"Obama Can Kiss My Ass"

[Darth Do'Urden]

Preach it.

[~Barn~]

[JKOL]

I was wondering if his remarks were taken out of context in order to get a quote that serves someones agenda, as both parties love to do, but after reading his statement, it is sad that he thinks small businesses owe everything to someone else. That said, I don't find it the least bit shocking he thinks that.

[DFab]

Pretty sure the trucks that haul the lumber into his business drive on the national highway system that was built and maintained primarily by government which was Obama's point when he said "you didn't build that". Of course understanding that would require reading the quote in context.

[Ghosty]

I'm still trying to figure out how Obama has stifled entreprenuership (sp?) and small business in the last four years. Specific NEW acts, laws, etc. since Bush? Happy to hear any counter-argument to both the "you didn't build that" and "private sector is doing fine" comments, imo taken out of context by folks with little common sense...

Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. <snip below> The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

His HUGE mistake was here, should've reworded it to something like, "You didn't build that alone. Somebody else helped make that happen too.":

If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

Understandably pissing off a lot of people, oops.

[Snowman]

Pretty sure the trucks that haul the lumber into his business drive on the national highway system that was built and maintained primarily by government which was Obama's point when he said "you didn't build that". Of course understanding that would require reading the quote in context.

Not to mention how many trees that were harvested on National Forest land.

[JKOL]

Wow, my eyes are finally open. My personal success has nothing to do with the 60-70 hours I work each week. I owe everything I have to someone else because I drive on the highway.

[Ghosty]

My personal success has nothing to do with the 60-70 hours I work each week. I owe everything I have to someone else because I drive on the highway.

Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what he meant. /sarcasm

Try broadening your scope a bit, use a 10,000ft. view. Especially considering he ALSO worked 60-70hrs week with no handouts, raised by a poor single mother, achieved his success and education on his own intelligence, merits, and hard work. Notice he mentioned teachers, the infrastructure, the Internet, etc...

[Rhino]

Pretty sure the trucks that haul the lumber into his business drive on the national highway system that was built and maintained primarily by government which was Obama's point when he said "you didn't build that". Of course understanding that would require reading the quote in context.

And those trucks are probably the highest taxed vehicles in the free world. Also most regulated and highly fined for infractions. As well as expensive to plate. Not to mention every gallon of fuel has around $.42+ in taxes that pay for the roads.
But the idea that if not for the .gov the roads wouldn't exist is B.S. The railroads of the old days were private and market driven. The roads in the forests for logging, where no roads existed are now privately made and maintained.

I'm still trying to figure out how Obama has stifled entreprenuership (sp?) and small business in the last four years. Specific NEW acts, laws, etc. since Bush? Happy to hear any counter-argument to both the "you didn't build that" and "private sector is doing fine" comments, imo taken out of context by folks with little common sense...

There has been the looming threat of higher taxes since day one. This statement shows his underlying beliefs. If you have a business and make money, you OWE us. You don't deserve to profit from your risk, you need to divide that among everyone around you, through the means of taxes and redistribution. Right after we take a cut of course.

As a small business owner, the .gov is the BIGGEST hurdle and roadblock to growth. Most everyone is content to go to work for someone else everyday and then bitch about profits, etc while never having to take a single risk. I can't speak for CEO's making millions, but I can speak of payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, health insurance costs, liability insurance, OSHA, self-employment taxes and all the other fun that goes with trying to work for yourself or having employees.

For what every employee "makes", their burden is likely double in most cases.

But feel free to tell me how the 47% who pay no taxes and the ones collecting a check every month...including the now 47,000,000 ...about 1 in 6, on food stamps are going to make this country and economy thrive.

Max out your tax deductions and see how fun it is to write a check for your "fair" share April 15th.

[~Barn~]

Those with the thinnest skin and an inability to read between the lines of an (admittedly poorly spoken) comment, make the best signs.

EDIT: The truth is... CUSTOMERS build (or break) businesses. Personally, I have no qualms with this guys opinion, even if I do think it's ignorant. His bottom line will tell the story of whether or not it was worth the trouble, depending on how well it's received by his CUSTOMERS.

[Ghosty]

Good food for thought Rhino, thanks. I can't speak for small business taxes, but my own personal income taxes don't seem out of whack for a single guy who makes quite a bit less than six figures. Pretty much isn't all of that beaurocratic bullshit, red-tape, and taxes, all the SAME shit that's been in place hampering small businesses for decades now?

