News article - "Obama's 1% lifestyle"

[Sinfix_15]

CURL: Obama's 1 percent lifestyle hits a nerve - Washington Times (http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/7/curl-obamas-1-percent-lifestyle-hits-nerve/)

[.blank cd]

So what?

[Vteckidd]

Demonizes 1%, is 1%er

[Sinfix_15]

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.” - Margret Thatcher RIP

[Sinfix_15]

So what?

Just pointing out the never ending hypocrisy of your chosen one.

[David88vert]

Where is Michael Moore now? Remember this article: Vacation is Over... an open letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush | MichaelMoore.com (http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/vacation-is-over-an-open-letter-from-michael-moore-to-george-w-bush)

[.blank cd]

Did Obama ever personally demonize the 1%? It's been pretty well known from the get go that Obama and most politicians are in the 1%

[David88vert]

Did Obama ever personally demonize the 1%? It's been pretty well known from the get go that Obama and most politicians are in the 1%

If I remember correctly, Obama specifically pointed out that he and Romney were both in the 1% during their debates. He definitely has not tried to distance himself from the 1%, but rather has openly stated that he is in that category.

[.blank cd]

I remember him even talking about increasing taxes on the 1%, but that's not demonizing them.

Obama makes a pretty meager salary as president. He made a lot of money through book sales and real estate investments. Is there something wrong with him spending his own money?

[Vteckidd]

Its not is own money, its tax payers money.

I juST don't buy the "the rich should pay more" when the person saying that is rich. It goes to portrayal. Romneys wife was accused of being out of tough for wearing a $5000 dress, but Michelle was "elegant" in a $9000 coat.....

Is there something wrong with Anne Romney spending her own money?

The majority of Os vacations are tax payer funded.

[.blank cd]

Its not is own money, its tax payers money.

I juST don't buy the "the rich should pay more" when the person saying that is rich. It goes to portrayal. Romneys wife was accused of being out of tough for wearing a $5000 dress, but Michelle was "elegant" in a $9000 coat.....

Is there something wrong with Anne Romney spending her own money?

The majority of Os vacations are tax payer funded.

They're all taxpayer funded to some degree.

[Sinfix_15]

Did Obama ever personally demonize the 1%? It's been pretty well known from the get go that Obama and most politicians are in the 1%

The Romneys were rich and out of touch. Obama was a common man who "understands struggle"


Michelle Obama on President’s Upbringing: He Knows Economic Struggles - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/michelle-obama-on-presidents-upbringing-he-knows-economic-struggles/)

[.blank cd]

The Romneys were rich and out of touch. Obama was a common man who "understands struggle"


Michelle Obama on President’s Upbringing: He Knows Economic Struggles - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/michelle-obama-on-presidents-upbringing-he-knows-economic-struggles/)

What's your point?

[Sinfix_15]

What's your point?

Like i said before.....

just continuing to point out the hypocrisy and lies of the worst president in american history. Anyone who voted for Obama should be ashamed of it by now.

[.blank cd]

I'm guessing you're all aware that had Romney been elected, all his getaways would have been equally as taxpayer funded, right?

[.blank cd]

Like i said before.....

just continuing to point out the hypocrisy and lies of the worst president in american history. Anyone who voted for Obama should be ashamed of it by now.

You haven't done that yet. Where's the hypocrisy?

[Sinfix_15]

You haven't done that yet. Where's the hypocrisy?

Yes i have and i'm beating a dead horse at this point. If you cant admit that Obama is a failure by now, it's because your head is too far shoved up his ass to see reality.

[.blank cd]

How did Obama demonize the 1%? Be specific. You haven't shown that yet. All you do is bitch about non issues and unfounded partisan BS with no discernible point, and when people call you out on it, you label them as liberals, and it only strengthens your resolve. Kind of a self-reaffirming ideology you have there. You have no critical thought process of your own, you only parrot what you've been told to think.

