To nobody's surprise (if you've been paying attention), Obama's claim that millionaires like Warren Buffett aren't paying their fair share is just another lie.

However, this lie is being used to try and spend more billions we simply don't have on a jobs bill that is unlikely to make any more difference to the economy than the previous stimulus did.

It's just more class warfare rhetoric (not math) from the folks who love to divide this country.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904194604576580800735800830.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

Didn't take long for people to realize the lie:

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/presidential_prevarication_32ZrcC7SQqukPJPiKVthGM

Even the AP picked up on this pretty quick, which means that this info is available to every news outlet in America: TV, print, etc. So we can expect George Stephanopolous, Diane Sawyer, Brian Williams, etc etc, to mention this on their evening news shows?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iP3lhS4ZQ-UhyUvFfUgdPCiu-jJA?docId=47a565563a294b2bad96544a7f0ddc1b

Anyone with any common sense knew he was lying when he said that.

jmog;905687 wrote:Anyone with any common sense knew he was lying when he said that.

Ty can you please reply

jhay78;905567 wrote:Even the AP picked up on this pretty quick....

Yes it did. To say I'm shocked that a MSM outlet would call the Bammer out on something like this tells me that the Anointed One is in some serious, serious trouble. The 2012 campaign is the Republican candidate's race to lose.

Thank God for the WSJ.

believer;905806 wrote:Yes it did. To say I'm shocked that a MSM outlet would call the Bammer out on something like this tells me that the Anointed One is in some serious, serious trouble. The 2012 campaign is the Republican candidate's race to lose.

Not according to pretty much every public medium and not according to the master of Republican politics himself.....Karl Rove

Ty Webb;905837 wrote:Not according to pretty much every public medium and not according to the master of Republican politics himself.....Karl Rove

Now there is a reliable, un-biased source for information......the MSM.

Is Fox News biased roward the President? They have his lead over Perry at 5

Ty you are funny, completely ignore the question in the thread and the topic of the thread.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/generic_presidential_ballot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot

General republican 47%, Obama 42%.

You and I both know that before a republican candidate is even nominated comparing individual polls is retarded because of the fact that most average people don't even know the republican candidates right now.

Ty's ignoring the topic at-hand because he doesn't want to admit Obama is the stinking liar he's always been. :laugh:

So the Wall Street Journal opines that their exclusive club members pay a higher percentage than the Joe Shmos of the world. Yawn. What the WSJ doesn't tell you in this piece is that the gap bwtween the uktra wealthy and the weekly grunts have grown exponentially over the past 30 years.

Now I'm sure many on here will throw out the term "class warfarist" here. But class warfare works both ways. It takes two to fight a war.

In a perfect utopian system, we could all find good paying jobs in our particular area of interest, and we would all remain employed and be productive members to society.

But that's not reality...and the reality is that we now have the highest poverty rate (15.3%) since the Great Depression in our own country. Concommitantly, we have the most on welfare, food stamps, and medicaid. Our unemployment true numbers reflect 17%.

So where does the money come from in balancing a budget? Are we not 15 trillion in debt? Or is it in fact true that money as we know it...at least paper money is really not worth the paper it was printed on...excuse the pun.

Does it bother me that the CEO's of investment banks are making 60 million per year once again....after being at the very least partially responsible for the economic meltdown in 08? Yeah, somewhat. But what's more troubling is that these high rollers enjoy fleecing America and more importantly Americans, in investing in firms off shore, to further grow their fat wallets.

Conservatives like to rail on the Warren Buffets and George Soroses of the world for being hypocritical...well the conservatives have a new punching bag....Mark Cuban...who apes the same line about his selected elite class that do not re-invest in America...and are pretty gluttonous in their greed.

But back to the WSJ for a second......the gist of the article is nothing more than a crying towel for the graduated income tax rates.....well, since the onset of income tax in the 1910's (I know, there was some taxation during the Civil War, but it ended quickly) we have always had an escalating tax rate...with the higher earners paying more. The 39% highest bracket today pales in comparison to the period from 1946 through 1962, where the heavy hitters were socked at a 91% tax rate....and....the American economy boooomed.

I find this article laden with tax warfare rhetoric...whereby the Wall Streeters are at war with the middle class. I say....fug 'em.

Hey Footy, you read the others or just the WSJ? You do realize the numbers/statistics actually came from the IRS and CBO right?

jmog;905868 wrote:Ty you are funny, completely ignore the question in the thread and the topic of the thread.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/generic_presidential_ballot/election_2012_generic_presidential_ballot

General republican 47%, Obama 42%.

You and I both know that before a republican candidate is even nominated comparing individual polls is retarded because of the fact that most average people don't even know the republican candidates right now.

