candidate you claim not to support when there is no defense. This has nothing whatsoever to do about race. I find it amazing that you label these values that Obama goes on about unamerican when they are defended by you and your co-thinkers. What that says about you and other "non-obama supporters" I'll leave that to the reader to decide.

TracyCoxx, does it give you some kind of perverse pleasure to pretend to be a complete idiot, or pretend to be functionally illiterate? Does your need to be an inveterate troll so overwhelm you that you just can't help yourself? It's truly sad.

I didn't write that "these values that Obama goes on about" are un-American. I wrote that it is un-American to "give any truck to this bullshit" ABOUT him and what he said in the speech in question ... that is, the bullshit about his "otherness."

You know that, because you can read. But whatever it is that compels you just gets the better of you, doesn't it. To quote your pseudo-wit from another thread, directed at me, perhaps there is a 12-step program that can help you.

I stand by my point about racism. I'm not defending Obama by raising it. I'm defending what is right. This Obama-as-other stuff is wrapped tightly in racism. You can pretend it isn't, but it doesn't change reality.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by smc

I didn't write that "these values that Obama goes on about" are un-American. I wrote that it is un-American to "give any truck to this bullshit" ABOUT him and what he said in the speech in question ... that is, the bullshit about his "otherness."

Ok, let me try and understand. I didn't give any, uh, truck? to this bullshit ABOUT him and what he said in the speech in question. And this is when I said "I think for some people, it's like "wow, he's finally admitted it". And for many others, obama put words to a nagging feeling they've had about him. Obama is trying to get away from those comments, but it's not working. It's got too much of the ring of truth (at least that BO feels this way) for people to dismiss it".

Ok, I guess the key word in what you said is 'truck'. I am not an academic where words like truck and their obvious uses do not apply. You'll have to rephrase that one.

Originally Posted by smc

I stand by my point about racism. I'm not defending Obama by raising it. I'm defending what is right. This Obama-as-other stuff is wrapped tightly in racism. You can pretend it isn't, but it doesn't change reality.

Ok, look again at

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I think for some people, it's like "wow, he's finally admitted it". And for many others, obama put words to a nagging feeling they've had about him. Obama is trying to get away from those comments, but it's not working. It's got too much of the ring of truth (at least that BO feels this way) for people to dismiss it.

Please bold the "Obama-as-other stuff" part so I can see what you're talking about.

[smc]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, let me try and understand. I didn't give any, uh, truck? to this bullshit ABOUT him and what he said in the speech in question. And this is when I said "I think for some people, it's like "wow, he's finally admitted it". And for many others, obama put words to a nagging feeling they've had about him. Obama is trying to get away from those comments, but it's not working. It's got too much of the ring of truth (at least that BO feels this way) for people to dismiss it".

Ok, I guess the key word in what you said is 'truck'. I am not an academic where words like truck and their obvious uses do not apply. You'll have to rephrase that one.

One of the meanings of the noun "truck" is "close association or connection" (e.g., "I will have no truck with crooks.") I should have written "have any truck," not "give any truck."

I cannot miss the opportunity to point out that you could have simply written that you are not familiar with the term as I used it, and asked for clarification. By writing what you did about not being an academic, you seek to do with me the very same thing this bullshit about Obama's speech, and the birther movement, seek to do to Obama: paint a picture of him as "other." You will deny it, of course, but the point of making the "academic" remark is to set me apart, in this case by virtue of my choice of words. It's as if to say to those who read the post, with a wink: "Don't forget that smc is not like the rest of us ... and be sure to take that into account when you read what he writes." It's insidious insinuation (you can look those words up if need be).

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Ok, look again at
Please bold the "Obama-as-other stuff" part so I can see what you're talking about.