What's that 47%, the poorest rung on the ladder? Did Obama expand the existing welfare system to make it easier to game? What policy has he implemented to increase the welfare roles? I'm just asking, not shit-talking.

[dirkterrell]

I can't speak for CEO's making millions, but I can speak of payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, health insurance costs, liability insurance, OSHA, self-employment taxes and all the other fun that goes with trying to work for yourself or having employees.

That's the main reason I sold my business and came out here to work for a bigger institution. I just got tired of spending so much time dealing with all the bullshit of paperwork and accounting to satisfy various government entities. I've got better things to do with my time.

[Rhino]

Good food for thought Rhino, thanks. I can't speak for small business taxes, but my own personal income taxes don't seem out of whack for a single guy who makes quite a bit less than six figures.

What's that 47%, the poorest rung on the ladder? Did Obama expand the existing welfare system to make it easier to game? What policy has he implemented to increase the welfare roles? I'm just asking, not shit-talking.

I'm not going to dig up the official IRS pages again, but basically, of the people who make an income, not kids, not the elderly, but people who earn, 47% either pay no taxes or get money back from things like the Earned income credit, etc. That's the thing I laugh at when the Occutards talk about people not paying their "fair" share. Most people apparently believe that their fair share is nothing. And it's not necessarily the "poorest rung", but people who utilize deductions. This of course doesn't include the able bodied people who sit at home on welfare or b.s. disability.

Did he expand the system? Well food stamps jumped like 12 million in the last 3 years. A week ago, the department suffered major backlash, as they were running spanish speaking ads based on spanish soap operas trying to get people into the program. The criticism was that it was targeting illegals to get on the dole.

And a week or 2 ago, he did an executive order to remove the "work" requirement to continue receiving welfare. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...9XkW_blog.html
Basically killed the "welfare reform" that was enacted in 1996 by Clinton.

Work is for sukkas.

[Ghosty]

That's the thing I laugh at when the Occutards talk about people not paying their "fair" share.

Semi-related side-note, take it or leave it. Concerning the Occupy (mostly tards, but some actual reasonable ideals & gripes, imo). I'm not a huge supporter, but this guy brings up some very valid points. More pertinant than the stupid stuff we're fed from the news. Read the whole thing, because the second half is the kicker...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1...to-that-53-Guy

[Rhino]

Semi-related side-note, take it or leave it. Concerning the Occupy (mostly tards, but some actual reasonable ideals & gripes, imo). I'm not a huge supporter, but this guy brings up some very valid points. More pertinant than the stupid stuff we're fed from the news. Read the whole thing, because the second half is the kicker...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/1...to-that-53-Guy

There's obviously more than one "American Dream". Some people want to invest time and hard work and others want to be taken care of cradle to the grave. The 53%er hopefully isn't going to work those hours forever, and they will pay off in the long run...until he gets his tax bill for being successful.

But the self admitted "liberal" spells it out. He wants free healthcare for the lazy, junkies, etc. and HE doesn't mind paying for it with his taxes. He doesn't mention his income status, but I'm betting he isn't paying enough to cover 1 other person's "free" stuff. 3 years ago, a single mother w/ 4 kids on Aurora's section 8 housing got $1500/month. Plus free healthcare, school, food stamps, welfare money, etc. Do you think she's worried about saving for "retirement"?

His throwback to the good ol days American Dream doesn't work. Yeah, in leave it to beaver days, the dad worked, mom at home, 2 kids, white picket fence, etc. But it isn't like that anymore and it never will be. With globalization, Americans are already the highest paid. What is his answer? Raise wages? We lose the ability to compete (more than we have already) Raise taxes? That will drive businesses away and limit growth.

Maybe in the days of 90% taxes, there was more patriotism in the upper crust, but I'd chalk it up to less waste. Most wouldn't mind paying for things that help the general good, but compare the .gov of then and now. What was primarily infrastructure and military is now "welfare". Redistribution. An article the other day noted that we were spending .30 of every dollar on infrastructure back then, now less than .06. But by 2030, we'll be spending .64 of every dollar on entitlement programs; Medicare, welfare, food stamps, etc.

To me, that's what Obama represents. "Free everything" except for those who have to pay for it.

