Either/Or

A few days ago President Obama again called for Congress to eliminate federal subsidies for oil companies and said Congress could either stand with the big oil companies or with the American people.  This has been one of the hallmarks of his administration: posing either/or scenarios, which got me to thinking that it would make an interesting exercise for our regulars, particularly our conservative regulars.  You Progressives are welcome to play as well, but it’s going to mean that you’ll have to first admit that Obama and his fellow travelers are routinely engaged in divisive tactics.

Sharpen up your Google skills, and let’s see how long a list we can compile of instances where Obama or someone from his administration has said “we can either do A, or we can do B”.  Video links are preferable, but direct quotes from a reliable news source are also acceptable.

 

85 thoughts on “Either/Or

  1. tiredoflibbs April 2, 2012 / 12:25 pm

    obAMATEUR himself:

    “When it comes to paying down the deficit and investing in our future:”

    Proposition A: “Should we ask some of the wealthiest Americans to pay their fair share?”

    Or

    Proposition B: “should we ask middle-class Americans to pay even more at a time when their budgets are already stretched to the breaking point?”

    Note: No one (on the right) has proposed increasing taxes on the middle class. Who has besides obAMATEUR even mentioned increasing taxes on the middle class?

    Divisive politics at its worst – those who “have” vs. those “who have not” or “want more”.

    Well, we can’t expect obAMATEUR to highlight his economic, energy or foreign policies, which ALL are dismal failures. He needs issues like this to hopefully convince the ingoranuses to vote for him.

    • Retired Spook April 2, 2012 / 12:27 pm

      Tired, that’s a theme Obama has repeated over and over. In his January, 2012 State of the Union Speech:

      “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules,”

    • dbschmidt April 2, 2012 / 1:30 pm

      Tired,

      Remember one of the first “tax increases” Obama passed was the cigarette tax to benefit SCHIP which hits the poor disproportionately. Kinda like the high cost of gasoline..

  2. J. R. Babcock April 2, 2012 / 12:32 pm

    Also from Obama’s SOTU speech:

    We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get a tax break I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference — like a senior on a fixed income, or a student trying to get through school, or a family trying to make ends meet.

    • James April 2, 2012 / 12:45 pm

      JR. what part of that statement you quoted do you disagree with?

      • J. R. Babcock April 2, 2012 / 12:57 pm

        Point taken, James. It depends on whether you hold a static or dynamic view of the economy. Based on your comment, I gather you hold a static view of the economy; that is, that the pie is finite and in order for someone to get a bigger piece of the pie, someone else must get a smaller piece, or even have their pie taken away altogether. I hold the dynamic view that the pie is infinite, that every time someone earns a bigger piece of the pie they, more often than not, create something that causes the pie to grow, resulting in more pie for everyone.

      • Cluster April 2, 2012 / 1:30 pm

        Excellent response JR – James, do you care to respond?

        This also comes on the heels of a report stating that America’s “rich” pay more national taxes than 24 other nations. Of course the answer does not lie within raising taxes, it lies within entitlement, tax and regulatory reform, of which the democrats have not offer one solution.

      • James April 2, 2012 / 2:05 pm

        JR. you refuse to answer the question, but respond with something that has no relevance.

        The point is, the pie is not infinite, nations don’t grow in perpetuity and their people don’t earn more due to ever expanding economies. Resources are scarce, labor is scarce, and as a result…..economic pies are limited.

        Now, that’s not to say the pie can’t grow, but the division of that pie is what is important.

        The statement from the President is completely true. When people who don’t NEED something, get it anyway….in some way, someone else has to pay for it. That’s not always the case, but you can’t argue its never the case.

        @ Cluster,

        Once again you prance out a “fact” that has been disproved on another thread. point by point. and do try to follow along with simple reasoning and logic.

        This also comes on the heels of a report stating that America’s “rich” pay more national taxes than 24 other nations.

        If you define rich by let’s say people who make an income over 300k…that would put them roughly in the top 1% of income earners. If the top 1% of earners….get about 90% of all income in this country and yet they only pay about 50% of the income taxes; would you consider this ok? or not ok from a tax policy perspective?

        Your point is devoid of any facts on which it can be judged. Why don’t you link the report and do a little more research on who earns what in this country.

        Of course the answer does not lie within raising taxes, it lies within entitlement, tax and regulatory reform, of which the democrats have not offer one solution.

        talking points alert. Its truly tiring to disprove the same talking points over and over again…only for you to come back and repeat them.

      • J. R. Babcock April 2, 2012 / 2:09 pm

        JR. you refuse to answer the question, but respond with something that has no relevance.

        James, I answered your question precisely. Not my problem if you didn’t like my answer.