I am referring to the entire enterprise of this portrayal of Obama's speech by those who are engage in it, which involves gross misrepresentation for political gain and to continue this "otherness" campaign (see below). Specifically, your "nagging feeling" comment is part of the "Obama-as-other stuff" to which I refer. The response to this speech by the right cannot be separated from all the other things that have been done in an effort to paint this picture of Obama as "not like us" or "someone who doesn't get America" and so on. The reality is that other than not being a White, Anglo-Saxon, Obama -- the Obama story -- may be the most American story of any president in a long time. It's not the story of a Kenyan-born Muslim, educated in a madrasa in Indonesia, who is "other." Differ with the man on policy, but have no truck with this campaign of innuendo and ignorance, pushed by those who demonstrate time and again their disrespect for the very country they claim to love, and embraced by people many of whom don't even recognize Hawaii as part of the "real America" (cue Sarah Palin). Really, TracyCoxx, you want to throw your lot in with those people? Or do you want to distinguish yourself, and your political views, by being serious?

[smc]

How do you make someone appear to say something that they didn't really say, so you can create a big political kerfuffle and support your underlying notion that someone just doesn't get how America works, that he isn't one of us, that he is other? The Romney campaign's political ad is an object lesson, along with the deliberate misquoting and taking out of context that has been practiced by the right-wing talking heads.

Here is what Obama said in his speech (it's part of the public record, and it was recorded):

Let me tell you something. There are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you?ve got a business, you didn?t build that.

I bolded some of this for a reason. In the Romney advertisement the speech is made to sound as if Obama went right to "if you've got a business, you didn't build that" from "let me tell you something." You can see it here:

http://www.mittromney.com/forms/these-hands0

Watch and listen to Obama's speech, carefully, as presented in this video. The video deceptively edits the remarks by removing a number of sentences so that two different parts of the speech can be made to seem seamless, thus promoting a lie about what Obama actually said. In Romney's case, it allows for the opportunity to have a "business owner" accuse Obama of insulting him, and ask Obama why the president is "demonizing" people who work hard to build a business.

It's complete bullshit.

[GRH]

If ila's "Beaver picture" from above were actually a representation of Obama's speech (which has been taken wildly out of context), the "that" being referenced is the river. The right wingers like to pretend that the "that" is the dam that the beaver built. In the context of Obama's speech, the "that" is clearly referring to the river, the trees which cast down sticks, and the other pieces of infrastructure that the beaver relied on to build the dam.

[liesjeversteven]

You Americans really crack me up sometimes... What in the world could possibly be seen as wrong in making the rich spend a little bit of what they earn on helping the less fortunate? It doesn't make sense.
What makes even less sense is that a lot of the unfortunate people who would actually benefit from Obama's reforms vote republican out of sheer stupidity.
I'm from Belgium, Europe, and we have a long tradition of a caring state. Just a few examples to illustrate:

Education: Is virtually for free, AND of pretty high standard. I think that is a really good thing. Because of this everyone, rich or poor alike, can study what they want, and prepare themselves to become something in life. When we come out of high school, we can speak three languages just to give an example.
University studies in Belgium cost about 600€ per year. That is a fraction of what it costs in the States.

Healthcare: Health insurance is obligatory, organised by the state, but, also very cheap. It costs me about 14€ per month. If I have to go to hospital for some reason, I hardly have to pay anything on top of that. This prevents people from ending up in the streets because they can't afford the medical bills and makes sure everyone gets the best possible care. I think that's a positive thing indeed.

Social benefits: If I lose my job for some reason, I get unemployment pay. Not a whole lot, but enough to allow me to pay my rent, food and the necessary things in life so I don't end up in the streets and so I have the possibility to find another job without ending up in dept. Again, same idea as above, positive indeed.

And there's much more, but I won't get into everything here.

Does that come at a certain cost? Well yes. The tax system is quite different here as well. Everyone pays a certain part of his/her income to the state, and yes that's a lot more than you Americans pay. The more you earn, the bigger the percentage of your income you pay on taxes. But i'm happy to pay my taxes, because when push comes to shove, and I end up in trouble, I have a safety net to rely on.

This all has the effect of reducing the percentage of poor people in the population. Having less poor, means having more people who can afford to consume products, which has in its turn a positive effect on economy, which creates jobs, so less unemployment, and so on....

The USA are the only developed country on this planet without universal health care. Are you guys going to tell me the whole world is wrong about this and you right?
There's nothing wrong with a bit of socialism (look it up before you get on your high horses, it's NOT the same as communism)

Just my two cents....