While I don't use Atlas Shrugged as a life guide, it's a close parallel to what we have today. Producers vs. looters (politicians) and moochers. The idea of them burdening the producers to the point that it's not worth it. In one part, the guy who ran a successful oil company burns everything to the ground, leaving only a sign. "I am leaving it as I found it. Take over. It's yours."

More of a statement than a sign in saying kiss my ass, huh?

[Ghost]

That's the thing I laugh at when the Occutards talk about people not paying their "fair" share. Most people apparently believe that their fair share is nothing. And it's not necessarily the "poorest rung", but people who utilize deductions.

Right, it's not all the "poorest rung" who utilize deductions:

Every hour so far in 2012, the five largest oil corporations have recorded a $14,400,000 profit. And every hour, they received more than $270,000 in federal tax breaks. That adds up to $2.4 billion in subsidies every year for the five largest oil corporations — Royal Dutch Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, and ConocoPhillips — all ranked as the top 9 companies in the world.

Even though BP posted an unexpected second-quarter loss, these five companies are on track to meet last year’s record profits. Put these numbers into context, and they are not so “disappointing“: Big Oil profits more in one minute than what 96 percent of American households earn in one year. Even so, Mitt Romney and House Republicans want to double what the five companies receive in federal tax breaks to $12.8 million per day, even though the three publicly owned U.S. companies paid an average tax rate of under 17 percent.

Last year, Citizens for Tax Justice found that 30 major corporations had made billions of dollars in profits while paying no federal income tax between 2008 and 2010. Today, CTJ updated that report to reflect the 2011 tax bill of those 30 companies, and 26 of them have still managed to pay absolutely nothing over that four year period:

– 26 of the 30 companies continued to enjoy negative federal income tax rates. That means they still made more money after tax than before tax over the four years!
– Of the remaining four companies, three paid four year effective tax rates of less than 4 percent
(specifically, 0.2%, 2.0% and 3.8%). One company paid a 2008-11 tax rate of 10.9 percent.
– In total, 2008-11 federal income taxes for the 30 companies remained negative, despite $205 billion in pretax U.S. profits. Overall, they enjoyed an average effective federal income tax rate of –3.1 percent over the four years.

Amongst the 30 are corporate titans such as General Electric, Boeing, Verizon, and Mattel. The only four companies that slipped into positive tax territory were DTE Energy, Honeywell, Wells Fargo, and DuPont, with DuPont the only one that paid more than 4 percent over the four years.
Corporate taxes in the U.S., contrary to the constant protestations of conservatives, are at a 40 year low, with many of the most profitable companies paying nothing at all. CTJ noted that “had these 30 companies paid the full 35 percent corporate tax rate over the 2008-11 period, they would have paid $78.3 billion more in federal income taxes.” And this is not a problem that only afflicts the U.S., as the UK found out last week that online retailer Amazon made billions in sales in 2011, while paying nothing in corporate taxes.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...xes-four-year/

Between 2008 and 2011, 26 major American corporations paid no net federal income taxes despite bringing in billions in profits, according to a new report (PDF) from the nonprofit research group Citizens for Tax Justice. CTJ calculates that if the companies had paid the full 35 percent corporate tax rate, they would have put more than $78 billion into government coffers.

Here's a look at the 10 most profitable tax evaders and the politicians their CEOs, employees, and PACs give the most money to.
Verizon Communications
Profits: $19.8 billion Effective tax rate: -3.8%

General Electric
Profits: $19.6 billion Effective tax rate: -18.9%

Boeing
Profits: $14.8 billion Effective tax rate: -5.5%

NextEra Energy: North America's largest solar and wind power operator, based in Florida
Profits: $8.8 billion Effective tax rate: -2%

American Electric Power: Electric utility based in Columbus, Ohio
Profits: $8.2 billion Effective tax rate: -6.4%

Pacific Gas & Electric: California electrical utility
Profits: $6 billion Effective tax rate: -8.4%

Apache: Houston-based oil and gas company
Profits: $6 billion Effective tax rate: -0.3%

Consolidated Edison: New York energy company
Profits: $5.9 billion Effective tax rate: -1.3%

El Paso: Houston-based energy company that operates the country's largest natural gas pipeline
Profits: $4.6 billion Effective tax rate: -0.9%

CenterPoint Energy: Electric and gas utility company based in Houston
Profits: $3.1 billion Effective tax rate: -11.3%

Even Romney, with his offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands, paid nearly $3 million in taxes on the $21.7 million he made in 2010.