"ZOMG, The president went on vacation and spent taxpayer money, the public should be outraged! He's demonizing the 1%!"

"How? Be specific."

"You're a liberal sticking up for your savior"

[Vteckidd]

They're all taxpayer funded to some degree.

Of course they are, doesnt make it right.

The difference is, Obama, who is just as wealthy as anyone in Washington, perhaps MORE wealthy once he gets out of office and writes another book, uses his position to bad mouth wealthy bankers and wall street workers..................when he himself pals around with Hollywood and is a 1%er himself. The media gives him a pass, they characterize him as this man of the people, when hes the furthest thing from it.

Again, Anne Romney was characterized as OUT OF TOUCH, and Michelle was characterized as Elegant. That is the double standard that we live in.

[Vteckidd]

I'm guessing you're all aware that had Romney been elected, all his getaways would have been equally as taxpayer funded, right?

of course but that is not what we are arguing.

Obama demonizes the 1% by LIEING about taxes. About claiming peoples secrataries pay less than their boss, or that Romney never paid taxes, or that the rich are responsible for the economic collapse, taxing the rich will solve everything.................list goes on an on an on

He demonizes the 1% , yet is a member in the same club.

The tax payer funded stuff YOU brought up, you said "whats wrong with spending his own money?" i said "well, hes not, its taxpayer" and you said "well techincally its all taxpayer".

So which is it, his money or the taxpayers? You brought that up not me

[.blank cd]

Of course they are, doesnt make it right.

The difference is, Obama, who is just as wealthy as anyone in Washington, perhaps MORE wealthy once he gets out of office and writes another book, uses his position to bad mouth wealthy bankers and wall street workers..............when he himself pals around with Hollywood and is a 1%er himself. The media gives him a pass, they characterize him as this man of the people, when hes the furthest thing from it.I don't think they are the only kind of people in the 1%. Maybe he was criticizing these people for another reason...?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007–2008

And the media doesn't give him a pass at all, I'm sure you've heard of the Fox News Channel?


Again, Anne Romney was characterized as OUT OF TOUCH, and Michelle was characterized as Elegant. That is the double standard that we live in.So, Obama himself characterized Ann Romney as out of touch for having a $5000 outfit?

[Sinfix_15]

How did Obama demonize the 1%? Be specific. You haven't shown that yet. All you do is bitch about non issues and unfounded partisan BS with no discernible point, and when people call you out on it, you label them as liberals, and it only strengthens your resolve. Kind of a self-reaffirming ideology you have there. You have no critical thought process of your own, you only parrot what you've been told to think.

"ZOMG, The president went on vacation and spent taxpayer money, the public should be outraged! He's demonizing the 1%!"

"How? Be specific."

"You're a liberal sticking up for your savior"]

Says you.... the left wing rhetoric machine.

[.blank cd]

of course but that is not what we are arguing.This is what Sinfix is trying to point out by creating this thread, is it not? That Obama has spent millions and billions of taxpayer dollars to go on vacation when in reality, he hasn't?


Obama demonizes the 1% by LIEING about taxes. About claiming peoples secrataries pay less than their boss, or that Romney never paid taxes, or that the rich are responsible for the economic collapse, taxing the rich will solve everything.................list goes on an on an onI trust you have an example of each of these?


He demonizes the 1% , yet is a member in the same club.

The tax payer funded stuff YOU brought up, you said "whats wrong with spending his own money?" i said "well, hes not, its taxpayer" and you said "well techincally its all taxpayer".

So which is it, his money or the taxpayers? You brought that up not me
Proposing that wealthy people pay more taxes is far from demonizing them

I don't think I said its all taxpayer money at all. I even pointed this out.

Obama makes a $400k salary, and millions from books and investments. After he cashes those checks, its all his own personal money. No one in here is in a position to dictate what he does or doesn't do with it. Plain and simple.