Love

Liesje

[Rachel]

Keep that attitude out of MY country

[liesjeversteven]

Originally Posted by Rachel

Keep that attitude out of MY country

You people keep THAT attitude up, and you'll end up living in a third world country before you know it.

[randolph]

Politicians of all stripes love to take statements out of context. Obama was simply saying that guys like Gates, Jobes and all the other creative businessmen, that develop amazing new businesses depend on investment capital and social infrastructures to succeed and the US system is very good at that. Can you imagine them succeeding without investors? Can you imagine them succeeding without a free market to sell their products. Can you imagine them succeeding in a country without a middle class?

[Tsloverib]

I sure did build my business MR PRESIDENT!!

And i did NOT have Government Assistance!!

Companies do not always need Government Assistance.

America can not operate soley on Government, is everyone going to work for the Government? NO, will not happen, and that leaves the private sector to supply jobs to the unemployed.

This President just does not get that, and myself, other business owners i know will not vote Obama this year.

[GRH]

Tsloverib...Humor me, what does your business engage in?

[smc]

Originally Posted by Tsloverib

I sure did build my business MR PRESIDENT!!

And i did NOT have Government Assistance!!

Companies do not always need Government Assistance.

America can not operate soley on Government, is everyone going to work for the Government? NO, will not happen, and that leaves the private sector to supply jobs to the unemployed.

This President just does not get that, and myself, other business owners i know will not vote Obama this year.

Of course, this post simply perpetuates the deliberate mischaracterization of what Obama (who, as I point out often, I do not support) actually said. Tsloverib, irrespective of what your business is, can you prove that there is absolutely nothing your business uses, enjoys, takes advantage of, etc., that was not built by the government and thus, by extension, the people who are not directly involved with your business. Do you drive on a road to get to work? Does water come into your place of business? If you work from your home, do you use the Internet in any way? Etc.? Etc.? Etc.?

The facile posturing of the pseudo-seriousness "debate" and criticism by those who continue to mischaracterize what was said by Obama and the true point of his remarks should be embarrassing to those involved. Instead, they thump their chests, smile with self-satisfaction, and continue to make the rest of the world shake its collective head at the insipid nature of American political discourse.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Politicians of all stripes love to take statements out of context. Obama was simply saying that guys like Gates, Jobes and all the other creative businessmen, that develop amazing new businesses depend on investment capital and social infrastructures to succeed and the US system is very good at that. Can you imagine them succeeding without investors? Can you imagine them succeeding without a free market to sell their products. Can you imagine them succeeding in a country without a middle class?

Job's buddy Wozniak built the first Apple in his garage. They did build their company. You talked about infrastructures. I'm not going to say companies don't need those infrastructures. But where does the money come from to build those infrastructures? From tax payers and their incomes from companies.

Originally Posted by randolph

Can you imagine them succeeding without investors?

Can you imagine investors forking over their money to people with no clue? The first thing an entrepreneur sells is their ideas and capabilities.

It's not just a one way street, it's a cycle, and the driver of that cycle is innovation from the private sector.

[tonywaits]

Obama and the Dems have brain washed so many. I don't feel that paying as much as 50% of my hard earned money so people that are to lazy to work can sit on there ass, is not what I call fair.

[TracyCoxx]

What's the difference between Romney supporters and Obama supporters?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Romney supporters sign the check on the front. Obama supporters sign the check on the back.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by tonywaits

Obama and the Dems have brain washed so many. I don't feel that paying as much as 50% of my hard earned money so people that are to lazy to work can sit on there ass, is not what I call fair.

You need to pay your "fair share" so that everyone can enjoy the pie.

[TracyCoxx]

I saw 2016: Obama's America

I would highly recommend it no matter what side you're on. This is not Michael Moore-like fiction. Much of it is actually narrated by Obama as he's reading from his book. There's also interviews with people from Obama's life, like his brother, his grandmother, Rev. Wright and others. You'll hear things from credible sources that will shock you, and also enlighten you. As I watched Obama bumble through his 1st term I couldn't understand what his motives were. It almost seemed like he was trying to screw things up. The movie presents a sort of model that explains Obama's actions and helps to predict what Obama's America will look like in 2016.