In contrast, there are those U.S.-based multinationals that Citizens for Tax Justice dubbed the “Dirty 30”: behemoths that collectively earned tens of billions in profits between 2008 and 2010 but paid no taxes during that three-year period. These companies “so deftly exploited carve outs and loopholes in the tax code that all but one of them enjoyed a negative tax rate”—that is, they received money back from the U.S. Treasury.

The Dirty 30 have spent millions to get the tax code the way it is, and will likely spend millions more to keep it that way. In the three years studied by Citizens for Tax Justice, the 30 spent nearly half a billion dollars on lobbying Congress.

They’ve certainly profited from the friendly tax code. Together the 30, which include Wells Fargo, Mattel, Verizon, GE, and other well-known corporate brands, collected $10.6 billion in tax rebates during the three years Citizens for Tax Justice studied. Many of the companies on the list claim tax rebates while avoiding taxes altogether by parking profits in overseas shelters.

In total, the top 30 companies dodged $67.9 billion in taxes over three years, costs that are passed on to American taxpayers and small businesses that lack the teams of tax analysts necessary to exploit loopholes in the code. “Spread out over every individual tax filer in America, the taxes avoided by the Dirty Thirty break down to an average of $481 per taxpayer over the three years,” according to Citizens for Tax Justice.

"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes," billionaire hotelier Leona Helmsley famously (and allegedly) sniffed. She wasn't entirely correct: The superrich do still pay taxes. The wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers pay 32 percent of all income tax collected by the federal government.

But the superrich don't pay as much as they used to—and thanks to a combination of tax cuts and preferential tax policies, their tax obligations can be less demanding than the so-called little people's. In fact, the very wealthiest Americans' tax burden has been steadily dropping for years, even as they've enjoyed astounding income growth not seen by the vast majority of Americans.


Tax rates for the wealthy have fallen substantially since they peaked in the 1940s. During the past 30 years, they have been cut at a much faster rate than middle- and low-income taxpayers'.



Just how much of a windfall are tax cuts for the wealthy? The extension of the Bush tax cuts passed last year will provide $146,000 in annual tax savings, on average, to each of the wealthiest 0.1% of Americans.



The superrich get an additional boost from relatively low tax rates on capital gains. Income from long-term investments, which makes up a larger portion of wealthier taxpayers' incomes than middle- and low-income taxpayers', is taxed at lower rates than wages.



Payroll taxes (deductions for Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance) are mostly paid by the bottom 90 percent of earners. When they're factored in on top of income tax, the gap between the tax rates at the very top and everyone else shrinks even more—so much that the effective tax rate for people earning more than $370,000 is nearly the same as for those earning between $43,000 and $69,000 a year.


Payroll taxes now make up nearly as much of federal tax revenue as individual income tax. Meanwhile, revenues from corporate taxes have decreased significantly over the past 50 years.


Corporations exploit various loopholes and tax breaks to reduce their IRS bills—perhaps none more notoriously than General Electric. Though the corporate tax rate is 35%, GE has paid nothing near that for nearly a decade.


Leona Helmsley's distaste for paying taxes eventually landed her in federal prison. But the rich have little need to break the law to avoid the tax collector. As Martin A. Sullivan of Tax.com recently calculated, a New York janitor making slightly more than $33,000 a year pays an effective tax rate of nearly 25%. And the effective tax rate for a resident of the Park Avenue building named after Helmsley, earning an average of $1.2 million annually? A cool 14.7%.


More Mother Jones charty goodness: 11 charts that explain America's income gap; how the rich get richer; how the poor get poorer; and who owns Congress?

Sources
Share of taxes: Tax Policy Center
Top 400 taxpayers: IRS (PDF)
Falling tax rates: Remapping Debate
Bush tax cuts: Tax Policy Center (PDF)
Income vs. capital gains: IRS: Income tax rates (PDF); capital gains tax rates
Effective tax rates: Tax Policy Center
Source of tax revenues: Senate Joint Committee on Taxation (PDF)
GE taxes: ProPublica
Janitor vs. millionaire: Tax.com

But, please, do go on about how it's the lack of taxation on the poor that's somehow ruining this country...

[Ghosty]

Right, it's not all the "poorest rung" who utilize deductions:

But, please, do go on about how it's the lack of taxation on the poor that's somehow ruining this country...