Whenever and wherever he travels, due to his position as the most powerful man in the world, he has to keep a staff wherever he goes. Chefs, pilots, security, etc. This is not his money. Don't know how anyone can sit here and tie the two together. Then people try to make it seem like he's not working when he's on vacation, but he travels around in a mobile White House. When he's needed to make a decision, he's never far away from an office. Ever. He is always on duty 24/7/365/4

I don't understand how people get so disconnected from reality when ranting about something they don't understand. Wouldn't it be more prudent to attempt to understand it?

[.blank cd]

Says you.... the left wing rhetoric machine.

Thank you for proving my point. Me asking you to be specific about your opinion is left wing rhetoric. Got it.

Do you have any feelings about Obama, that you've used logic and reason and knowledge to come to a conclusion about?

[.blank cd]

Has anyone ever sat back and calculated how much taxpayer money it costs to run the actual White House while Obama is sitting in his room reading a book or eating dinner with his kids? Why does it matter whether he's in Washington or St. Tropez?

[Elbow]

Why not just make one thread called "Reason I Dislike Obama" for all of your findings?

[.blank cd]

Why not just make one thread called "Reason I Dislike Obama" for all of your findings?

The reasons still wouldn't be based in reality. So they're not actually reasons to dislike Obama. Just things to bitch about. When people try to educate him on the subject, they're classified as liberal. It's called a self-reinforcing ideology.

We need a section called "Sinfix's incoherent ramblings about subjects he knows nothing about"

[bu villain]

I juST don't buy the "the rich should pay more" when the person saying that is rich.

Would you buy it if the person saying it was poor?

[Sinfix_15]

The reasons still wouldn't be based in reality. So they're not actually reasons to dislike Obama. Just things to bitch about. When people try to educate him on the subject, they're classified as liberal. It's called a self-reinforcing ideology.

We need a section called "Sinfix's incoherent ramblings about subjects he knows nothing about"

I post videos of Obama speaking, news clips, stats, articles.... what do you consider reality? your inner thoughts?

Most of my posts lately, i just post a news article and dont even comment on it. Yet you're blaming me for their content.

[.blank cd]

I post videos of Obama speaking, news clips, stats, articles.... what do you consider reality? your inner thoughts?

Most of my posts lately, i just post a news article and dont even comment on it. Yet you're blaming me for their content.

I'm not blaming you for their content, I'm blaming you for taking their content as gospel.

[.blank cd]

Going by what you posted, I'm supposed to believe that Obama personally stated everyone who makes more than $300k is evil, and then defrauding the American people by making more than $300k and going on vacation?

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not blaming you for their content, I'm blaming you for taking their content as gospel.

The shoe fits. Pardon me for getting a laugh out of someone who has never actually had a job saying that he relates to the struggles of the common man. It wouldnt surprise me if Obama's actions were actually complete ignorance.... who knows... may he thinks to himself "you mean to tell me the rest of america doesnt take 35 vacations a year?"

[Vteckidd]

No one in here is in a position to dictate what he does or doesn't do with it. Plain and simple.

Obama should follow your advice, because that is PRECISELY what he is trying to do.

Did you forget the 2012 election already? Obamas main talking point was "millionaires and billionaires pay less taxes than their secretaries" because thats what Warren Buffet claimed.

Lets forget this is an OUTRIGHT LIE to begin with , which it is.

Obama is ONE of those millionaires and billionaires. He made a living by using the exact same system Romney did, yet demonized Romney as some out of touch rich guy , when Obama himself, is rich.

Basically, Obama has 1 set of rules he is allowed to follow, and then another set for everyone else.

[.blank cd]

Obama should follow your advice, because that is PRECISELY what he is trying to do.

Did you forget the 2012 election already? Obamas main talking point was "millionaires and billionaires pay less taxes than their secretaries" because thats what Warren Buffet claimed.

Lets forget this is an OUTRIGHT LIE to begin with , which it is.So never in the history of American taxation has a rich person or business owner etc. paid less in taxes than someone making an average income?


