Obama'S Fairness Fiction
whygohome
Posts: 2,305
Once in a while, I enjoy browsing the comments section from a random political news website.
Comments from the article: "Obama's Fairness Fiction" by David Harsanyi, Human Events: Powerful Conservative Voices
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50768
inthisdimension [Moderator] 5 hours ago
A country can be "fair" or it can be "free". Now we know which Left voters prefer: Not free.
It is amusing to see what has become of Liberalism, which once-upon-a-time stood for celebrating the individual AGAINST the State. Now "Liberalsim' is antithetical to freedom, liberty, individual rights, free speech, freedom of thought ("hate crimes"), free markest, free enterprise, etc.
Wow. Keeping most of what you earn makes you an enemy. Not.
Stealing all of your income from those working for theirs makes you - or SHOULD make you - the enemy of all free people. But not, somehow, for the Left. Or at least that's their pretense. When I see Clooney evenly splitting his $25M per-movie salary with the 250+ stagehands, etc., making the movie in which he is performing, then I'll believe these guys are serious rather than prancing useful idiots.
Our voting patterns are nothing as much as they are reflective of two generations of K-12 teacher unions.
Unless unions are made voluntary - you know, as they are in ALL the states that still have jobs available - America will be over. And public sector unions must be outlawed. Even anti-Consitutionalist, pack-the-Court FDR knew that.
I am coming to the conclusion that the only solution to the Baby Boomer destruction wrought on America by the spoiled brats of the Boomer Left is secession. Red States - and Red Counties from Blue States - just need to secede. There is no reason that I should continue to be taxed to pay for programs that are antithetical to the freedom of my children, especially when those programs are voted for by people refusing to populate the generations that will be paying for them, eg: having their living standards lowered to pay for the profligacy of today's Left. Democrats aren't reproducing in any Blue State or Blue country. None. So we Red voters need to just split town and get the heck outta Dodge. Let the CAs and ILs and the rest of them become Greece and Spain; I don't need to fund their destruction and take-down my kids' future.
Secession. Now.
Steveglen and 29 more liked this
Sam E Moore Jr [Moderator] 2 hours ago in reply to inthisdimension
I remember seeing President Johnson's Equal Oppuniety 1964 9 Programs and in 1965 Fair housing act come to my city of Richmond Va .
I watched very good Black Business's , Movie Theaters , Night spots , supper clubs ,Hotels ,Banks , Restaurants , safe and clean neighborhoods go to hell in just a few short years .
My old Home there Now has Bars on Windows .
All Families' on my block that had kids were married .Zero today .
All Graduated HS ... Few even go to the 10 th grade now .
There were no drugs and gangs there in the 50.s .
Today they are all gangs and Drugs sold on all conner's .
No girls had babies out of wed lock .. All kids there today have no dads .
The Left's and Obama answer ? Of course put more money in the hoods slaves quarters .
Very+Old+B and 5 more liked this
chardest [Moderator] 5 hours ago
"We think $47 billion is actually a meaningful amount of money for us and most Americans," he explained, overestimating the Buffett rule. And it is. It is meaningful enough to be the centerpiece of the Obama campaign"
U.S. Pet Spending Surpasses $50 Billion For First Time In 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
this tells you everything you need to know about this unbelievable incompetent fool - he has reduced his election strategy to the equivalent of annual pet expenditures
HOW DID THIS GUY GET ELECTED?
btw, Buffet's holding company - Berkshire Hathaway - OWES A BILLION $'S IN BACK TAXES
Steveglen and 27 more liked this
Sentient [Moderator] 9 minutes ago in reply to chardest
Actually Obama's Buffett rule would bring in less than 1/10th of annual pet spending, since it would only bring in $31-47 billion over TEN YEARS vs $51 billion n pet spending in 2011 alone.
enviroq [Moderator] 5 hours ago
What's fair?
Working all your life and putting your savings in a 401k with the understanding
that our government will responsibly manage the economy so that you can live
off those savings? Expecting that money that you've already paid taxes on will not be
excessively taxed again? Having expectations that since you did your fair share
during your working years that the generation behind you (all 100% able
workers) will break a little sweat and be willing to pay at least some Federal
Income Tax no matter what bracket they fall in?
I'm not sure Mr.
Obama is as concerned about fairness as getting a shot in at Mitt Romney who is
paying at the capital gains rate (on money that he has already paid income tax
on). Seems like a low tax rate for such a rich man but cap gains taxes are low for a
reason (encourage investment). So, go ahead and raise those taxes to the tune
of 4.7 billion dollars more tax revenues per year and apply it to the few days
of national debt interest that will cover. Then what???
Mr. President,
"fair" is a relative term. It might serve your political interests to
beat this drum for a while. But when you quit hammering away on
"fairness" will you start hammering away on a reasonable budget and
reducing this country's massive deficit. You have made a big deal about your
predecessor taking "his eye off the ball" (regarding
Iraq/Afghanistan) yet you have done the exact same thing regarding a ill-advised
health care act while ignoring a debt and deficit problem that will "fairly"
bankrupt us all.
sosueme001 and 31 more liked this
bflat879 [Moderator] 5 hours ago
Obama and company are already saying it isn't about the debt, it's about being fair. 2 points. If Warren Buffett wants to be fair, let him take a $1 million salary every year. Second point, how much more money do we have to give Obama so he can blow it on Solyndra, GSA conventions and other wasteful projects.
k j and 24 more liked this
Ellen K [Moderator] 3 hours ago in reply to bflat879
Hey if we want to be "fair" then start limiting the income of every union celebrity or athlete. Tell me how making a layup or movie somehow entitles one to "deserve" a break.