      • Retired Spook April 2, 2012 / 2:19 pm

        The point is, the pie is not infinite, nations don’t grow in perpetuity and their people don’t earn more due to ever expanding economies.

        Well, that’s partially true, James. It wasn’t true in the U.S. for most of our history. The whole dynamic of some people gaining more than others was what inspired the Progressive movement 100 years ago. Ever since then, Progressives have attempted to make your statement universally true, just as it largely is in Europe. Why do you think economic growth is so low and unemployment is so high in most of Europe? When you make everyone equal (except, of course for the few elites at the top), you kill sectors of the economy that cater to the wealthy: luxury yachts, automobiles, aircraft, homes, and you kill skilled jobs that make up those industries.

      • James April 2, 2012 / 2:22 pm

        Cluster,

        I’d be all for a drop in income tax if we institute a VAT.

        that is something that Democrats have brought up before only to be put down by the likes of Grover and some top GOP brass.

        If we instituted a 20% VAT nationwide, i’d be all for the resulting drop in income tax.

      • Cluster April 2, 2012 / 2:35 pm

        James,

        The drop in income tax would be revenue neutral because most of the exemptions would go away, so a VAT would hurt the middle class and the poor the most. The answer to the federal government receiving more revenue lies in getting the economy cranked up again, and their are enough domestic natural gas, and oil reserves to fuel the federal government for years to come, if only we would go after it.

      • Retired Spook April 2, 2012 / 2:36 pm

        The statement from the President is completely true. When people who don’t NEED something, get it anyway….

        And who decides whether or not someone “needs” something”? I don’t believe you can find ANYWHERE in our founding documents, or supporting documents like the Federalist Papers, that this country was founded on the premise of someone in government being the arbiter of who does or doesn’t NEED something. You may think that the phrase “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is from our Constitution (45% of high school seniors thought so), but it’s not.

        in some way, someone else has to pay for it. That’s not always the case, but you can’t argue its never the case.

        Can you give me an example of when that WOULD be the case?

      • James April 2, 2012 / 2:36 pm

        Spook, Your statements are wrong.

        The whole dynamic of some people gaining more than others was what inspired the Progressive movement 100 years ago. Ever since then, Progressives have attempted to make your statement universally true, just as it largely is in Europe.

        What’s wrong with Europe?…more to come on this point in the next response to your statement.

        Why do you think economic growth is so low and unemployment is so high in most of Europe?

        Developed economies generally tend to have lower growth because they are already developed. You can’t expect our economy, or Europe’s economy to grow at a 8% clip like the Chinese economy does. That’s simply not realistic. Furthermore, skilled labor, modern labor laws increase the cost of labor in developed economies and therefore have a stunting effect on developed economies. That’s why the Chinese make everything for us, but in the field of IP and High tech, we are way ahead.

        When you make everyone equal (except, of course for the few elites at the top), you kill sectors of the economy that cater to the wealthy: luxury yachts, automobiles, aircraft, homes, and you kill all the skilled jobs that make up those industries.

        That’s categorically not true and blatantly false. Most, if not all luxury brands in automobiles, yachts and luxury clothing are European. If your logic was the case, those companies would have gone out of business. If you look at a company like Ferrari, which is owned by Fiat…most of their sales to this day are in the US and Europe.

        This whole idea that just because people’s incomes can be equalized more than what we have it now kills sectors of the economy is false and is unsupported by data.

        The truth is, a smaller disparity in income leads to less crime, more services being purchased by a larger portion of society and in general to more prosperity for more people.

      • James April 2, 2012 / 2:49 pm

        Spook.

        And who decides whether or not someone “needs” something”?

        The people of the United States, through their representatives in Congress do. DUH!

        I don’t believe you can find ANYWHERE in our founding documents, or supporting documents like the Federalist Papers, that this country was founded on the premise of someone in government being the arbiter of who does or doesn’t NEED something.

        Maybe you can’t find it verbatim, granted. but who cares? last I checked the constitution didn’t outlaw slavery, didn’t authorize the government to spy on its own citizens, didn’t authorize the government to kill its citizens without due process and didn’t give women the right to vote. Over time however, it was amended to match the social and cultural changes our nation underwent.

        If the majority of Americans vote for representatives that then in turn decide to do away with the mortgage deduction for people making more than 400k…..who’s to say that’s wrong? those people don’t need it. it was a collective decision made by the PEOPLE. I sure do hope you put the people’s will above the will of the founding fathers.

        You may think that the phrase “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is from our Constitution (45% of high school seniors thought so), but it’s not.

        Straw man! communist fear mongering! You want to bring in Marx into every argument?

        Can you give me an example of when that WOULD be the case?

        easy. let’s say we cut income taxes for the wealthy from 33% marginal rate to 20%. and at the same time, we cut services because the federal revenues will drop…so you cut across the board in every department. without fail, some services will be cut for those who need it, or depended on it.

