Lead by example...

[zappasguitar]

LMAO... you have this weird opinion that people aren't able to see that I changed it. Everyone can. It was mocking what he wrote.

There is no hatred of Obama or Onceler. That is simply the pathetic attempt by another Obama apologist to deflect away from the discussion. It seems to happen every time someone criticizes dear leader.

No, you were being a dishonest douchebag and I take pleasure in highlighting your intellectual laziness for all to see.

Right...you don't hate either of them...it's your LOVE OF BOTH that drove you to do what you did...understood

 

[Bonestorm]

I'm still wondering why anyone thinks Obama's effective tax rate is "so low."

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Oh, so my analogies (they weren't analogies, they were examples) are no good, but your junk food analogy is legitimate? That makes a lot of sense.

Obama says that the changing the tax laws to require the rich paying more in taxes is in the best interests of America, not that individual rich people voluntarily paying more of their income in taxes is in the best interests of America. Likewise, anti-earmark folks say that changing the rules to prohibit earmarks is in the best interests of America, not that individual lawmakers voluntarily not requesting earmarks is in the best interests of America. Finally, anti-stimulus people say that not enacting stimulus bills are in the best interest of America, not that individual states refusing to accept stimulus money is in the best interests of America.

I'm not seeing the difference.

obama doesn't only say they should pay more taxes only when the law changes. that is the difference.

the difference in your "examples" (what a nit picker) are the people are going against what they believe in order to better represent their constituents. obama is going against what he believes and it is not helping his constituents. having a belief and fulfilling a duty to your people are two different things. here...obama could fulfill his belief and duty at the same time.

completely bogus, unlike my analogy which wholly accurate.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Hey lookie there...another gutless douchebag without even the mental capability to respond to what Onceler REALLY wrote.

No, his irrational hatred of Obama and Onceler make it acceptable to him to change what another person wrote in order to demean the other person.

That's almost Yurtard level pathetic.

Here's what Onceler REALLY wrote:



And then brave ol Stuporfuck changed it to this:



Such bravery from one who incessantly demands intellectual honesty from others.

you need anger management. chill out.

 

[Bonestorm]

obama doesn't only say they should pay more taxes only when the law changes. that is the difference.

You mean to tell me that Obama called on rich people to voluntarily pay more in taxes? I don't recall that ever happening. What I recall happening is Obama saying that rich people should pay more in taxes and saying that Congress should enact a law to ensure that they do.

the difference in your "examples" (what a nit picker) are the people are going against what they believe in order to better represent their constituents. obama is going against what he believes and it is not helping his constituents. having a belief and fulfilling a duty to your people are two different things. here...obama could fulfill his belief and duty at the same time.

completely bogus, unlike my analogy which wholly accurate.

Obama isn't going against what he believes. He believes the law should be changed to ensure that rich people pay more in taxes. Paying taxes pursuant to existing laws doesn't "go against" that principle.

 

[Bonestorm]

Also too, SF, what rate would Obama have paid under your tax plan? A higher rate or a lower rate?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I've got my own issues with Obama, so I'm not beholden to him like some of you guys are to various politicians.

You including me in the 'you guys'? LMAO...

I just don't see the need to make hay where none exists. Him upping his own tax rate (which would probably mean he'd give less to charity) is just symbolic BS.

So raising taxes on someone, would probably mean they give less to charity? True. Probably would. But again, his charitable giving is irrelevant to his personal belief that he should be paying more. You don't want people who lead by example, who are willing to be the first. I get it.

On a philisophical level, it's very much the same thing as a lot of what BDSers leveled at Bush and other politicians during Iraq, despite the dismissals of that inconvenient analogy by yourself and your intellectually-challenged little ally here....

No, again, it is not even close to the same thing. Once again... Obama controls what HE HIMSELF pays in taxes. Bush had NO CONTROL over whether his adult daughters signed up for the military. In once case a person has control over his own actions. In the other he does not have control over someone elses actions.

But do go on telling us they are 'very much the same'. You clearly have no comprehension of the difference between controlling ones own actions and controlling the actions of another person. Typcial apologist.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm still wondering why anyone thinks Obama's effective tax rate is "so low."

So low relative to where Obama wants his own taxes to be. He stated himself that he should be paying more. Thus, he too believes his rates are too low.

Also, when you look at the average effective income rate for people earning what he did, it is low.

 

[Onceler]

You including me in the 'you guys'? LMAO...



So raising taxes on someone, would probably mean they give less to charity? True. Probably would. But again, his charitable giving is irrelevant to his personal belief that he should be paying more. You don't want people who lead by example, who are willing to be the first. I get it.



No, again, it is not even close to the same thing. Once again... Obama controls what HE HIMSELF pays in taxes. Bush had NO CONTROL over whether his adult daughters signed up for the military. In once case a person has control over his own actions. In the other he does not have control over someone elses actions.

But do go on telling us they are 'very much the same'. You clearly have no comprehension of the difference between controlling ones own actions and controlling the actions of another person. Typcial apologist.

I said that the analogy is on a philisophical level - and that is, both are symbolic BS.

Too tough for you? I can try to dumb it down some more. Just let me know.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Also too, SF, what rate would Obama have paid under your tax plan? A higher rate or a lower rate?

What exactly does that have to do with this thread?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I said that the analogy is on a philisophical level - and that is, both are symbolic BS.

