Jackson Jambalaya

Unbelievable! The scary part is that Obama really believes this stuff. The man has an utter and total lack of understanding of markets, free enterprise and the benefits of capitalism.

God help this country if we elect this socialist, communist, idiot named Hussein Obama, again. If we do, this country deserves the all the crap that comes our way. Wake up people.

I read conservative blogs to avoid being brainwashed by the liberal Kool-Aid. Y'all on the right should act correspondingly; it would save you some embarrassment (those of you who can be embarrassed by the facts).

What did Obama actually say? Let's turn to the by-no-means-liberal Will Wikinson at the Economist (itself no liberal rag):

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me—because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t—look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. 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. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. 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.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

What, exactly, is there to disagree with there (unless you're a libertarian like Wilkinson)?

Don't be so easily used, people.

... Doh, the 3 long paragraphs at 9:29 are directly quoting Obama; my HTML tags didn't work.

9:29's forte seems to be printing quotes. jeez, profoundly unimpressive.

We'll have to agree to disagree, 9:36 am.
“If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen”

I guess there's a difference between a community-organizer and a hard working American who built a business. Americans put their money on the line to start up a business, work tremendous hours, sacrifice a great deal, mortgage their home, and its their hiney on the line. And by the way, how'd those roads get built? Government doesn’t have its own money, those were tax dollars that built those items. Taxes generated by whom? Well, by the very businesses BHO seems to despise and the very americans who work at the business.

Romney did a good job.

off subject a little bit but i am extremely disappointed in my country. I have a hard time believing that republican candidate Mitt Romney and President Elect Obama are the two most qualified and experienced for the job of turning this world around... and dont think that i do not lay the proportional blame on "the house" or senate they suck to. Maybe in the long run we ought to just let "nature take its course" and let both the democratic and republican party implode and get back to electing people on character and accomplishments not by party or skin color.

9:59, I trust at least that we agree that the word "that" in "you didn't build that" does not refer to "a business"?

And you can't get Obama despising businesses out of anything he actually said. Or anything he's actually done, that I can think of.

... 9:51, if there's a dispute about what someone said, quoting is pretty effective. At least, if you distinguish facts from your fantasies.

Give us some ideas meople on who you do think are more qualified.

If verbal misquotes are the best weapon against Obama Romney has then this tactic will only amuse the people who already dislike the President.

Since the current outrage seems to be inspired by the plan to repeal the Bush tax cut on income over $250K, it might be interesting to look at the historical top income-tax rate and the bracket at which it kicked in.

From 1936 to 1980, hence including the presidencies of Eisenhower and Nixon, the top rate was never below 70%.

The current proposal is to raise it back to 39.8%. Socialism it ain't, folks, unless we were living under socialism under Ike.

Thanks for the quote:
"If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen."

It just confirms he has no clue what small business owners go through. Since they generate the largest number of jobs in this country that is a serious deficiency in someone who can destroy the economy through incompetence (I am charitably attributing his disasters to incompetence, not intentional evil).

Although it is hard to accidentally produce the lowest labor participation rate in history, the highest food stamp use in history, the highest unemployment rate in years (and the highest underemployment rate in history), etc.

His other BS quote about successful people he knows who "want to give something back" - who's stopping them? That clown who directed The Avengers and ripped capitalism last week? Let's see him write a check for 90% of his net worth to the IRS general fund as a donation.

Anderson, what were the effective tax rates from 1936 to 1980?

What was the top bracket rate in 1900?

What was the overall average tax exposure per individual from 1936 to 1980 compared to today?

Sweetheart, I'm not your search engine. Let us know what you find out!

anderson,

i was referring to your so-called blog. it's just from bartlett's...

Folks (married filing jointly) making $250k (or single filers making $200k) didn't pay 39.6% (not 39.8%) during the Clinton era.

Anderson and our white African-American POTUS would have the rates for those households making $249k stay exactly the same @ 33% though those same filers paid 36% under Clinton.

For single filers, Anderson wants those making $200k jacked up to pay 39.6% though you only paid 36% under Clinton. But if you only clock in @ $199k then he and President Incompetent are happy to let you remain @ 33%.

There is nothing magic about $250k/$200k nor was it a bracket breakpoint during Clinton's terms. Anderson can't bring himself to admit the redistributionist bullshit.

By the way the Kenyan's tax increase plan for the "rich" only covers 1/10th of his average annual budget deficits.

Wait a minute Anderson. You made some blanket statements using a stat that you thought others would find interesting.

Is it not just as interesting to determine what the actual reality was vs what a single stat told you?

I've looked and answered it for myself and didn't just use a single stat some liberal blog thought was important, so that I would save myself some embarrassment by facts.

You know, I'm tired of my President telling me I don't give enough, work hard enough, or care enough. My only success is due to the government providing the means to make it possible.....please. I am a part of the half of Americans who still pay federal taxes. So please, Sir, don't lecture me on pulling harder on the wagon. Instead, have some of those riding in the wagon get out and pull for a while, please.

JimAtTheRez

@12:20 PM
You obviously don't understand our marginal tax rate structure, which is the tax rate paid on the last dollar of income. Notwithstanding deductions, those making $249,999 and and $250,001 would be taxed at the same rates on the first $250,000 of taxable income. Those making over $250,000 would pay an additional 6.6 cents per dollar ONLY on the taxable income over $250,000. All taxable income below $250,000 would continue to be taxed at current rates. Let's be informed and honest Jackson.

"i was referring to your so-called blog"

Well, I do apologize - I'll cancel your subscription effective immediately, and please find enclosed a full refund.

... 12:32, you're not Shadowfax posting anonymously, are you? Because y'all sound a lot alike.