        Those people are essentially the ones who PAY for the income tax reduction of the top rate.

      • Retired Spook April 2, 2012 / 2:51 pm

        What’s wrong with Europe?

        Their economic growth is in the crapper.

        On Thursday, the European Union cut its 2012 real GDP growth forecast to just 0.5% – down nearly 70 percent from its 1.9% projection just six months ago. Ominously, the EU added that “the probability of a more protracted period of stagnation is high.

      • James April 2, 2012 / 2:57 pm

        so you look at ONE year’s growth and claim based on that one year that Europe is doomed and its the fault of the income equality? Really?

        Why don’t you look back over the past 25 years and tell us how Europe has grown….

      • Cluster April 2, 2012 / 2:58 pm

        James,

        You have a very un American attitude. You stated earlier that it is not possible to grow at 8% like China – but that is a false premise. Of course we can grow at an 8% clip or better – we are not even utilizing our own domestic energy reserves, nor are we incentivizing entrepreneurs and small business’s to innovate and expand.

        You, and most liberals, have a very limited mind set.

      • Cluster April 2, 2012 / 3:01 pm

        James,

        It is impossible to debate with you because you always use false premises. I have already told you that income tax RATE reductions will be revenue neutral because of the exemptions, but you conveniently ignore that when responding to other posts.

        Please stay focused

      • James April 2, 2012 / 3:07 pm

        here we go, when cluster starts to lose arguments, he starts with personal attacks.

        You have a very un American attitude.

        Don’t be upset because you lost the argument based on FACTS.

        You stated earlier that it is not possible to grow at 8% like China – but that is a false premise. Of course we can grow at an 8% clip or better

        Show me the last years, back to back our economy grew 8%.

        we are not even utilizing our own domestic energy reserves, nor are we incentivizing entrepreneurs and small business’s to innovate and expand.

        All talking points again and all bullshit. Look, you want to stick to the meme come election season. go ahead. You do know that we are extracting the most oil we have in a long time right?

        You, and most liberals, have a very limited mind set

        Its ok you lost the argument. I figured sooner or later you’d resort to attacks. Looks like I won that bet with myself.

      • James April 2, 2012 / 3:08 pm

        It is impossible to debate with you because you always use false premises.

        Like you thinking that tax cuts result in more growth? and that tax cuts actually create jobs….even though there has NEVER been a correlation?

        I have already told you that income tax RATE reductions will be revenue neutral because of the exemptions, but you conveniently ignore that when responding to other posts.

        Simply not true. that’s wishful thinking. Maybe in your little world down there in the desert, that’s true….but in the real world, its not true.

      • Amazona April 2, 2012 / 3:46 pm

        For someone who has refused to define and defend a political philosophy, “James” is sure illustrating one.

        And who decides whether or not someone “needs” something”?

        The people of the United States, through their representatives in Congress do. DUH!

        Yeah, they do, far too often. But when they do, they exceed the boundaries set up by the Constitution.

        I don’t believe you can find ANYWHERE in our founding documents, or supporting documents like the Federalist Papers, that this country was founded on the premise of someone in government being the arbiter of who does or doesn’t NEED something.

        Maybe you can’t find it verbatim, granted. but who cares?

        Said like a true Lefty. It’s not allowed by the Constitution, but WHO CARES? It’s not as if the Constitution is the law of the land or anything. It’s not as if it carries any weight, regarding what can or can’t be legislated. So says the resident Lefty troll.

        last I checked the constitution didn’t outlaw slavery, didn’t authorize the government to spy on its own citizens, didn’t authorize the government to kill its citizens without due process and didn’t give women the right to vote.

        Haven’t checked for a while, have you, “James”? Oh, you are looking at the original document as it was ratified, and pretending that the amendments are not really part of the Constitution. This is the only way people like you can even pretend to justify ignoring it or defying it.

        Hint: The Constitution IS its sum total. When it is amended, the amendment becomes part of the amended Constitution. I know you people desperately need to pretend otherwise, but this is just to shore up your ignorance and pathetic arguments.

        Over time however, it was amended to match the social and cultural changes our nation underwent.

        Nice of you to acknowledge the process. And interesting that you don’t seem to think that same process is necessary for the additional changes you think Congress and the President ought to be able to make, even when those changes are specifically prohibited by the Constitution.

        If the majority of Americans vote for representatives that then in turn decide to do away with the mortgage deduction for people making more than 400k…..who’s to say that’s wrong? those people don’t need it. it was a collective decision made by the PEOPLE. I sure do hope you put the people’s will above the will of the founding fathers.