Very+Old+B and 2 more liked this
JonPeace [Moderator] 5 hours ago
Has our country really come to the point where people are convinced that the right way for us to prosper is to confiscate as much money as possible from those at the top of the economic ladder and hand it over to the government to redistribute through failed social programs, pay for bloated government agencies and otherwise squander?
How long do progressives really believe that this type of approach will last? Do they really, honestly believe that it will improve the economy? Create jobs and opportunity? Really?
The fact that this is about "fairness" and not about opportunity or growth or prosperity proves that it has NOTHING to do with fixing the true problems facing this country. This is all about stirring anger and resentment towards those that are successful and diverting attention from the truth about the failure of this administration to do anything to improve the economy or get government spending under control.
writer59 and 20 more liked this
k j [Moderator] 2 hours ago in reply to JonPeace
"The fact that this is about "fairness" and not about opportunity or
growth or prosperity proves that it has NOTHING to do with fixing the
true problems facing this country. "
Don't worry, we know. Believe me, we know.
For the Dims, however, they are the ones with their heads in the sand - thinking their tired old rhetoric will "sway the masses" to keep them in office.
In a pigs eye.
GemLahey and 4 more liked this
tatanka [Moderator] 5 hours ago
Somebody needs to tell the Democrats that tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives!!! I'm tired of these mental giants playing politics with my time and money. Time to vote then out!!!
sosueme001 and 9 more liked this
Sam E Moore Jr [Moderator] 5 hours ago
Those of you who wonder who set this way of thinking in Obama's Mind
and deep seated hard core Political Beliefs . Are no other than Marx , Engels ,Trotsky,
Lien , Mao , Franklin Marshall Davis , Cloward and Pivins .
Rev Wright , Bill Ayers and lastly Saul Alinsky .
Marx even spoke of Green in 1875 .
It is right there in all their writing ..... verbatim .
Their work is all based on race and class warfare .
""Please read the Above Mentioned "" words and works . Obama is a carbon copy .
Obama is simply putting old failed tools in a new bag with the media and Useful Idiots backing sadly .
k j and 7 more liked this
TheFramers [Moderator] 5 hours ago
Where's the "fairness" in saddling our children with ever increasing debt Obama? Your a great demagoguer but a lousy excuse for a responsible leader! I can't wait to vote your CRT loving name out of that office!!
sosueme001 and 8 more liked this
AustinG [Moderator] 5 hours ago
The component of GDP that is down the most from periods of growth is private investment. I am sure that raising taxes on that investment is a way to promote it. Oh wait... Republicans should be ridiculing this. They should be pointing out how dishonest it is. That on average the top 1% pay double the effective tax rate of middle income earners. If we are talking just income tax then it is 600% higher according to the CBO. 600% higher isn't their "fair share"? It is a dishonest charge. How hard it is to make the case that the President is a liar when he does it in every speech?
k j and 9 more liked this
PSGute [Moderator] 5 hours ago
Liberal to English Dictionary/Phrasebook entry for 4/11/2012
"Fairness" - The perceived reallocation of the assets of those who earned them to those who are more likely to vote (D) in a national election. The actual impact on tax revenue, the economy, or real redistrubition of wealth is not relevant.
see "Spread the wealth around" for context.
k j and 14 more liked this
juicelee [Moderator] 5 hours ago
"Fairness," an elusive idea normally exploited by spoiled children, is
now the foundation of the Democratic Party's economy policy. " Wow you said it all in one sentence. They can't run on their accomplishments over the past three and a half year, they can't run on controlling the deficit or spending, they can't run on fixing the economy, they can't run on fixing the issue with illegals, they can't run on enforcing immigration law, etc. What is left except a child's version of fairness. Just remember that fair is in the eyes of the beholder!
k j and 5 more liked this
Augustus [Moderator] 5 hours ago
Obama's "fairness" message is the standard Marxist refrain that avoids the real issue: "Fairness" to what end?
"Fairness" in paying the debts racked up by a dysfunctional, out-of-control federal government that continues to spend trillions more than it has?
"Fairness" in contributing to a federal government that has been operating for three years without a budget?
"Fairness" in paying the salaries and benefits for Washington representatives who have exempted themselves from the very coverage they have mandated for their constituents?
"Fairness" in funding the million dollar vacations of the First Lady and her scores of attendants?
sosueme001 and 10 more liked this
Say+It+Ain%27t+So+Johnny [Moderator] 4 hours ago in reply to Augustus
Unfortunately we have had generations of liberal run schools
The message of free enterprise, the puritan work ethic and on has been lost and these union run schools don't teach basic logical thinking skills
They don't teach this because it would expose them
I don't know how any thinking person could vote for a democrat for anything anywhere
Very+Old+B and 8 more liked this
Ernie+Banks [Moderator] 5 hours ago
I'd like to see Republicans be more constructive on this issue. If they did, they would win the independents and the election. They should tie the "buffet rule" to tax reform and entitlement cuts. The budget deficit is a big problem; fixing it requires sacrifice from everyone. If we got $4 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases and reformed our archaic tax code, we'd have made a lot of progress.
