BO needs to pay his fair share!!!

YOU guarantee that YOU are more truthful? O.K. I also guarantee that I am more truthful. I just love these pointless semantic tangents you are so fond of.

But the basic point was that the 1% are doing fine under Obama that dreaded Socialist Commie that you guys keep saying he is.

 

This is a silly thread.

For starters just what IS a fair share for President Obama to pay under current tax laws? Apparently about 20.3%.

Is the man rich? I'd say so.
Is he stupid? No.

A stupid man would hire the worst accountants possible to pay more. A smart man, who is rich and can afford the best accountants, would hire them and pay as little as legally possible.

How is it that President Obama can pay such a low percentage? Well, it's the way the laws are and as far as I know he hasn't had a great affect on them.
Kind of tough to do when you have the right wing protecting all the rich folks. In essence they helped Obama on that one.
THEN they want to complain that he didn't pay enough?

Honestly folks. I've heard a lot of people moan about paying too much in taxes but have yet to hear someone say "I didn't pay enough so I'm sending more than I'm supposed to".

As for YOU StuJoe.

You realize your statement may put you at risk of being hated by David FOUR times as much as President Obama don't you?
Sleep on that one amigo!

 

Still can't read English, can you? Regardless, YOUR reference backed up MY version. How very interesting!

 

NO! You still can't read English! Regardless YOUR reference backed up MY version. How very interesting!

You're right Clembo, this is a silly thread.

 

So now you cannot even admit you were wrong. As I expected.

 

In that case, you did a miserable job of marshaling your rhetoric. What do you think is President Obama's "fair share," then?

 

I can admit that YOU are wrong. But EVERYONE expects that.

 

....or your comprehension skills are lacking...

 

Could be. In the title of this thread I see "pay his fair share" followed by three exclamation points. It would seem that this is an issue you think is important. So I ask again, what do you think is President Obama's "fair share" of taxes?

 

I think the "fair share" question is better answered by an Obama apologist. See, this thread was intended to mock BO's hypocrisy. He has made the comparison of the tax rates Warren Buffet pays as opposed to his secretary (ad naseum) so I pointed out how the President of the United States, a multi-millionaire, pays a lower tax rate than I do, a regular middle class guy. Pure & simple hypocrisy....and the fact a couple of these fools around here will justify BO's tax rate (and ignore the "fair share" bumper sticker mantra he spews at every opportunity) is absolutely amazing.
How can you applaud/reconcile what BO says in public about "fair share" then defend him for taking advantage of the exact same system?

 

An "Obama apologist"? Why anyone would feel the need to apologize for him, due to your opinion of him, is beyond me. Even without your obviously biased beliefs being presented I can honestly say that I'm not aware of anyone on this site that fits the description of being one. However, I'll take a shot at answering your question, which was:

My answer is "Yes."

Now, seeing as how you believe Obama's effective tax rate (20.5 %) is somehow "unfair", and the fact that your soon-to-be-candidate Romney's effective tax rate (13.9 %) is significantly lower than the President's, would it be accurate to say you are incensed with Romney far more than Obama? If so, why haven't you stated it?

 

To answer your question, I'll refer you to clembo's post...specifically the part of following the law. I have no problem with Romney's filing, as long as it followed the law. I would have no problem with BO's return, if it followed the law.
Here's the rub: Romney isn't being hypocritical and speaking out against the system while taking advantage of it personally.
I wonder if 20.5% is what BO considers one's "fair share"?

What was that moen was saying about living your private life contrary to what you espouse in public?

 

Well, there is this...

Ryan’s new plan is in lockstep with Romney’s radical budget plan. Here’s a look at how both Ryan and Romney pursue the same policies that endanger the security of seniors and middle-class families in order to make sure millionaires and billionaires get tax cuts.
Privatize Medicare

• Ryan: The Ryan plan would turn Medicare into a voucher program, in which seniors would be left with a voucher that they could use to buy private insurance. Ryan claims that traditional Medicare would remain an option for seniors, but in reality, private plans would cherry pick healthy enrollees, driving up costs for the older and less healthy people with Medicare.
• Romney: Romney would also turn Medicare into a voucher program. Similar proposals would force seniors to pay $6,350 more in out-of-pocket expenses each year. And because he wants to repeal the health care law, he would increase payments to insurance companies by $100 billion, and deplete the Medicare trust fund by 2016. Like Ryan, Romney claims that traditional Medicare would remain an option for seniors—but we know the reality is his plan would drive up costs for those on the program.

Cuts to Medicaid and health coverage

• Ryan: Ryan’s plan repeals health reform and cuts over $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next 10 years. Such cuts will deny coverage up to 60 million people, including low-income children, pregnant women, nursing home patients, and people with disabilities.
• Romney: Romney also wants to repeal health reform and cut over $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade. His plan would deny coverage to up to 53 million people, including low-income children, pregnant women, nursing home patients, and people with disabilities.

Cuts to middle-class investments

• Ryan: Ryan’s plan would slash education spending, infrastructure spending, and investments in clean energy and scientific and medical research funding—all of which would cost jobs and affect the future for middle-class families.
• Romney: Romney’s promise to blindly balance the budget would require deeper cuts to all domestic programs than Ryan’s plan.

But both Ryan and Romney made sure to protect the people they think matter most: the wealthy. Ryan and Romney extend the Bush tax cuts for the top income earners. Ryan provides trillions more in tax rate cuts that benefit the rich without explaining how he’ll pay for them, and Romney provides $5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy without specifying how he’ll pay for them. And while Ryan rolls back key protections in the Wall Street Reform law meant to help prevent future financial crises and bailouts of Wall Street, Romney repeals all of the Wall Street Reform law, even though a repeal doesn’t offer any budget savings.
Romney and Ryan have congratulated each other on each other’s plans. But when it comes to supporting America’s middle class, the plans offer nothing to celebrate.

 

...and BO's budget plan is what, again?

 

Dead on arrival in the House as usual.

 

So, just to clarify, you haven't stated your belief that Romney's ETR (13.9%) is unfair because it's legal?

How did Obama break the law?

His comments about the need to change parts of the system doesn't rub me the wrong way, I have no issue with them. The law says you pay X-amount, you pay X-amount. I don't consider Obama's comments on the system hypocritical.

You mean the new guy? I believe that was in reference to the Kennedy family's involvement in both public generosities and private misdeeds. If you are suggesting that there is a corrolation between Obama's ETR and public statements for changes in the tax system ...and the Kennedy's public and private behaviors... it is a superficial one at best, and IMO, it's essentially non-existant.

 

How many dems voted for it?

 

House? What was the vote in the Senate?

 

...(sighs)... "...and then what happened?"...

 

Did BO even get a single democrat to vote in favor of his budget?
Obstruction! Obstruction!