        Oh, “James”, do you really believe the tax laws are written into the Constitution? Really? You poor silly ignorant fool, you, charging into a battle of wits so woefully unarmed. You seem to think that THE PEOPLE made a “collective decision” to implement a tax deduction, which is by the way for the INTEREST paid on a mortgage, not the whole thing, but then you lump it into some wierd rambling about who cares what the Constitution says and some odd crap about women voting—it’s all such a muddle, and such a clear example of what seems to pass for thinking on the far Left.

        Thank you, “James” you are the gift that keeps on giving. I hope you can keep your bigotry and your potty mouth under control enough to continue feeding us examples of the lunacy of the Left—sometimes people think we make up the things we tell them Left claims to be true.

      • Cluster April 2, 2012 / 5:18 pm

        James,

        You are absolutely hilarious –

        “Who cares what’s in the constitution”

        “We can’t grow the economy at 8%”

        “The top 1% have 97% of the income”

        And you say that you are winning the argument on FACTS????

        Wow.

      • Retired Spook April 2, 2012 / 5:53 pm

        You have a very un American attitude. You stated earlier that it is not possible to grow at 8% like China – but that is a false premise. Of course we can grow at an 8% clip or better

        Cluster, the problem is that Progressives don’t WANT us to have dynamic economic growth. That would empower a lot of people who currently depend on government for their existence.

      • dbschmidt April 2, 2012 / 10:49 pm

        Hate to mention that China’s 8% GDP growth is a false house of cards that has now snowballed into an ever turbulent balancing act. Building cities no one lives in and other measures are employed to keep the people employed and not revolting. I mean not everyone can be an forced labor designate intern at the Apple factory after all. Welcome to the Worker’s Paradise (after N. Korea)

      • tiredoflibbs April 2, 2012 / 10:49 pm

        AMA, didn’t James claim to be a lawyer?

        You would think that he wouldn’t get the Constitution as wrong as he did?

      • Retired Spook April 3, 2012 / 12:00 am

        AMA, didn’t James claim to be a lawyer?

        “Claim” being the operative word, Tired. Everyone here knows who “James” is, in spite of his protestations.

      • dbschmidt April 3, 2012 / 12:51 pm

        Come on Tired,

        President Obama claims to be a Constitutional Scholar.

  3. Cluster April 2, 2012 / 1:26 pm

    It is amazing how shameless the democrats are on identifying and/or creating victims to further polarize this nation, all in an effort to retain power. They have even set back the woman’s movement 40 years with the Sandra Fluke debacle, and now they want America to believe that we are once again fighting for civil rights with Trayvon case. Isn’t it ironic that one of the left’s iconic movements is called MoveOn.org. Do you suppose the left will ever let us move on?

  4. dbschmidt April 2, 2012 / 1:27 pm

    1980, President Carter and the Crude Oil Windfall Profit Tax Act (P.L. 96-223).

    Most of this post is a direct copy & paste of an offshoot of a Wikipedia article (the bastion of Progressive information) so take it with a grain of salt; nevertheless, this appears to be another Progressive “this time it will work” moment. This was quickly repealed under President Reagan but lets us take a look at the “promises” and the actual results. [emphasis mine]

    April 2nd, 1980 – the concerns and promises;
    “…concerned that the domestic oil industry would reap enormous revenues and profits as a result of the deregulation of price controls…the projected huge redistribution of income from energy consumers to energy producers would not be fair.
    “…the industry was not paying its fair share of federal taxes.”
    “…Congress was looking for additional sources of revenue.

    August 23, 1988 – the results;
    President Reagan ( P.L. 100-418)
    “…the original forecast of revenues turned out to have been significantly overestimated…or 80% less than the projected amount…”
    “…concerned that the tax had increased the nation’s dependence on imported oil. The tax was an excise tax on oil produced domestically in the United States; it was not imposed on imported oil.”
    “A GAO report called it ‘perhaps the largest and most complex tax ever levied on a U.S. industry.’ ”
    “Oil producers were obliged to comply with the paperwork requirements of the law, however, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was compelled to administer the system despite the fact that the tax generated no revenue, reportedly spending about $15 million a year to do so.

    But no worries—this time it will work. “Windfall” taxes on individuals and companies that showed no revenue but no need to look at corporations like GE, Apple, and Microsoft that show profits nearing 120% and “reap enormous revenues” that rival countries. Those aren’t windfall profits ~ those are donors. I guess today we get to relive history yet again.

  5. Retired Spook April 2, 2012 / 1:50 pm

    A similar rhetorical device that Obama has received criticism for, even from some on the Left, is the false choice.

    Let me give an example of the “false choice” setup that President Obama uses in just about every speech these days, in the same language I used to explain it to my two teenagers:

    There are those who say we must clean our rooms every day and every night, foregoing after-school sports and homework, in order to have a spotless room. And there are those who say we must never clean our rooms at all, to the point that dirty laundry reaches to the ceiling and all kinds of rodents move in. I reject these as a false choice. There is a reasonable middle course, one in which we can clean our rooms once a week and still do our homework. Let me be clear: We can clean our rooms on a regular basis and still win the future.

    In this example, we don’t know who “those” are who advocate cleaning the room constantly; presumably it is the parents of teenagers. But no parent would ask that a teenager clean their room around the clock. Similarly, “those” who argue against cleaning would probably not want rodents in their rooms. So each side is unnamed and painted as extremist. The unnaming is important because naming who “those” are invites a denial from each side: “I never said that at all.” Then we move to the choosing of the reasonable middle ground, and the “let me be clear” statement, in which the choice is reiterated and “winning the future” is the result.

    Here are my problems with the “false choice” as a rhetorical device: First, it is overused to the point of being cliched. According to columnist Ruth Marcus, “President Obama has employed the false-choice device in assessing financial reform, environmental regulation, defense contracting, civil liberties, crime policy, healthcare, the deployment of troops in Iraq, Native Americans, the space program, and, most recently, the situation in Libya,” to name only a few. He hasn’t used it to get his daughters to clean their rooms yet, but watch out.

    Second, rather than bringing the two sides together, the “false choice” argument paints well-intentioned people with valid solutions on either side as extremists. That tends to make those people mad. Third, it sets up a straw-man type of argument by leaving political opponents unnamed. If the president has an argument with a proposal House Speaker John Boehner is advancing, he should say so by name and let the debate begin. If President Obama really believes he can win the contest of ideas, he shouldn’t hide behind a rhetorical stalking horse that distorts his opponents’ arguments. People see through it. And, rather than bringing both sides together, it feeds the polarization and resentment we see in politics these days.

    I think it’s pretty clear to anyone who’s paying the slightest bit of attention that Obama isn’t interested in winning the “contest of ideas”.

    • Cluster April 2, 2012 / 2:06 pm

      Obama isn’t interested in winning the “contest of ideas”

      Democrats have ideas?? Are you kidding me? The democrats are single minded on protecting victims, real or perceived. And if there are no real victims, they will create them. As far as having big ideas to move the country forward in a constitutional and positive direction – they have none. Even Obamacare was crafted on the premise of victimhood, and is turning out to be unconstitutional, and that’s been the only democrat “big idea” for the last 20 years.

      • neocon1 April 2, 2012 / 2:29 pm

        Update: The chart above is from the Joint Economic Committe (based on 2006 IRS data), showing the percentages of federal personal income tax paid by different groups of taxpayers:

        The top 1% of taxpayers pay about 40% of all income taxes,

        the top 10% pay 71%,

        and the top 50% pay 97% of all taxes.

        The bottom 50% pays less than 3% of all income taxes paid.

      • James April 2, 2012 / 2:50 pm

        neostupid,

        the top 1% also earn 97% of ALL income. yet they only pay 40% of all income taxes? You think that’s ok?

      • Retired Spook April 2, 2012 / 3:00 pm

        neostupid,

        the top 1% also earn 97% of ALL income. yet they only pay 40% of all income taxes? You think that’s ok?

        James, even The Huffington Post says you’re a liar. In fact, that has to be one of the BIGGEST LIES ever told here.

      • Amazona April 2, 2012 / 3:02 pm

        “James” look at your question another way:

        Is it “fair” for 1% of all the people in the nation to pay 40% of all the income tax paid?

        And where do you get that “1%” figure? Sounds like the whiny OWS crap we keep hearing. Can you back it up?

        Also, what do the other claimed 99% DO to deserve to move up and earn more of that “97%” ? Are they equally educated? Offer special skills? Work harder? Produce more?

        In other words, I challenge you to prove your claims and explain why it should be otherwise.

      • Cluster April 2, 2012 / 3:02 pm

        James relies on false premises to make his arguments, so I think we just need to expect that from him

      • James April 2, 2012 / 3:14 pm

        Spook,

        that meant to say top 5% of income earners.

        @ Amazona,

        so you’re justifying income inequality because some people in your view are just better than the rest, and therefore, they deserve to get more. I see. Care to change your stance on the Martin – Zimmerman case since some new revelations came to light?

      • Amazona April 2, 2012 / 3:25 pm

        “James”, I’m “…. justifying income inequality because some people in (my) view are just (more productive) than the rest, and therefore, they deserve to get more,,”

        See how easily that can be fixed?

        You seem to be arguing that everyone should get the same no matter how much they produce or the quality or value of what they produce. Is that right?

        As long as the value and quantity of production is unequal, compensation should be unequal.

        Duh.

        I find it interesting that the only way you can even pretend to make an argument is to frame it in a way that tries to imply that the innate worth of one human being is higher or less than that of another. Nice try, but a very clumsy effort,

        No, human beings all “deserve” the same consideration and respect, until individuals do things that diminish their rights to this consideration and respect, and that is a personal decision made by each individual and one for which he has full responsibility.

        My stance on the Martin/Zimmerman issue is, and always has been, that the process of investigation has to be followed, and that no judgment should be made until this is completed, till all possible facts are known, and until a verdict is reached if the facts lead to prosecution. I have pointed out quite reasonable alternatives to the shrill vigilante hysteria of you and your fellow travelers, which you seem to think means taking a side. Too bad you are so unfamiliar with the concept of “fairness” and justice.

        I find the mob mentality disturbing and disgusting, and I wonder what it is about this case that makes so many of your kind so desperate to believe the worst, with so little evidence to back it up.

      • Amazona April 2, 2012 / 3:30 pm

        Note that when “James” is caught in a lie, he suddenly realizes that what he MEANT to say was something else, not the lie.

        These guys are so funny.

      • Retired Spook April 2, 2012 / 4:15 pm

        Spook, that meant to say top 5% of income earners.

        Still a lie of ginormous proportions, James. Care to try again; maybe the third time will be the charm.

        The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.

      • James April 2, 2012 / 4:19 pm

        Spook, nice try at deception. NOT AGI, but GROSS income.

        people with higher incomes use the itemized deduction to drop their AGI significantly lower.

        I stand by my statement. top 5% earn about 97% of total income in this nation. again, not AGI, but Gross.

      • neocon1 April 2, 2012 / 4:19 pm

        jimmah

        Care to change your stance on the Martin – Zimmerman case since some new revelations came to light?

        Yeah ONE THUG, ONE SLUG, good shoot, good shot.

      • neocon1 April 2, 2012 / 4:22 pm

        jimmah

        The bottom 50% pays less than 3% of all income taxes paid.

        do you think that is OK?

      • Retired Spook April 2, 2012 / 5:25 pm

        Spook, nice try at deception. NOT AGI, but GROSS income.

        Ah, I see; “gross income”, not “adjusted gross income”.

        people with higher incomes use the itemized deduction to drop their AGI significantly lower.

        ROTFLMAO!! You obviously don’t do your own taxes, James. Itemized deductions come off AFTER AGI, not before. What an f’ing idiot.

        I stand by my statement. top 5% earn about 97% of total income in this nation. again, not AGI, but Gross.

        Stand all you want, but you’re WRONG, WOEFULLY WRONG!

      • Count d'Haricots April 2, 2012 / 6:11 pm

        Sorry I’m late Spook.

        Total Gross Income for the US (most recent) $9,780,000,000,000.00.

        Total “earners” for the same period according to the IRS = 208,805.

        “Top” 5% = 10,404,255 “individuals filing earning GROSS INCOME of $3,807,957,330,000 or 38.936% of the total gross income.

        Break times over ~ back to picking up ball-bearings.

      • Count d'Haricots April 2, 2012 / 6:13 pm

        Sheesh!

        Total earners = 208,085,100.

        Missed it by that much!

      • Retired Spook April 2, 2012 / 6:15 pm

        Break times over ~ back to picking up ball-bearings.

        I thought it was “beans”, heh.

    • James April 2, 2012 / 2:41 pm

      Bigotry still a no-no, as it always is. Learn or go away. //Moderator

      • dbschmidt April 2, 2012 / 9:12 pm

        Whatever the comment was–it probably was the standard false witness of the Progressive as another capitalist is born.

        James, apparently is in the no-bigger-pie so the fat man only got fat by eating the skinny man’s pie school of economy and the GDP of Europe is only so because-well-it is much more mature as nations.

        Therefore, the same GDP at the founding of this nation is what the 1%’ers now have and will not play fair with the rest of us because the pie never gets bigger and we must also “Thank” Europe for saving our ass during WWII because we were centuries behind those more mature nations in technology and manufacturing to be of any real assistance. Our carts and mules were no match.

        I know that sounded stupid but then again so do some of the arguments posted on this blog by our resident trolls.

    • Amazona April 2, 2012 / 3:29 pm

      I was answering the “James'” post, above, when this one was removed, probably for the ageism in it. So I will address the other part, where he claims that neo’s link is a “straw man”.

      “James” you really need to find out what words mean before you try to use them. It might make you look a little less, well, stupid.

      Neo states, quite clearly, that his post is OT. That means Off Topic. Therefore it does not relate to anything said anywhere on the thread.

      A straw man is an invented scenario, which is then attacked by the inventor as if it had been posited by the opposition.