Unfortunately, The Chosen One doesn't know how to compromise. So dreaming about stuff like this is like p*ing in the wind.
k j and 6 more liked this
Slow+Cowboy [Moderator] 5 hours ago
"Despite the implicit message of the president, wealthy people are not wealthy because they are taking something from the poor or from government. And they don't stop anyone else from being wealthy."
Absolutely 100% true. Well said David.
Say+It+Ain%27t+So+Johnny and 13 more liked this
mnemos [Moderator] 4 hours ago in reply to Slow+Cowboy
It is generally true. The problem is that at the moment we have Warren Buffet, Goldman Sachs and Solyndra demonstrating that cronies can get rich taking from the government. At the moment, it weakens the argument. The fact that some cronies are getting rich off the government will be used as an excuse to take from the rich, who just may happen by sheer coincidence to not be as well connected.
k j and 3 more liked this
Slow+Cowboy [Moderator] 3 hours ago in reply to mnemos
Well, these folks were already rich. What they are demonstrating is that the rich can manipulate the government in their favor. That's a different argument.
But you are right to suggest that the left will manipulate the argument so it looks like these folks are getting rich off the government.
k j and 1 more liked this
johnnydavis1 [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to Slow+Cowboy
GE and other Obama cronies are getting rich off of the government. Get rid of Obama to improve fairness.
1 person liked this.
Baroo00 [Moderator] 2 hours ago in reply to mnemos
All the more reason to eliminate deductions and the power of the central government. They are lining each other's pockets because we are letting them.
k j and 2 more liked this
johnnydavis1 [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to Baroo00
All the more reason to vote Obama out of office.
1 person liked this.
Joe+Crummey [Moderator] 5 hours ago
The President's tax plan should be named after Jimmy Buffett, not Warren Buffett because it only makes sense if you're living in Margaritaville.
listen at: http://soundcloud.com/crummey-...
k j and 13 more liked this
pgthew [Moderator] 5 hours ago
"Fairness." Okay, let me make sure I understand how this works. So if I risk $10 mil of money I've already paid taxes on and I get a $1 mil return, 10% profit, I pay $300,000 of that the Feds. Since it is "fair," does that mean if I risk my $10 mil and lose $1 mil, the Feds will pay me $300,000?
k j and 14 more liked this
Go_USA2012 [Moderator] 3 hours ago in reply to pgthew
Nope you can take a percentage of the loss from your taxes as deduction but not as a tax credit.
2 people liked this.
Sentient [Moderator] 3 minutes ago in reply to Go_USA2012
3,000 / year max capital loss deduction, although the loss would carry forward to offset any future capital gains - should you have any. Good point though. If capital gains warrants a 30% tax, capital losses should be deductible against ordinary income (which they're not now).
lauren [Moderator] 5 hours ago
That's not fair.....he started it mommy.
Very+Old+B and 3 more liked this
Torcscott [Moderator] 4 hours ago
These comments on Real Clear Politics is the reason I keep coming back to the site. They are on the money and show me that there is a chance that America can clean up the mess made by the awful people we have put in office. I only wish that the voters of this country cut through the crap of both political parties and made them listen ...........
OnceADem and 3 more liked this
Go_USA2012 [Moderator] 3 hours ago in reply to Torcscott
I have no responsibility for Obama and his ilk being in office.
3 people liked this.
Sentient [Moderator] 1 minute ago in reply to Torcscott
The average voter couldn't make change at McDonald's without a computerized cash register. A least the average democrat voter.
Timeandagain [Moderator] 4 hours ago
$47 Billion is not a lot of money in relation to our overall budget, but it will do wonders for Obama in purchasing the votes he will need for reelection this November. Simple as that...
sosueme001 and 6 more liked this
OnceADem [Moderator] 4 hours ago
Obama: Hope and Change to Hate and Class Warfare!
Very+Old+B and 7 more liked this
Say+It+Ain%27t+So+Johnny [Moderator] 4 hours ago in reply to OnceADem
Should be a bumper sticker
1 person liked this.
JonPeace [Moderator] 3 hours ago in reply to OnceADem
Obama 2012... Divide and Distract
Very+Old+B and 3 more liked this
jpm77 [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to OnceADem
I personally like:
Obama 2008: Hope & Change
Obama 2012: Fear & Loathing
2 people liked this.
johnnydavis1 [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to OnceADem
The liberal hope is to steal your change.
RobertMondavi [Moderator] 4 hours ago
Is it fair that 50% of Americans pay no tax?
sosueme001 and 10 more liked this
Say+It+Ain%27t+So+Johnny [Moderator] 4 hours ago
The most divisive president EVER, ever!
The worst president ever
Go_USA2012 and 10 more liked this
Uncle Sam [Moderator] 3 hours ago
Why Mitt Romney Is More Like Ronald Reagan Than You Think
http://www.policymic.com/artic...
:-o
4 people liked this.
Ellen K [Moderator] 3 hours ago
I fear I am educating a generation of mindless liberal drones. Their parents cushion every blow. Their very footsteps are protected from falls. They fail and still get rewarded. And the current trends toward collaboration over competition benefit the lazy and the dumb who seem to rule in education both as students and as those who shape our curriculum. In short, we are reaping the harvest of a generation of lavish and conspicuous consumption. And instead of everyone curbing their own excess, the president intends to impose limits on some for the benefit of those who aspire to live in luxury without daring to risk lifting a finger.