Btw, re: tax rates, there's also a 3.8% surtax on investment income above a certain threshold - details here. So top rates on typical very-rich-folks with lots of investment income will be higher than the top income-tax bracket.

Way to go, Romney! Millions are behind ya!

Isn't there also a 4% sales tax on every home sold after January 1, 2014 in the "Affordable Care Act"?

Anderson, I agree that President Obama certainly didn't mean to say that no one has ever done anything on their own. I read the speech and considered what it said in context like you did, and I think too many people on the right are taking it too literally. Taken to the extreme no one has done anything without help from someone else. However, you can't deny the quote given back to you by 9:59. It clearly says what it says, and there's no confusion as to what he meant by "that" in the quote. If he didn't mean it the way it sounds then he should issue a clarification.

The point is that he is trying to convince the public that the wealthy - those who have made it "on their own" - somehow owe more to the people who helped them. Never mind that those people were paid a salary if they were employees or provided a product or a service if they were customers. In almost every case of entrepreneurial success, an individual took charge and created something. He took the risk and put in the effort and properly reaped the rewards, and while he may have had help along the way he's still the one who should get credit for the success. President Obama is continuing his class warfare in an attempt to portray himself as the working man's friend, and he's wrong.

3:04: Not really.

Bill, the context makes it obvious that the "that" which "you didn't build" is the infrastructure, not the business.

The sheer selfishness of the commenters who resent ANY suggestion that society has done ANYTHING for them ... well, wow.

As for your larger point, meh. The GOP practices class warfare for real, as is obvious from the rising % of national income that's been going to the very rich. Obama, unlike the GOP, appears to be genuinely interested in deficit reduction (not our highest priority in a recession, but a long-term problem), and that requires more income tax.

Leaving aside that I have no interest in the same GOP that blew a trillion dollars on the Iraq war whinging about higher taxes.

... Jon Chait provides a better rebuttal than I can on the misquotation thing, and as for the tax tables requested upthread by SFX 2.0, follow the link for the chart in Chait's post and you get some interesting stuff.

(With the usual caveat that who knows where the hell these tax-policy interest groups get all these numbers.)

Now, if y'all want to see a self-inflicted wound by the Obama side, try this:

President Obama "has not met for six months with the CEOs and others on his Jobs Council in part because he's simply been too busy," White House press secretary Jay Carney told Politico.

Lovely. I assume that the "Jobs Council" is some useless PR tool, but regardless. You do not say that your boss the President is "too busy" for anything with the word "jobs" in it.

"Obama, unlike the GOP, appears to be genuinely interested in deficit reduction (not our highest priority in a recession, but a long-term problem), and that requires more income tax."

OK - two lies here. First, he is not interested in deficit reduction - he has raised the national debt more in three years than Bush did in eight. Second, no country every taxed itself into prosperity. Reducing the deficit does not require higher taxes; it requires reduced spending.

Anderson = 0bama...right? Surely no real person is that damn dumb to come here and make such a silly defense??? Sheeesh!

Rather than diagramming sentences and dissecting participles, let's get to the meat of his intent. Why did he carefully say what he said? It's simply part of his class warfare M.O.

The more success he has in creating division, contempt, even hatred, the more success he thinks he will have in remaining the leader of those who are pissed off. It's not about the definition of 'is' or 'that'. It's all about creating hatred of those who have achieved personal wealth.

The only number meaningful to Obama is the number of have-nots vs the number of haves. If he manages to keep the first group angry and resentful, he wins again. Even Anderson ought to be able to see this.

Anderson said:
Obama, unlike the GOP, appears to be genuinely interested in deficit reduction (not our highest priority in a recession, but a long-term problem), and that requires more income tax.

Obama said:
“You don’t raise taxes in a recession…because that would just suck up, take more demand out of the economy and put businesses in a further hole.”

Attorneys don't deserve the money they earn. America needs affordable legal representation for all. Attorneys didn't become successful on their own.

Excuse me, but has anyone's Federal income taxes been raised?

Did the Bush administration enter office with a deficit and I missed it? Was that first TARP not during the Bush administration?

Has EITHER party done a thing about tax reform or reducing the deficit or have they just been interested in re-election?

I do not understand those of you who personalize politics and hate the candidates on the visceral levels often seen here.

I suggest some of you start focusing on solutions to the problems we face rather than buy into to political nonsense of both campaigns.

The rich are paying more of a percentage of taxes ( NOT a greater percentage of their income in taxes) because the middle class has all but disappeared.

You cannot reduce a debt by decreasing revenue and only decreasing spending when your debt exceeds your revenues to this extent. It'd be like telling your family you'll have to starve to pay off our family debt!

Some spending ( investment that will increase income in time is but one example) is good. Government has some legitimate functions so gutting government without thought of the impact is stupid.

Both parties are taking advantage of the economic ignorance of the public.

Neither Romney nor Obama are evil men. They both have alot of courage to run for office in a time where they can count on being demonized by the ethically bereft or the emotionally unstable.

Both parties are taking advantage of the economic ignorance of the public.

Based on the droppings you just deposited they certainly have taken great advantage of your own.

This election is missing one key component (as well as last years election) that has always been the standard. Southern gentlemen.

And to answer your question I thought a successful business man like Herman Cain would have been nice.

11:10 am, cute but back it up with examples

And, would someone give me an example of a businessman who became a multi- millionaire solely on his own, individual labor without any employees and who made an implemented every element of his widget or idea all by himself all while doing his own cooking and cleaning, etc. and who had no investors either?

Kingfish why aren't you showing the video of Obama actually saying this? If you do you will see that Romney is taking it out of context and selectively using parts of what he really said. What he REALLY said was that you don't build business on your own...there was someone along the way that helped/inspired you like a teacher or role model.