Obama is ONE of those millionaires and billionaires. He made a living by using the exact same system Romney did, yet demonized Romney as some out of touch rich guy , when Obama himself, is rich.So did he demonize millionaires and billionaires, or just Romney?

How many millionaires and billionaires ran on a presidential platform last year of "socialism is evil", "we built that", and various other logical fallacies and false equivalencies?

[Vteckidd]

You are really good at twisting my words ;)

Did I say that? No.

Is the tactic used by the left to explain to uneducated voters that have no idea the difference between marginal rates capital gains and income tax a lie? Yes.

Obama and cronies are guilty of the latter.

Our tax system is designed so that the rich pay more if its all the same income.

Income vs income
Capital gains vs capital gains
Marginal vs effective

When you purposefully start mixing numbers to fit a false narrative that's called demonizing.

[bu villain]

Is the tactic used by the left to explain to uneducated voters that have no idea the difference between marginal rates capital gains and income tax a lie? Yes.

Obama and cronies are guilty of the latter.

Our tax system is designed so that the rich pay more if its all the same income.

Income vs income
Capital gains vs capital gains
Marginal vs effective

When you purposefully start mixing numbers to fit a false narrative that's called demonizing.

I don't see why not differentiating between capital gains and wage income is important. The whole point is what percent of all the money someone makes goes to the government. Do you think most people wouldn't be bothered by the effective tax rates if they understood most of the rich's money is made through investments rather than wages?

I think saying that 47% of the people don't pay income taxes is more misleading. Even though it may be true, the uneducated person doesn't think about all the non-income related taxes those 47% pay (property, gas, sales, etc) which can lead to a larger effective tax rate than the wealthiest people pay.

Of course some simplification is necessary when discussing complex issues like taxes with the general public. The problem is when the simplification implies something totally different from the reality.

[Vteckidd]

I don't see why not differentiating between capital gains and wage income is important. The whole point is what percent of all the money someone makes goes to the government. Do you think most people wouldn't be bothered by the effective tax rates if they understood most of the rich's money is made through investments rather than wages?

I think saying that 47% of the people don't pay income taxes is more misleading. Even though it may be true, the uneducated person doesn't think about all the non-income related taxes those 47% pay (property, gas, sales, etc) which can lead to a larger effective tax rate than the wealthiest people pay.

Of course some simplification is necessary when discussing complex issues like taxes with the general public. The problem is when the simplification implies something totally different from the reality.

agreed, which is why when Obama said "no tax increases on the poor" he kinda lied when the payroll tax was raised back to 7% or whatever it was this past Jan.

This is specifically my point.

Both sides do it im not stupid. This is why a CUT isnt really a CUT (a reduction i nthe rate of growth) and a surplus isnt really a surplus. MOST people i engage tax talk with, literally do not understand any of it at all.

if they are conservative they say "half the people dont pay any taxes" which is just as wrong as Democrats saying "rich people pay less in taxes than their workers".

[bu villain]

agreed, which is why when Obama said "no tax increases on the poor" he kinda lied when the payroll tax was raised back to 7% or whatever it was this past Jan.

This is specifically my point.

Both sides do it im not stupid. This is why a CUT isnt really a CUT (a reduction i nthe rate of growth) and a surplus isnt really a surplus. MOST people i engage tax talk with, literally do not understand any of it at all.

These are semantics games so I wouldn't technically call them lies although they are obviously purposely left open to interpretation. Whether you see them as lies depends on how you interpreted them in the first place. For example, "I will not raise taxes" could be interpreted as "I will not allow taxes to increase" or "I will take no action that will increase taxes". The former requires action to prevent an increase, the latter does not.


if they are conservative they say "half the people dont pay any taxes" which is just as wrong as Democrats saying "rich people pay less in taxes than their workers".

Agreed on this one. Equally disdainful. However I saw a lot more discussion of percentages and effective rates from the left with the rich people/workers topic than I saw discussion of non-income taxes from the right in the 47% debate. Of course there are offenders on both sides though.