Go_USA2012 and 8 more liked this
raw_mike [Moderator] 3 hours ago
Why do I consistently pay a higher tax rate than the very wealthy ? Because I am a working stiff. I make all my money as salary. Explain why that should penalize me. It didnt use to be this way. This country prospered quite well from WWII thru the 1960s with extremely high marginal rates on wealthy individuals. The marginal rates on high income individuals are far lower now.
The latest budget proposal from Paul Ryan is proposing even MORE tax cuts for the rich. The rich will not spend that money. And they are not creating jobs with it either. It is for the most part sucked out of the economic engine by going into a bank that will not lend the money out. However, if you gave those cuts to the middle class, it would provide fuel to the economy in the form of demand. Like demand for housing starts, furniture, and clothes. Like economic growth ... get it ?
If you don't see the need for a progressive tax system, then you have no interest in a viable economic future for the middle class and, thus, the nation.
Go_USA2012 [Moderator] 3 hours ago in reply to raw_mike
Frankly, if everyone paid the same rate, that would be fair. Aren't we all Americans? As to your last statement, it isn't my responsibility (or the government's) to ensure a viable economic future for anyone. That is not the purpose of taxation.
Very+Old+B and 1 more liked this
jpm77 [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to Go_USA2012
All individuals should be afforded equal protection under the law... that ought to extend to equal treatment, including tax rates.
1 person liked this.
Baroo00 [Moderator] 2 hours ago in reply to raw_mike
Actually, it's doubtful that your income level pays a higher tax rate than the very wealthy, but it is possible that you, as an individual, pays a higher tax rate than some very wealthy individuals. This could happen for several reasons: they could have given large amounts to charity, they could have losses from past years, they could receive most of their income from long-term capital gains (which aren't indexed for inflation), or they could have paid lawyers, accountants and lobbyists to find ways to reduce their taxes. All legal.
You say that the "rich" will not spend that money, nor create jobs. That is because you have this image of Thurston Howell III, a comic strawman, instead of what the "rich" really look like. They don't put their money in a bank; they invest it, either actively in their own business or passively through other investments.
Using your example, we should tax the rich and the middle class would be better off. Yet, that's been tried. Do you remember the luxury boat tax in 1990? What a great idea! Let's get those "rich" by charging a 10% surtax on boats costing over $100,000! They can afford it!
Well, what happened is that the "rich" stopped buying boats. Sure, it might have made Thurston a little grumpy to have to ride around in last year's model, but he survived.
Who didn't survive were the tens of thousands of workers who built boats as their way of making a living. Companies went bust - not because of anything they did wrong, but because the government decided that things weren't "fair", and they knew how to fix it.
This nation has done just fine over it's 236 years relying on the power of the individual to be right more often than not, and to want to build something for themselves, their families, and their communities. I'll stand with them, and not with an all-knowing "fair" government.
jpm77 and 6 more liked this
CantFixStoopid [Moderator] 2 hours ago in reply to raw_mike
Fact 1: as documented by WSJ, the higher the income bracket, the larger percentage of income is paid in taxes on average. This, of course, may not apply to every particular case.
Fact 2: according to Tax Foundation, calculating what one gets back in programs, only those who make close to 100K effectively contribute to income tax.
jpm77 and 3 more liked this
Reelman1946 [Moderator] 2 hours ago
Its vital for the utopian secular socialists to have a handful of fuzzy code words in which to promise/pontificate with and the current crop just loves "fairness" and "social justice"...which means whatever you want it to mean...exactly the plan...sort of like "climate change"...lol...
the good news is the results of toxic socialist policies produce so much personal pain that no amount of distractions, lies and smears can trump those policy results. Fidel would be proud but its time to flush again...
voters sent a record 730 dimdems home in Nov 2010...so here we go again...
they never ever learn...its always "just another year and another trillion"...until their utopia kicks in...
how dumb can humans get after decades all over the globe of this monster gov-meant high taxes approach failing? Good grief, these are some creepy arrogant bold liars.
3 people liked this.
Playrighter [Moderator] 2 hours ago
Really, should the head of an organization that annually spends $1.6
trillion it doesn't have be setting the parameters for a discussion on
"fairness"?
Can that quote be shortened to fit on a bumper sticker?
(Nah, never mind. I know cars with non-democratic bumper stickers just get keyed...)
Very+Old+B and 4 more liked this
Rick [Moderator] 2 hours ago
If you were paid more than $3.00 for this piece .....you should give the money back. Now that would be fare. The President is fully on the right track and when he re-elected your comment piece will have no impact...so fair again.
Comments from the article: "Obama's Fairness Fiction" by David Harsanyi, Human Events: Powerful Conservative Voices
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=50768
inthisdimension [Moderator] 5 hours ago
A country can be "fair" or it can be "free". Now we know which Left voters prefer: Not free.
It is amusing to see what has become of Liberalism, which once-upon-a-time stood for celebrating the individual AGAINST the State. Now "Liberalsim' is antithetical to freedom, liberty, individual rights, free speech, freedom of thought ("hate crimes"), free markest, free enterprise, etc.
Wow. Keeping most of what you earn makes you an enemy. Not.
Stealing all of your income from those working for theirs makes you - or SHOULD make you - the enemy of all free people. But not, somehow, for the Left. Or at least that's their pretense. When I see Clooney evenly splitting his $25M per-movie salary with the 250+ stagehands, etc., making the movie in which he is performing, then I'll believe these guys are serious rather than prancing useful idiots.