[tslust]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I saw 2016: Obama's America

I would highly recommend it no matter what side you're on. This is not Michael Moore-like fiction. Much of it is actually narrated by Obama as he's reading from his book. There's also interviews with people from Obama's life, like his brother, his grandmother, Rev. Wright and others. You'll hear things from credible sources that will shock you, and also enlighten you. As I watched Obama bumble through his 1st term I couldn't understand what his motives were. It almost seemed like he was trying to screw things up. The movie presents a sort of model that explains Obama's actions and helps to predict what Obama's America will look like in 2016.

I saw that movie yesterday. I highly recommend it.

[TracyCoxx]

Anyone planning on watching the DNC this week? I have sort of a morbid curiosity of how they can possibly spin the last 4 years as a success. And their biggest speaker besides the ticket is Bill Clinton who doesn't exactly agree with Obama.

[TracyCoxx]

And the DNC begins with California Democratic Party chairman John Burton comparing Paul Ryan to Nazis. I guess that's about what I'd expect from a democrat. Running on their own record is the LAST thing they'd want to do.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

And the DNC begins with California Democratic Party chairman John Burton comparing Paul Ryan to Nazis. I guess that's about what I'd expect from a democrat. Running on their own record is the LAST thing they'd want to do.

So are the Repubs going to run on their record? The Bush administration was the most irresponsible administration in the history of the country and the Romney/Ryon wants to return to Bush style government. Well, Bush nearly destroyed the country and if Romney gets elected, he can finish the job.
I must give the Repubs credit for getting the brain dead American public into believing our current troubles are Obamas fault. Obama is far from perfect but do we want the Koke brothers running the government?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

So are the Repubs going to run on their record? The Bush administration was the most irresponsible administration in the history of the country and the Romney/Ryon wants to return to Bush style government. Well, Bush nearly destroyed the country and if Romney gets elected, he can finish the job.
I must give the Repubs credit for getting the brain dead American public into believing our current troubles are Obamas fault. Obama is far from perfect but do we want the Koke brothers running the government?

Obama successfully ran against Bush even though he was running against McCain. I think Romney/Ryan are going to run on their own record and their own proposals. It's financially more responsible than out of control unchecked spending.

[tonywaits]

I as a Republican was ashamed of W. The only President to outspend W is Obama, by 2 to 1. It's time Obama and the Dems took responsibility for their actions, and stop blaming W.

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by tonywaits

I as a Republican was ashamed of W. The only President to outspend W is Obama, by 2 to 1. It's time Obama and the Dems took responsibility for their actions, and stop blaming W.

No one seems to acknowledge that our financial center was attacked on 9/11 and that we then went to war. Ya think that might cost some money?

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

Obama successfully ran against Bush even though he was running against McCain. I think Romney/Ryan are going to run on their own record and their own proposals. It's financially more responsible than out of control unchecked spending.

Now that rhetorical bs of the conventions is over we can settle down and put up with endless political bs commercials. Fundamental changes are needed in our electoral system to save us from all of this. Where is the ethics, where is the honesty?

[TracyCoxx]

Originally Posted by randolph

Now that rhetorical bs of the conventions is over we can settle down and put up with endless political bs commercials. Fundamental changes are needed in our electoral system to save us from all of this. Where is the ethics, where is the honesty?

I propose that we have these people who's job it is to ask hard questions of the candidates and investigate whether the candidates and their ads are telling the truth. They would be unbiased and investigate all sides equally without playing favorites. We could call these people reporters or journalists. I have heard these people existed once. It may be archaic, but I really think it would help. Maybe people like this could rise up again...

Oh man... could you see the look on Obama's face if he came face to face with someone like that? OMG LOL

[TracyCoxx]

This was a tweet from Jon Lovitz... hilarious, and so true.

That's quite a government you supported there in Egypt & Libya Obama. They really raised the bar on what a country can be.

beheading people... dragging our ambassadors dead body through the streets...
It's certainly not politically correct to say this, but I think the muslim extremists have worn out their welcome. They do not deserve a place alongside civilized people and should be exterminated.

[Rachel]

Originally Posted by liesjeversteven

You people keep THAT attitude up, and you'll end up living in a third world country before you know it.

