PDA

View Full Version : Why do the Super-Rich Feel Victimized by Obama?



pghin08
10-02-2012, 12:46 PM
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/10/08/121008fa_fact_freeland

This is an extremely well-thought out and well-written article. One of those rare pieces of writing that ignores partisan lines and gets to the root of an issue.

Wickabee
10-02-2012, 01:03 PM
So they're mad at Obama because they don't like what he says, yet he's earned them huge recoveries.

I'll tell you something, you get me another $4.2million/year, and you can say whatever you want about me. Maybe I'm missing something, but this just sounds like rich people whining, "I have everything, but you call me names"

Also, the fact that he's doing this to, "those in the best position to help" may be true. However, it's pretty proven that being in a position to help does not mean you will, and I don't think they will...or have.

shrewsbury
10-02-2012, 01:11 PM
wickabee, you are assuming rich people don't care about themselves and they are only after the money.
the rich have been blamed for things they shouldn't have and are made out to e monsters by many on obama's side, i am sure some are, but not all nor even the majority.

Wickabee
10-02-2012, 01:13 PM
wickabee, you are assuming rich people don't care about themselves and they are only after the money.
No, I assume they don't care about others and only themselves.


the rich have been blamed for things they shouldn't have and are made out to e monsters by many on obama's side, i am sure some are, but not all nor even the majority.
Meanwhile Obama's giving them millions every year, if you read the article. What are they mad about? Someone call them a name? Awwww

JustAlex
10-02-2012, 01:22 PM
I hate to say this, well maybe not. Who cares if Obama allienates the super rich.

What have they done to help?

All they want is lower taxes and bigger profits.

They truly are the most "entitled" Americans.....since they have so much money, which in return brings them a lot of power, they feel they can do whatever they w t.

The rules do not apply to them....When you literally "have it all" what do you worry about??

My stance is very clear.....TAX THEM!

Show NO MERCY.....these guys will NOT call our bluff, they have no where to go.

pghin08
10-02-2012, 01:24 PM
No, I assume they don't care about others and only themselves.


Meanwhile Obama's giving them millions every year, if you read the article. What are they mad about? Someone call them a name? Awwww

No. They're mad because our President is waging a verbal war against the very ideals that helped these people ascend the economic scale. Not all rich people are born into it and are undeserving of their success. I've never understood Obama's "fair share" thing. What is a "fair share"? And if taxes go up (which they need to), why shouldn't the burden be placed on EVERYBODY? I'm a (very much) non-1%er who is willing to pay more taxes as long as they are coupled with a fiscally responsible plan to reduce our long-term debt obligations.

pghin08
10-02-2012, 01:26 PM
I hate to say this, well maybe not. Who cares if Obama allienates the super rich.

What have they done to help?

All they want is lower taxes and bigger profits.

They truly are the most "entitled" Americans.....since they have so much money, which in return brings them a lot of power, they feel they can do whatever they w t.

The rules do not apply to them....When you literally "have it all" what do you worry about??

My stance is very clear.....TAX THEM!

Show NO MERCY.....these guys will NOT call our bluff, they have no where to go.


1. You're totally pigeonholing wealthy people. I know many who have come up from nothing and have worked extremely hard to do so. You're also assuming that none of them recognize that they need to pay more tax, which is wrong.

2. You're right. They need to be taxed more. But so does everybody in this country.

gladdyontherise
10-02-2012, 01:33 PM
I hate to say this, well maybe not. Who cares if Obama allienates the super rich.

What have they done to help?

All they want is lower taxes and bigger profits.

They truly are the most "entitled" Americans.....since they have so much money, which in return brings them a lot of power, they feel they can do whatever they w t.

The rules do not apply to them....When you literally "have it all" what do you worry about??

My stance is very clear.....TAX THEM!

Show NO MERCY.....these guys will NOT call our bluff, they have no where to go.

As a broke college student and growing up until about 5 years ago in not a great financial situation, I find what you just said to be completely embarrassing.

ensbergcollector
10-02-2012, 01:39 PM
What have they done to help?? That is comical. They may complain about it but they are still bearing the overwhelming majority of this country's taxes and finances. Hate them all you want but how in the world can you say "what have they done."
Not to mention the amount of the.unforced benevolence they are responsible for.

mrveggieman
10-02-2012, 01:51 PM
No. They're mad because our President is waging a verbal war against the very ideals that helped these people ascend the economic scale. