Obama's "fair share" hypocrisy
Our president continues to push "fair share" on the american people, with no explanation of why he thinks that it will help the economy. "The Buffett Rule" that is being voted on today in the Senate, is a feel good tax that the dems continue to try and justify. When I say feel good, I'm referring to, making people comfortable in the fact that they are suffering, because they know that everyone else is suffering with them. These people arguing to soak the rich, and have them pay their "fair share", are not going to be helped financially by a hike in taxes on our job creators. They are being given the illusion that things are better because we are sticking it to those "evil rich people". Obama continues to push "class warfare", but there is only one problem, America does not have classification of it's people. We have only Americans. This twisted view is used on both sides of the isle to divide so called middle class, from lower class, from upper class or wealthy. This is a tactic used to win elections in both parties. Now, here's the kicker! Statistics compiled form The Internal Revenue Service by the Tax Foundation, show that 93.3% of the total federal tax burden was paid by those making over $50,000 a year, for a total tax rate of 14.1 percent. Tell me about fair share, Mr President. Once again, Obama is running a smoke and mirrors illusion here, don't allow yourself to be sucked in.
Dave Loebig
4:34 pm on Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Thoughts, you solicit?
This is more or less a regurgitation of GOP market-tested buzz words and talking points; hardly original, and not much in way of new contributions to current public policy debates.
Scottrey
8:29 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Dave, I think you miss the point. Obama is disingenuously pushing a tax rule named after someone who paid 11.06% effective tax rate for 2010 and owns a company that possibly owes the government $1 billion dollars.
I don't care about 'talking points' from either side of the aisle but I do care about a hypocritical approach to getting more tax revenue when they don't efficiently use what they get now.
Dave Loebig
9:41 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012
I don't miss the point. Saying it again doesn't add anything. And that's my point. This same line of ideas can be found all over the internet, particularly from GOP politicians. This post doesn't add anything to the public debate. It just says what GOP pols and hacks have already said.
Disingenuous??? From a politician??? Of course. They all spin the slop. That's nothing new, either. The very ideas and talking points above originate with pols and party activists who disingenuously spin and sell and accuse just the same. Of course.
Scottrey
9:46 am on Wednesday, April 18, 2012
And what are you adding? You're just playing a typical liberal method of trying to confuse the argument with noise but no substance.
Saying it again does add, it gets the issue out there for others. The only way we are going to change Washington (both parties) is to get people fired up about things like this and to get them motivated to do something.
Dave Loebig
12:44 pm on Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Ah, there it is, labels..."liberal"...in way of ad hominem attacks. When there's nothing else to go on, I suppose. False and a fallacy all in one, speaking of "no substance". Really? Ad nominem attacks? And you throw out the accusation of "no substance" all in the same sentence? Head shake.
My addition? I responded to the question "Any thoughts?". My commentary points out the weakness and bias of the original commentary, a worthy addition, indeed. A link to the original source would have sufficed. Citing sources would have been a good plus, too; it would have put the information in context. Regurgitating the connotation-laced buzz words as one's own...meh.
Scottrey
2:25 pm on Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Labels? like "This is more or less a regurgitation of GOP market-tested buzz words and talking points" You may not called him the name but you sure labelled him.
"My commentary points out the weakness and bias of the original commentary" Which means you can say you're wrong but then offer no reason why. That doesn't point out anything.
Dave Loebig
12:46 pm on Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Ah, there it is, labels..."liberal"...in way of ad hominem attacks. When there's nothing else to go on, I suppose. False and a fallacy all in one, speaking of "no substance".
Really? Ad nominem attacks? And you throw out the accusation of "no substance" all in the same sentence? ---head shake---
My addition? I responded to the question "Any thoughts?". My commentary points out the weakness and bias of the original commentary, a worthy addition, indeed. A link to the original source would have sufficed. Citing sources would have been a good plus, too; it would have put the information in proper context; it's a standard and hallmark of good journalism.
Regurgitating the connotation-laced buzz words as one's own...meh.
Scottrey
2:25 pm on Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Labels? like "This is more or less a regurgitation of GOP market-tested buzz words and talking points" You may not called him the name but you sure labelled him.
"My commentary points out the weakness and bias of the original commentary" Which means you can say you're wrong but then offer no reason why. That doesn't point out anything.
Dave Loebig
12:57 pm on Wednesday, April 18, 2012
One correction to acknowledge that he did cite "Statistics compiled form The Internal Revenue Service by the Tax Foundation".
But
"These people arguing to soak the rich"
"are not going to be helped financially by a hike in taxes on our job creators."
"job creators"....who says they're job creators. Cite the source.
"evil rich people" ...who said that, or who said somebody said that?
"class warfare" ...who said that, or who said somebody said that? Or make the case that's what it is.
"America does not have classification of it's people."...according to whom?
"93.3% of the total federal tax burden was paid by those making over $50,000 a year, for a total tax rate of 14.1 percent."...this doesn't even seem significant to me. It groups $50k with million- and billion-dollar earners. What authority says this is a significant, relevant stat?
Scottrey
2:30 pm on Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Talk about nothing original. Just plain regurgitation of the left's talking points.
I hope you're kidding about ""America does not have classification of it's people."...according to whom?" We do not live a class structured civilization, unless you're one of the serfs.
Plus all the rest of points are all over the news, why do you not hear it?
Dave Loebig
5:37 pm on Thursday, April 19, 2012
My words are about the piece, not him. My words stand on their own. Any inference you draw about the person is mostly your responsibility. My comments have been about the words he and you have written.
"Which means you can say you're wrong but then offer no reason why. That doesn't point out anything." What does this mean? Please clarify.
"Just plain regurgitation...." When did "the left" (whomever you mean) make comments about J. Brown's lack of citations and the weakness in his post? I've cited specifics, all on my own. My own thoughts and ideas. Tadaa.
And comparing his piece to any "regurgitation" makes my point. Thanks. I agree. It's comparable to other regurgitation of talking points.
America has classes. Ask economists.
"why do you not hear it?" This is begging the question...yet another fallacy. To say, suggest or indicate that "I do not hear it" is to bear false witness.
I, in fact, hear it...mostly from GOP pols and agenda driven activists. My knowledge of such things is a premise inherent in my comments; however, it wasn't explicit. It is now.
But the issue isn't me; the issue is the original piece. When buzz words and talking points are used in better, less biased pieces, the sources are cited and proper context is provided. This post did very little of that and didn't add much, if anything.
FOOTNOTE: Oops...looks like I posted something twice at 12:44 and 12:46. My apologies.