  6. bagni April 2, 2012 / 4:10 pm

    hey
    ama
    know this is off subject
    but glad to hear you’re into bio fuels
    btw…hemp oils and fats are a nice byproduct of hemp milk which is sold worldwide

  7. neocon1 April 2, 2012 / 4:42 pm

    jimmah

    • Retired Spook April 2, 2012 / 5:27 pm

      Neo,

      An even better question is why did NBC edit the 911 tape to make it appear it was a racially motivated event?

      • neocon1 April 2, 2012 / 5:43 pm

        Spook

        to fit the template for the dnc. the same as continually referring to ole tra von as a CHILD with skittles and iced tea.

        the left needed a rally call, and the communist media obliged.

        PS glad the avatar made it back from the double super secret operation with ST 6

  8. J. R. Babcock April 2, 2012 / 5:09 pm

    Back to the topic of the thread. From an Obama weekly address last summer:

    “Yes, we have to make serious budget cuts; but that it’s not right to ask middle class families to pay more for college before we ask the biggest corporations to pay their fair share of taxes. It means that before we stop funding clean energy, we should ask oil companies and corporate jet owners to give up the tax breaks that other companies don’t get. Before we cut medical research, we should ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. Before we ask seniors to pay more for Medicare, we should ask the wealthiest taxpayers to give up tax breaks we simply cannot afford under these circumstances. ”

    Four either/or’s in one paragraph.

    • Cluster April 2, 2012 / 5:14 pm

      Instead of perpetuating the false hood that hedge fund managers pay lower taxes than their secretaries, I wish he would at least be honest and say that he wants to raise the cap gains tax.

  9. J. R. Babcock April 2, 2012 / 5:33 pm

    One of my favorite quotes from Obama during the 2008 campaign that should have told everyone what a divisive president he’d be:

    “We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

    Funny thing is, I’ve NEVER seen a liberal defend this idiotic statement.

    • Cluster April 2, 2012 / 8:02 pm

      That’s one of my favorite lines to JR, and is one of the most asinine statements of all time.

  10. J. R. Babcock April 2, 2012 / 6:09 pm

    A couple more either/or’s.

  11. Cluster April 2, 2012 / 8:07 pm

    Biden just had a moment of clarity and said something spot on – “this election will be a stark contrast of political philosophies and the American people will have a choice…”

    Very true. The American people will choose between the vision of an ever controlling federal government and entitlement based country, or one of a smaller, more effective localized government and personal responsibility.

    • Amazona April 2, 2012 / 9:12 pm

      Well, if this election really IS about political philosophies, our resident trolls are going to be SOL, because they not only cannot define or defend a coherent political philosophy, they have started denying that one is even necessary.

      You gotta feel pretty dumb when even Joe can figure something out while you’re denying it exists.

  12. Cluster April 2, 2012 / 8:21 pm

    Another observation: the Obama regime is currently labeling Romney as “out of touch” – well how can Romney be “out of touch” on one hand, but yet be responsible for creating the blue print for Obama’s signature piece of legislation on the other hand?

  13. Amazona April 2, 2012 / 9:28 pm

    Running errands today I started to remember a conversation I had in November with two of the dimmest dimbulbs it has ever been my misfortune to try to work with. They were supposed to be packing up equipment in Wyoming, following me to Colorado to unpack, spend the night at my house, drive back up to Wyoming with me the next morning to repeat the process, etc.

    So I was stuck with talking to these two guys in the evening, and one night I was trying to get it across to them that they have to EARN what they get paid.

    ?????????????????????????

    I tried an example, a true story of a summer when I hired three college age girls to work on the ranch. One was a self-starter. She would see what needed to be done, and do it. While the water tank on the truck was emptying into the stock tank, she would be checking the fence line for missing staples, or catching a horse to check on a scrape, or SOMETHING. When one of the other two filled stock tanks, the third would have to go with her, so I would have two girls watching water flow from one tank into another, doing nothing else but chatting, often well past the time the truck tank was empty.

    OK—the boys were able to follow along so far. But then I really threw them for a loop, when I said the first girl got a raise, and the other two didn’t.

    But why? ?????????????? The very CONCEPT that the one girl was worth more to me as an employee, got more done for what she got paid, than the others was simply such a foreign idea that I could hear the two brain cells each had bumping into each other as they tried to process this revolutionary idea.

    I’m not kidding. They argued with me, with furrowed brows and confused expressions, about how everyone is equal, no one is better than anyone else, and it just wasn’t FAIR for one girl to make so much more than the other two. Then they got quite indignant when I explained that I had started all three at a very low salary, with full disclosure that the money would increase according to what they contributed to the ranch.

    So in one week, the first girl’s salary doubled, retroactive to her first day, and she got a bonus when she went back to school in the fall. The other two fiddled and farted around, doing less every day, never figuring out that their income depended not on me but on them, and the decisions they made about how to approach their jobs. Neither one lasted the summer—one quit and I fired one out of sheer frustration at having to monitor her every minute of the day and explain everything over again every time she had to do it.