Our voting patterns are nothing as much as they are reflective of two generations of K-12 teacher unions.
Unless unions are made voluntary - you know, as they are in ALL the states that still have jobs available - America will be over. And public sector unions must be outlawed. Even anti-Consitutionalist, pack-the-Court FDR knew that.
I am coming to the conclusion that the only solution to the Baby Boomer destruction wrought on America by the spoiled brats of the Boomer Left is secession. Red States - and Red Counties from Blue States - just need to secede. There is no reason that I should continue to be taxed to pay for programs that are antithetical to the freedom of my children, especially when those programs are voted for by people refusing to populate the generations that will be paying for them, eg: having their living standards lowered to pay for the profligacy of today's Left. Democrats aren't reproducing in any Blue State or Blue country. None. So we Red voters need to just split town and get the heck outta Dodge. Let the CAs and ILs and the rest of them become Greece and Spain; I don't need to fund their destruction and take-down my kids' future.
Secession. Now.
Steveglen and 29 more liked this
Sam E Moore Jr [Moderator] 2 hours ago in reply to inthisdimension
I remember seeing President Johnson's Equal Oppuniety 1964 9 Programs and in 1965 Fair housing act come to my city of Richmond Va .
I watched very good Black Business's , Movie Theaters , Night spots , supper clubs ,Hotels ,Banks , Restaurants , safe and clean neighborhoods go to hell in just a few short years .
My old Home there Now has Bars on Windows .
All Families' on my block that had kids were married .Zero today .
All Graduated HS ... Few even go to the 10 th grade now .
There were no drugs and gangs there in the 50.s .
Today they are all gangs and Drugs sold on all conner's .
No girls had babies out of wed lock .. All kids there today have no dads .
The Left's and Obama answer ? Of course put more money in the hoods slaves quarters .
Very+Old+B and 5 more liked this
chardest [Moderator] 5 hours ago
"We think $47 billion is actually a meaningful amount of money for us and most Americans," he explained, overestimating the Buffett rule. And it is. It is meaningful enough to be the centerpiece of the Obama campaign"
U.S. Pet Spending Surpasses $50 Billion For First Time In 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
this tells you everything you need to know about this unbelievable incompetent fool - he has reduced his election strategy to the equivalent of annual pet expenditures
HOW DID THIS GUY GET ELECTED?
btw, Buffet's holding company - Berkshire Hathaway - OWES A BILLION $'S IN BACK TAXES
Steveglen and 27 more liked this
Sentient [Moderator] 9 minutes ago in reply to chardest
Actually Obama's Buffett rule would bring in less than 1/10th of annual pet spending, since it would only bring in $31-47 billion over TEN YEARS vs $51 billion n pet spending in 2011 alone.
enviroq [Moderator] 5 hours ago
What's fair?
Working all your life and putting your savings in a 401k with the understanding
that our government will responsibly manage the economy so that you can live
off those savings? Expecting that money that you've already paid taxes on will not be
excessively taxed again? Having expectations that since you did your fair share
during your working years that the generation behind you (all 100% able
workers) will break a little sweat and be willing to pay at least some Federal
Income Tax no matter what bracket they fall in?
I'm not sure Mr.
Obama is as concerned about fairness as getting a shot in at Mitt Romney who is
paying at the capital gains rate (on money that he has already paid income tax
on). Seems like a low tax rate for such a rich man but cap gains taxes are low for a
reason (encourage investment). So, go ahead and raise those taxes to the tune
of 4.7 billion dollars more tax revenues per year and apply it to the few days
of national debt interest that will cover. Then what???
Mr. President,
"fair" is a relative term. It might serve your political interests to
beat this drum for a while. But when you quit hammering away on
"fairness" will you start hammering away on a reasonable budget and
reducing this country's massive deficit. You have made a big deal about your
predecessor taking "his eye off the ball" (regarding
Iraq/Afghanistan) yet you have done the exact same thing regarding a ill-advised
health care act while ignoring a debt and deficit problem that will "fairly"
bankrupt us all.
sosueme001 and 31 more liked this
bflat879 [Moderator] 5 hours ago
Obama and company are already saying it isn't about the debt, it's about being fair. 2 points. If Warren Buffett wants to be fair, let him take a $1 million salary every year. Second point, how much more money do we have to give Obama so he can blow it on Solyndra, GSA conventions and other wasteful projects.
k j and 24 more liked this
Ellen K [Moderator] 3 hours ago in reply to bflat879
Hey if we want to be "fair" then start limiting the income of every union celebrity or athlete. Tell me how making a layup or movie somehow entitles one to "deserve" a break.
Very+Old+B and 2 more liked this
JonPeace [Moderator] 5 hours ago
Has our country really come to the point where people are convinced that the right way for us to prosper is to confiscate as much money as possible from those at the top of the economic ladder and hand it over to the government to redistribute through failed social programs, pay for bloated government agencies and otherwise squander?
How long do progressives really believe that this type of approach will last? Do they really, honestly believe that it will improve the economy? Create jobs and opportunity? Really?