Polls againist generic candidates don't mean shit....it's polls againist named canidates are the ones that matter...period

Writerbuckeye;905893 wrote:Ty's ignoring the topic at-hand because he doesn't want to admit Obama is the stinking liar he's always been.

He's not a liar.....I trust Warren Buffett's opinion on this than anyone who is currently discussing it

Well....according to Mitt Romney....the middle class is people who make between 1.9 and 2.1 million

jmog;905912 wrote:Hey Footy, you read the others or just the WSJ? You do realize the numbers/statistics actually came from the IRS and CBO right?

I never questioned the source nor the numbers. The article stated that the wealthiest pay 23% and the next class down pay 24%...on average. So the WSJ is admitting that...according to the charts....that we really don't have a true graduated tax structure.

Ty Webb;905924 wrote:He's not a liar.....I trust Warren Buffett's opinion on this than anyone who is currently discussing it

So, you trust one man, Warren Buffet over actual statistics from the IRS and the CBO? You can't be that blinded by the liberals can you?

jmog;906085 wrote:So, you trust one man, Warren Buffet over actual statistics from the IRS and the CBO? You can't be that blinded by the liberals can you?

Perhaps you haven't met: jmog, this is Gibby...:laugh:

Footwedge;905935 wrote:I never questioned the source nor the numbers. The article stated that the wealthiest pay 23% and the next class down pay 24%...on average. So the WSJ is admitting that...according to the charts....that we really don't have a true graduated tax structure.

I agree that anamoly should be "fixed", but the statement is still a lie, he said millionaires/billionaires were paying less than the middle class. He didn't say they were paying less than the "regular" rich.

Average tax rates by bracket (IRS Numbers):

Top 1% - 23.3%
Top 1-5% - 17.2%
Top 5-10% - 12.4%
Top 10-25% - 9.2%
Top 25-50% - 6.8%
Bottom 50% - 2.6%

The "Buffet Rule" is a lie, plain and simple. Class dismissed.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

Footwedge;905903 wrote:The 39% highest bracket today pales in comparison to the period from 1946 through 1962, where the heavy hitters were socked at a 91% tax rate....and....the American economy boooomed.

What was happening between 1946 and 1962? Oh that's right, the American economy was transitioning from a war time economy to a consumer economy.

The economy booooomed, not because of tax rates, but because American industrial might was pretty much the only game in town in a world still struggling to rebound from the devastation of WWII.

Apples to oranges.

fish82;906091 wrote:Average tax rates by bracket (IRS Numbers):

Top 1% - 23.3%
Top 1-5% - 17.2%
Top 5-10% - 12.4%
Top 10-25% - 9.2%
Top 25-50% - 6.8%
Bottom 50% - 2.6%

The "Buffet Rule" is a lie, plain and simple. Class dismissed.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

This.

And I believe when marginal rates were as high as 90% that the govt collected among it's lowest percent of GDP historically (something like 15%). You raise taxes the rich just defer income. You can get a bit more on the margin, the idea that raising taxes is going to magically solve a trillion+ deficit is idiocy. Raising an additional 3 trillion or so over 10 years by soaking the rich more isn't going to help the debt when it will grow an additional 6 trillion or so (and probably more) over that same time.

gut;906448 wrote:And I believe when marginal rates were as high as 90% that the govt collected among it's lowest percent of GDP historically (something like 15%). You raise taxes the rich just defer income. You can get a bit more on the margin, the idea that raising taxes is going to magically solve a trillion+ deficit is idiocy. Raising an additional 3 trillion or so over 10 years by soaking the rich more isn't going to help the debt when it will grow an additional 6 trillion or so (and probably more) over that same time.

No one is saying that it will solve the deficit alone or that it's magic. But the idea that lower taxes are always better and are a magic economy saver is just as, if not more, idiotic.

Ty Webb;905861 wrote:Is Fox News biased roward the President? They have his lead over Perry at 5

Ty Webb;905923 wrote:Polls againist generic candidates don't mean ****....it's polls againist named canidates are the ones that matter...period

I wouldn't expect anything less from you. The Republican field hasn't even been narrowed down yet and the election is still over a year away and Obama has that small of a lead? That is bad news for Obama no matter how you cut it. What do you think will happen when people that support say Romney or Bachman will do when/if Perry gets the nomination? they will shift support giving him even more supporters. Plus, what happens when/if Perry starts debating Obama? Obama has a small lead and it's over a year away and Perry doesn't even have the nom........Obama is screwed next election.

Not too mention you have all but guaranteed his re-election and we saw how your guarantees worked in November and last football season against OSU.