Too tough for you? I can try to dumb it down some more. Just let me know.

Again... NO IT IS NOT. While they are both symbolic, they are nowhere near the same. Bush had no control over that 'symbolic' gesture. His DAUGHTERS did.

Too tough for you? I can try to dumb it down some more... maybe have someone like ditzie explain it to you. Get down to your level of absurdity that way.

 

[Onceler]

Again... NO IT IS NOT. While they are both symbolic, they are nowhere near the same. Bush had no control over that 'symbolic' gesture. His DAUGHTERS did.

Too tough for you? I can try to dumb it down some more... maybe have someone like ditzie explain it to you. Get down to your level of absurdity that way.

I guess it was too tough for you. Let me try again. Both criticisms come from the same basic irrationality - it doesn't matter what the practical implications are on the other end. Both are people saying that a President should do something to mirror or support a policy he is advocating w/ personal action, lest they reveal their hypocrisy.

It's symbolic BS, that's usually the refuge of haters.

 

[Bonestorm]

So low relative to where Obama wants his own taxes to be. He stated himself that he should be paying more. Thus, he too believes his rates are too low.

Also, when you look at the average effective income rate for people earning what he did, it is low.

I don't think it is low looking at the average effective rates for people earning what he did. I think it's right around average.

 

[Bonestorm]

What exactly does that have to do with this thread?

I'm just curious and wanted to know, particularly in light of your "so low" comments. What were the tax rate and the deduction amount again?

 

[Don Quixote]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-13/obamas-paid-20-5-tax-on-789-674-in-2011-income.html

Here Obama had a chance to lead by example. To show the rest of those evilz wealthy people that it was ok to pay 30%. yet, like all wealthy liberals who harp on 'the rich should pay more'... Obama didn't.

To be clear: Yes, I know he did not HAVE to. Yes, I know he did not do anything illegal.

The point is quite simply, put up or shut up.

unless the reps vote for more taxes for the higher earners we will never know - if it was voted for then obama could sign or veto it - until then we will never know

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I guess it was too tough for you. Let me try again. Both criticisms come from the same basic irrationality - it doesn't matter what the practical implications are on the other end. Both are people saying that a President should do something to mirror or support a policy he is advocating w/ personal action, lest they reveal their hypocrisy.

It's symbolic BS, that's usually the refuge of haters.

i can't believe you're still trotting out this bullshit analogy. did bush tell parents they had to send their kids to iraq? you really don't get it....

 

[Onceler]

i can't believe you're still trotting out this bullshit analogy. did bush tell parents they had to send their kids to iraq? you really don't get it....

LOL - I spell out the basis for the analogy as slowly as possible, and it still flies at a comfortable altitude above Yurt's head.

Don't worry, Yurtsie; you could spend the rest of the day & evening trying to get it, but it still wouldn't take...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

You mean to tell me that Obama called on rich people to voluntarily pay more in taxes? I don't recall that ever happening. What I recall happening is Obama saying that rich people should pay more in taxes and saying that Congress should enact a law to ensure that they do.




Obama isn't going against what he believes. He believes the law should be changed to ensure that rich people pay more in taxes. Paying taxes pursuant to existing laws doesn't "go against" that principle.

obama said rich people, including himself, should pay more taxes. he never said only if the law says so. that is a desperate myth you and your fellow leftie onceler keep repeating.

did he say that he doesn't believe people should pay more until a new law comes into affect?

why do you keep running away from the healthy diet bill? if i support a healthy diet bill, but gorge on fast food, how is that leading by example and not being hypocritical?

President Barack Obama, offering an election-year prescription to spur the economy, said the wealthiest Americans should pay more taxes in the name of fairness, to bring down the deficit and ensure those trying to make ends meet don’t have to “make up the difference.”

In his State of the Union address last night, Obama called on Congress to embrace a tax plan named for billionaire Warren Buffett that would require those making $1 million or more pay at least 30 percent in taxes. With congressional gridlock heightened by the 2012 election, there is little chance the proposal will pass.

“You can call this class warfare all you want,” Obama said in a nationally televised speech before a joint session of Congress. “But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...er-taxes-on-wealthy-to-make-code-fair-1-.html

he saying they should and the bill would merely "require" them to...for them not to, would not be common sense. he can easily have common sense and pay more without waiting for the law to "require" him to. that is leading by example. it is not leading if you need a law to require you to do what you believe other americans should do.

 

[Bonestorm]

obama said rich people, including himself, should pay more taxes. he never said only if the law says so. that is a desperate myth you and your fellow leftie onceler keep repeating.

did he say that he doesn't believe people should pay more until a new law comes into affect?

why do you keep running away from the healthy diet bill? if i support a healthy diet bill, but gorge on fast food, how is that leading by example and not being hypocritical?



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...er-taxes-on-wealthy-to-make-code-fair-1-.html

he saying they should and the bill would merely "require" them to...for them not to, would not be common sense. he can easily have common sense and pay more without waiting for the law to "require" him to. that is leading by example. it is not leading if you need a law to require you to do what you believe other americans should do.

That's awesome. Thanks for the laughs, Yurt.

 

[Onceler]

You know what's hilarious? I googled this topic just to see if some good ol' fashioned national "outrage" was brewing of the kind that SF & Yurt are displaying here, and the first 3 links that came up from from Fox's site.

Just like the sunrise, death & taxes...