The fact that this is about "fairness" and not about opportunity or growth or prosperity proves that it has NOTHING to do with fixing the true problems facing this country. This is all about stirring anger and resentment towards those that are successful and diverting attention from the truth about the failure of this administration to do anything to improve the economy or get government spending under control.
writer59 and 20 more liked this
k j [Moderator] 2 hours ago in reply to JonPeace
"The fact that this is about "fairness" and not about opportunity or
growth or prosperity proves that it has NOTHING to do with fixing the
true problems facing this country. "
Don't worry, we know. Believe me, we know.
For the Dims, however, they are the ones with their heads in the sand - thinking their tired old rhetoric will "sway the masses" to keep them in office.
In a pigs eye.
GemLahey and 4 more liked this
tatanka [Moderator] 5 hours ago
Somebody needs to tell the Democrats that tax legislation must originate in the House of Representatives!!! I'm tired of these mental giants playing politics with my time and money. Time to vote then out!!!
sosueme001 and 9 more liked this
Sam E Moore Jr [Moderator] 5 hours ago
Those of you who wonder who set this way of thinking in Obama's Mind
and deep seated hard core Political Beliefs . Are no other than Marx , Engels ,Trotsky,
Lien , Mao , Franklin Marshall Davis , Cloward and Pivins .
Rev Wright , Bill Ayers and lastly Saul Alinsky .
Marx even spoke of Green in 1875 .
It is right there in all their writing ..... verbatim .
Their work is all based on race and class warfare .
""Please read the Above Mentioned "" words and works . Obama is a carbon copy .
Obama is simply putting old failed tools in a new bag with the media and Useful Idiots backing sadly .
k j and 7 more liked this
TheFramers [Moderator] 5 hours ago
Where's the "fairness" in saddling our children with ever increasing debt Obama? Your a great demagoguer but a lousy excuse for a responsible leader! I can't wait to vote your CRT loving name out of that office!!
sosueme001 and 8 more liked this
AustinG [Moderator] 5 hours ago
The component of GDP that is down the most from periods of growth is private investment. I am sure that raising taxes on that investment is a way to promote it. Oh wait... Republicans should be ridiculing this. They should be pointing out how dishonest it is. That on average the top 1% pay double the effective tax rate of middle income earners. If we are talking just income tax then it is 600% higher according to the CBO. 600% higher isn't their "fair share"? It is a dishonest charge. How hard it is to make the case that the President is a liar when he does it in every speech?
k j and 9 more liked this
PSGute [Moderator] 5 hours ago
Liberal to English Dictionary/Phrasebook entry for 4/11/2012
"Fairness" - The perceived reallocation of the assets of those who earned them to those who are more likely to vote (D) in a national election. The actual impact on tax revenue, the economy, or real redistrubition of wealth is not relevant.
see "Spread the wealth around" for context.
k j and 14 more liked this
juicelee [Moderator] 5 hours ago
"Fairness," an elusive idea normally exploited by spoiled children, is
now the foundation of the Democratic Party's economy policy. " Wow you said it all in one sentence. They can't run on their accomplishments over the past three and a half year, they can't run on controlling the deficit or spending, they can't run on fixing the economy, they can't run on fixing the issue with illegals, they can't run on enforcing immigration law, etc. What is left except a child's version of fairness. Just remember that fair is in the eyes of the beholder!
k j and 5 more liked this
Augustus [Moderator] 5 hours ago
Obama's "fairness" message is the standard Marxist refrain that avoids the real issue: "Fairness" to what end?
"Fairness" in paying the debts racked up by a dysfunctional, out-of-control federal government that continues to spend trillions more than it has?
"Fairness" in contributing to a federal government that has been operating for three years without a budget?
"Fairness" in paying the salaries and benefits for Washington representatives who have exempted themselves from the very coverage they have mandated for their constituents?
"Fairness" in funding the million dollar vacations of the First Lady and her scores of attendants?
sosueme001 and 10 more liked this
Say+It+Ain%27t+So+Johnny [Moderator] 4 hours ago in reply to Augustus
Unfortunately we have had generations of liberal run schools
The message of free enterprise, the puritan work ethic and on has been lost and these union run schools don't teach basic logical thinking skills
They don't teach this because it would expose them
I don't know how any thinking person could vote for a democrat for anything anywhere
Very+Old+B and 8 more liked this
Ernie+Banks [Moderator] 5 hours ago
I'd like to see Republicans be more constructive on this issue. If they did, they would win the independents and the election. They should tie the "buffet rule" to tax reform and entitlement cuts. The budget deficit is a big problem; fixing it requires sacrifice from everyone. If we got $4 in cuts for every $1 in tax increases and reformed our archaic tax code, we'd have made a lot of progress.
Unfortunately, The Chosen One doesn't know how to compromise. So dreaming about stuff like this is like p*ing in the wind.
k j and 6 more liked this
Slow+Cowboy [Moderator] 5 hours ago
"Despite the implicit message of the president, wealthy people are not wealthy because they are taking something from the poor or from government. And they don't stop anyone else from being wealthy."
Absolutely 100% true. Well said David.
Say+It+Ain%27t+So+Johnny and 13 more liked this
mnemos [Moderator] 4 hours ago in reply to Slow+Cowboy
It is generally true. The problem is that at the moment we have Warren Buffet, Goldman Sachs and Solyndra demonstrating that cronies can get rich taking from the government. At the moment, it weakens the argument. The fact that some cronies are getting rich off the government will be used as an excuse to take from the rich, who just may happen by sheer coincidence to not be as well connected.
k j and 3 more liked this
Slow+Cowboy [Moderator] 3 hours ago in reply to mnemos
Well, these folks were already rich. What they are demonstrating is that the rich can manipulate the government in their favor. That's a different argument.