    Now I see the same befuddlement with “James” who seems to think that, in the case I just described, all three girls should have gotten paid the same, even while one did more than twice the work of the other two combined.

    Here’s a guess. Girl # 1 will end up owning her own business and being quite successful, and Nos. 2 and 3 will be behind a counter at the DMV or in some other low-level government job, with their degrees in Women’s Studies or Transgendered Mentally Challenged Eskimo Folklore.

    • Amazona April 2, 2012 / 9:31 pm

      Thank God ranching is not a union job or I’d still be stuck with the parasites, and having to give them regular raises and extravagant benefits.

    • dbschmidt April 2, 2012 / 10:34 pm

      Sounds very similar when I try to explain a very simple concept of business which is the employee has to earn the employer more money than the employer pays the employee. Simple in that if I am to be paid $100K/year I had better produce well more than that for my employer or they have no reason to keep me. The same applies when I have hired people to work for me. Seems to confuse the “James” of the world.

    • Retired Spook April 2, 2012 / 10:36 pm

      with their degrees in Women’s Studies or Transgendered Mentally Challenged Eskimo Folklore.

      LOL!!

    • dbschmidt April 2, 2012 / 10:39 pm

      I would also like a rational explanation from James as to why after I worked (3 jobs) my way through college (the first time) and took out personal loans for both of my advanced degrees. Made the effort to better myself and be a benefit to any potential employer (including myself if regulations would allow) plus spent additional personal time to exceed in my industry–someone with no education, no skills, and no training are worth as much per hour as I am?

      • Retired Spook April 3, 2012 / 12:26 am

        DB,

        Isn’t it clear from his comments that James doesn’t deal in rational explanations. He doesn’t even know that “adjusted gross income” is the figure on the last line on the “front” page of form 1040 — before deductions. Lawyer indeed.

      • Amazona April 3, 2012 / 10:18 am

        Actually, I understand that in “James'” office, he insists that the janitor be paid as much as he is—which irked the janitor, whose job is far more important, and who is far more productive. He objected to the pay cut.

      • neocon1 April 3, 2012 / 2:01 pm

        here is an either or

        EITHER Uboma is eligible
        OR
        he IS NOT,
        I favor the latter, and so does Sheriff Joe Arpaio

      • neocon1 April 3, 2012 / 3:36 pm

        Off topic. // Moderator

      • neocon1 April 3, 2012 / 3:37 pm

        jimmah

        what a janitor making more than a glorified draftsman??? say it aint so…..

      • neocon1 April 3, 2012 / 3:41 pm

        Off topic. // Moderator

      • neocon1 April 3, 2012 / 3:41 pm

        Off topic. // Moderator

      • neocon1 April 3, 2012 / 3:59 pm

        Off topic. // Moderator

      • neocon1 April 3, 2012 / 4:01 pm

        oops

        another off topic…..

        Yes. //Moderator

      • neocon1 April 3, 2012 / 5:26 pm

        meanwhile back to crickets chirping……….

      • Retired Spook April 3, 2012 / 5:38 pm

        meanwhile back to crickets chirping……….

        Yeah, I didn’t expect our resident Lefties to contribute much in this thread, and they didn’t disappoint. He’s been so blatant about using either/or and false choice rhetoric that it’s pretty difficult to defend. I wish we didn’t have to wait til next January to send him and the Mooch packing. It’ll be interesting to see how liberal historians spin his time in office.

      • neocon1 April 3, 2012 / 6:04 pm

        I think all that is going on in Fla is to gin up the base and wreak havoc when he loses.
        It is going to be a long hot summer.

        There is word out that a lower court has slapped Uboma’s JD about his ignorant rantings of a jr law student on how the SC can not overturn a law by congress.

        Funny NOTHING about barry dropping by the SC and “visiting” the left wing justices the day they vote on his debacle. Talk about a conflict of interest.?

      • neocon1 April 3, 2012 / 6:06 pm

        the sooner we send Uboma back to chicongo the better.

      • GMB April 3, 2012 / 8:37 pm

        Does it have to be Chicago? I would recomend either kenya or indonesia.

        We have enough big government progs in Illinois.

      • Amazona April 3, 2012 / 9:15 pm

        Does anyone believe for a minute that Kagan has not already told Barry how the justices are leaning?

        Funny NOTHING about barry dropping by the SC and “visiting” the left wing justices the day they vote on his debacle. Talk about a conflict of interest.?

        What, you don’t think the Mad Daddy scowl is intimidating enough? He could accompany it with his bubblehead bike helmet and baggy-ass Mom Jeans and really put the fear of Karl into them.

Comments are closed.