BUT, BUT, BUT... all those kazillionaire behemoth robber-baron companies are "THE JOB CREATORS"! Except when Obama is killing all the jobs in the same breath.

[CraigB]

One thing is irrefutable: this represents the biggest speech writing blunder since someone told Bush to use the word crusade in the context of the middle east.

[~Barn~]

I think this was more of a freestyling goof-up on Barack's part, than it was somebody crafting a stupid passage in a speech. Even the best orators have their occasional what-I-was-trying-to-say-was... moments.

What makes me chuckle is how something so brief and particular, can get so distilled, dissected, and amplified so much, during the closing months of a Presidential election year. Nobody can ever accuse these guys of not having a passion for defeating the opposition.

[Ghosty]

Thank God the bottomless-wallet GOP SuperPAC's have eased up on the "The private sector is doing fine" commercials. Ugh, those were driving me batty! I see much more and frequent crapola from the Romney camp than I do from the Obama camp, imo. Even if both are guilty.

[Rhino]

I think this was more of a freestyling goof-up on Barack's part, than it was somebody crafting a stupid passage in a speech. Even the best orators have their occasional what-I-was-trying-to-say-was... moments.

What makes me chuckle is how something so brief and particular, can get so distilled, dissected, and amplified so much, during the closing months of a Presidential election year. Nobody can ever accuse these guys of not having a passion for defeating the opposition.

Go back and watch some of the Obama vs. Hillary ads from 2008. Then realize that he paid $700 million dollars on a campaign to win a job that pays $400k.

And Ghost, it isn't so much taxing the "poor", as it is defining the word FAIR. "I pay nothing but those who pay for everything already don't pay enough" is a fucked up battle cry. I've argued for the Fair tax before, a consumption tax if you will. Much more simple than the current tax codes at 13,458 pages. But those companies pay accountants to find the loopholes and pay lobbyists to get politicians to give them those breaks. I'm pretty sure the .gov made more per gallon in tax than the oil companies made in profit. Why would they want to slow that industry?

My biggest gripe has always been the ones who take and take and then take some more. Doing service work for investor's rentals that were section 8, I got to see the abuse of the system. I also got to see that for every hour I worked, 20 minutes was taken from me to help pay for these people to live 'free". Once I became a landlord, I got the actual numbers and it is mind boggling what people get for "free". But if you dare suggest that if someone is not in a financially secure and upward place in life, they probably shouldn't have kids, then you're an elitist, racist, etc. Common sense is so rare it should be a fucking super power.

Yeah, we bailed the banks out to prevent a market wide crash. I didn't like it, but I'd say it fell under the "General Welfare" clause that the .gov is actually supposed to take care of. Last I saw, most of the money had been fully paid back, as well as the treasury dept actually made a few billion in profit. How much of the trillion ($1,000,000,000,000 for emphasis) per year in entitlements is ever going to be paid back? $0 Currently they only take in about 2.5 trillion and spend 3.7. What would that 78 billion from those companies do? Not a damn thing but line the pockets of someone at Solyndra.

Nothing we have now is "fair" and none of the "free" stuff is free.

[Ghosty]

Just remember folks, EVERYONE (who isn't a douche), including Libs, Repubs, & Liberts alike, ALL HATE people who game the welfare system, are lazy, not pounding pavement daily to find work, still haven't figured out contraception, etc.

The question is what percentage of welfare recipients fit that category vs. who are actually hurting, not lazy, trying to find work, not gaming the system, DESERVE a hand up, don't want a hand-out. And what the welfare budget is compared to the many other inflated wasteful government departments. I use to be a gung-ho peace-through-strength supporter of our giant military complex. But I've since tempered my opinions based on how ridiculously bloated the defense department & social security debacle is. Look at all the slices on the big pie chart, then see which one needs pruning more. The small percentage of people who "game welfare" seems neglible.

[~Barn~]

Go back and watch some of the Obama vs. Hillary ads from 2008. Then realize that he paid $700 million dollars on a campaign to win a job that pays $400k. <SNIP...>

Oh, I don't doubt it; it's a pretty prestigious and powerful "job" to attain though. I doubt that any who truly give it a run, are in it for the income.

[mdub]

there is a certain time in some folks who have the money can care less of the financial bank-roll. just want the power....look who is running for the republicans....