But you are right to suggest that the left will manipulate the argument so it looks like these folks are getting rich off the government.
k j and 1 more liked this
johnnydavis1 [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to Slow+Cowboy
GE and other Obama cronies are getting rich off of the government. Get rid of Obama to improve fairness.
1 person liked this.
Baroo00 [Moderator] 2 hours ago in reply to mnemos
All the more reason to eliminate deductions and the power of the central government. They are lining each other's pockets because we are letting them.
k j and 2 more liked this
johnnydavis1 [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to Baroo00
All the more reason to vote Obama out of office.
1 person liked this.
Joe+Crummey [Moderator] 5 hours ago
The President's tax plan should be named after Jimmy Buffett, not Warren Buffett because it only makes sense if you're living in Margaritaville.
listen at: http://soundcloud.com/crummey-...
k j and 13 more liked this
pgthew [Moderator] 5 hours ago
"Fairness." Okay, let me make sure I understand how this works. So if I risk $10 mil of money I've already paid taxes on and I get a $1 mil return, 10% profit, I pay $300,000 of that the Feds. Since it is "fair," does that mean if I risk my $10 mil and lose $1 mil, the Feds will pay me $300,000?
k j and 14 more liked this
Go_USA2012 [Moderator] 3 hours ago in reply to pgthew
Nope you can take a percentage of the loss from your taxes as deduction but not as a tax credit.
2 people liked this.
Sentient [Moderator] 3 minutes ago in reply to Go_USA2012
3,000 / year max capital loss deduction, although the loss would carry forward to offset any future capital gains - should you have any. Good point though. If capital gains warrants a 30% tax, capital losses should be deductible against ordinary income (which they're not now).
lauren [Moderator] 5 hours ago
That's not fair.....he started it mommy.
Very+Old+B and 3 more liked this
Torcscott [Moderator] 4 hours ago
These comments on Real Clear Politics is the reason I keep coming back to the site. They are on the money and show me that there is a chance that America can clean up the mess made by the awful people we have put in office. I only wish that the voters of this country cut through the crap of both political parties and made them listen ...........
OnceADem and 3 more liked this
Go_USA2012 [Moderator] 3 hours ago in reply to Torcscott
I have no responsibility for Obama and his ilk being in office.
3 people liked this.
Sentient [Moderator] 1 minute ago in reply to Torcscott
The average voter couldn't make change at McDonald's without a computerized cash register. A least the average democrat voter.
Timeandagain [Moderator] 4 hours ago
$47 Billion is not a lot of money in relation to our overall budget, but it will do wonders for Obama in purchasing the votes he will need for reelection this November. Simple as that...
sosueme001 and 6 more liked this
OnceADem [Moderator] 4 hours ago
Obama: Hope and Change to Hate and Class Warfare!
Very+Old+B and 7 more liked this
Say+It+Ain%27t+So+Johnny [Moderator] 4 hours ago in reply to OnceADem
Should be a bumper sticker
1 person liked this.
JonPeace [Moderator] 3 hours ago in reply to OnceADem
Obama 2012... Divide and Distract
Very+Old+B and 3 more liked this
jpm77 [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to OnceADem
I personally like:
Obama 2008: Hope & Change
Obama 2012: Fear & Loathing
2 people liked this.
johnnydavis1 [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to OnceADem
The liberal hope is to steal your change.
RobertMondavi [Moderator] 4 hours ago
Is it fair that 50% of Americans pay no tax?
sosueme001 and 10 more liked this
Say+It+Ain%27t+So+Johnny [Moderator] 4 hours ago
The most divisive president EVER, ever!
The worst president ever
Go_USA2012 and 10 more liked this
Uncle Sam [Moderator] 3 hours ago
Why Mitt Romney Is More Like Ronald Reagan Than You Think
http://www.policymic.com/artic...
:-o
4 people liked this.
Ellen K [Moderator] 3 hours ago
I fear I am educating a generation of mindless liberal drones. Their parents cushion every blow. Their very footsteps are protected from falls. They fail and still get rewarded. And the current trends toward collaboration over competition benefit the lazy and the dumb who seem to rule in education both as students and as those who shape our curriculum. In short, we are reaping the harvest of a generation of lavish and conspicuous consumption. And instead of everyone curbing their own excess, the president intends to impose limits on some for the benefit of those who aspire to live in luxury without daring to risk lifting a finger.
Go_USA2012 and 8 more liked this
raw_mike [Moderator] 3 hours ago
Why do I consistently pay a higher tax rate than the very wealthy ? Because I am a working stiff. I make all my money as salary. Explain why that should penalize me. It didnt use to be this way. This country prospered quite well from WWII thru the 1960s with extremely high marginal rates on wealthy individuals. The marginal rates on high income individuals are far lower now.
The latest budget proposal from Paul Ryan is proposing even MORE tax cuts for the rich. The rich will not spend that money. And they are not creating jobs with it either. It is for the most part sucked out of the economic engine by going into a bank that will not lend the money out. However, if you gave those cuts to the middle class, it would provide fuel to the economy in the form of demand. Like demand for housing starts, furniture, and clothes. Like economic growth ... get it ?
If you don't see the need for a progressive tax system, then you have no interest in a viable economic future for the middle class and, thus, the nation.