You havent seen attitude til you come to New Jersey. How dare you? You should still be thanking us on your hands and knees. How many of MY countrymen died saving your shitty little country? You just holler next time the Germans come!

[randolph]

Originally Posted by TracyCoxx

I propose that we have these people who's job it is to ask hard questions of the candidates and investigate whether the candidates and their ads are telling the truth. They would be unbiased and investigate all sides equally without playing favorites. We could call these people reporters or journalists. I have heard these people existed once. It may be archaic, but I really think it would help. Maybe people like this could rise up again...

Oh man... could you see the look on Obama's face if he came face to face with someone like that? OMG LOL

Well, it's not just Obama that would look shocked. When is Romney going to come clean on his taxes? All of them are liars. One term elections would eliminate a lot of this crap, just six years and that's it, no retirement no other cushy benefits. Candidates would be expected to serve their country for six years and then go home.

[tonywaits]

Originally Posted by randolph

Well, it's not just Obama that would look shocked. When is Romney going to come clean on his taxes? All of them are liars. One term elections would eliminate a lot of this crap, just six years and that's it, no retirement no other cushy benefits. Candidates would be expected to serve their country for six years and then go home.

Romney came clean today, he paid almost 2 million in taxes for 2011 and donated 4 million to charitable organizations, which is 30% of his income. When will Biden and Obama donate those percentages?

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

Well, it's not just Obama that would look shocked. When is Romney going to come clean on his taxes? All of them are liars. One term elections would eliminate a lot of this crap, just six years and that's it, no retirement no other cushy benefits. Candidates would be expected to serve their country for six years and then go home.

Originally Posted by tonywaits

Romney came clean today, he paid almost 2 million in taxes for 2011 and donated 4 million to charitable organizations, which is 30% of his income. When will Biden and Obama donate those percentages?

The tax issue is a red herring and absolutely meaningless. What other candidate in a US election has ever released his/her tax records.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by tonywaits

Romney came clean today, he paid almost 2 million in taxes for 2011 and donated 4 million to charitable organizations, which is 30% of his income. When will Biden and Obama donate those percentages?

His tax rate was slightly under fifteen percent, what was your tax rate?

[Heather11]

Obama has no love for American businesses and he has successfully grown our welfare population to the point where he doesn't feel he has to hide that fact anymore.

[tonywaits]

Originally Posted by randolph

His tax rate was slightly under fifteen percent, what was your tax rate?

So he only paid 15% on taxes, but donated 30% of his income to charity, and that's not enough. I guess you think it should all go to the government so it can be redistributed to the lazy, instead of the needy.

Would I be right in guessing that in the US, as it is in a lot of other countries, that giving money to charity is tax-deductable? In other words, it's a tax dodge.

And who were these 'needy' charities that he donated to? If it hasn't been disclosed, I'd be willing to bet a large chunk of it went to his church - who are hardly in need of any more cash the last time I looked...

[randolph]

Originally Posted by tonywaits

So he only paid 15% on taxes, but donated 30% of his income to charity, and that's not enough. I guess you think it should all go to the government so it can be redistributed to the lazy, instead of the needy.

He did not claim all his donations on his tax form to keep his rate above 13%, which triggers some kind of audit.

[tonywaits]

Originally Posted by randolph

He did not claim all his donations on his tax form to keep his rate above 13%, which triggers some kind of audit.

Perfectly legal, but do realize earned income and capital gains are taxed differently.

[tonywaits]

Originally Posted by Natalie_J

Would I be right in guessing that in the US, as it is in a lot of other countries, that giving money to charity is tax-deductable? In other words, it's a tax dodge.

And who were these 'needy' charities that he donated to? If it hasn't been disclosed, I'd be willing to bet a large chunk of it went to his church - who are hardly in need of any more cash the last time I looked...

Where I live church's give to the needy, the government give to the lazy, for the most part.

[GRH]

Originally Posted by tonywaits

Perfectly legal, but do realize earned income and capital gains are taxed differently.

THIS is one of the fundamental questions that must be addressed in any conversation about "equitable" treatment under the tax code. The rich hoot and holler about the "atrocious" marginal income tax rates; nevermind that the bulk of their income flows from investment gains which are taxed at much lower rates.