Go_USA2012 [Moderator] 3 hours ago in reply to raw_mike
Frankly, if everyone paid the same rate, that would be fair. Aren't we all Americans? As to your last statement, it isn't my responsibility (or the government's) to ensure a viable economic future for anyone. That is not the purpose of taxation.
Very+Old+B and 1 more liked this
jpm77 [Moderator] 1 hour ago in reply to Go_USA2012
All individuals should be afforded equal protection under the law... that ought to extend to equal treatment, including tax rates.
1 person liked this.
Baroo00 [Moderator] 2 hours ago in reply to raw_mike
Actually, it's doubtful that your income level pays a higher tax rate than the very wealthy, but it is possible that you, as an individual, pays a higher tax rate than some very wealthy individuals. This could happen for several reasons: they could have given large amounts to charity, they could have losses from past years, they could receive most of their income from long-term capital gains (which aren't indexed for inflation), or they could have paid lawyers, accountants and lobbyists to find ways to reduce their taxes. All legal.
You say that the "rich" will not spend that money, nor create jobs. That is because you have this image of Thurston Howell III, a comic strawman, instead of what the "rich" really look like. They don't put their money in a bank; they invest it, either actively in their own business or passively through other investments.
Using your example, we should tax the rich and the middle class would be better off. Yet, that's been tried. Do you remember the luxury boat tax in 1990? What a great idea! Let's get those "rich" by charging a 10% surtax on boats costing over $100,000! They can afford it!
Well, what happened is that the "rich" stopped buying boats. Sure, it might have made Thurston a little grumpy to have to ride around in last year's model, but he survived.
Who didn't survive were the tens of thousands of workers who built boats as their way of making a living. Companies went bust - not because of anything they did wrong, but because the government decided that things weren't "fair", and they knew how to fix it.
This nation has done just fine over it's 236 years relying on the power of the individual to be right more often than not, and to want to build something for themselves, their families, and their communities. I'll stand with them, and not with an all-knowing "fair" government.
jpm77 and 6 more liked this
CantFixStoopid [Moderator] 2 hours ago in reply to raw_mike
Fact 1: as documented by WSJ, the higher the income bracket, the larger percentage of income is paid in taxes on average. This, of course, may not apply to every particular case.
Fact 2: according to Tax Foundation, calculating what one gets back in programs, only those who make close to 100K effectively contribute to income tax.
jpm77 and 3 more liked this
Reelman1946 [Moderator] 2 hours ago
Its vital for the utopian secular socialists to have a handful of fuzzy code words in which to promise/pontificate with and the current crop just loves "fairness" and "social justice"...which means whatever you want it to mean...exactly the plan...sort of like "climate change"...lol...
the good news is the results of toxic socialist policies produce so much personal pain that no amount of distractions, lies and smears can trump those policy results. Fidel would be proud but its time to flush again...
voters sent a record 730 dimdems home in Nov 2010...so here we go again...
they never ever learn...its always "just another year and another trillion"...until their utopia kicks in...
how dumb can humans get after decades all over the globe of this monster gov-meant high taxes approach failing? Good grief, these are some creepy arrogant bold liars.
3 people liked this.
Playrighter [Moderator] 2 hours ago
Really, should the head of an organization that annually spends $1.6
trillion it doesn't have be setting the parameters for a discussion on
"fairness"?
Can that quote be shortened to fit on a bumper sticker?
(Nah, never mind. I know cars with non-democratic bumper stickers just get keyed...)
Very+Old+B and 4 more liked this
Rick [Moderator] 2 hours ago
If you were paid more than $3.00 for this piece .....you should give the money back. Now that would be fare. The President is fully on the right track and when he re-elected your comment piece will have no impact...so fair again.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I've so far only read partway down (I too like going through articles' commentaries, all shades of them), and appreciated this:
What's fair?
Working all your life and putting your savings in a 401k with the understanding
that our government will responsibly manage the economy so that you can live
off those savings? Expecting that money that you've already paid taxes on will not be
excessively taxed again? Having expectations that since you did your fair share
during your working years that the generation behind you (all 100% able
workers) will break a little sweat and be willing to pay at least some Federal
Income Tax no matter what bracket they fall in?
Mr. and Mrs. President's income in 2011 = $789,674
Mr. and Mrs. President's paid taxes = $162,000
Mr. and Mrs. President's tax rate = 20.5%
Suggested Fair Share rate for someone in their tax bracket = 33%
:think:
:?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2012/04/13/obama-tax-return-shows-2011-earnings-of-789-674/
Obama paid a lower tax rate than his secretary, White House confirms
President Barack Obama's secretary paid taxes at a higher rate than he did in 2011 despite having a "substantially lower income," the White House said Friday, casting the disparity as an argument for Congress to adopt the so-called "Buffett Rule."
"The president's secretary pays a slightly higher rate this year than the president on her substantially lower income, which is exactly why we need to reform our tax code and ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share," Amy Brundage, a White House spokeswoman, told Yahoo News by email.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-paid-lower-tax-rate-secretary-white-house-192756522.html
Exactly.
Also, an additional 21% was given to charities:
"Obama and first lady Michelle Obama, whose joint return was posted on the White House website, also reported giving $172,130 to 39 different charities—an additional 21.8 percent of their adjusted gross income. Their top recipient, receiving $117,130, was Fisher House Foundation, which provides free or inexpensive housing to veterans and military families receiving care at military medical facilities."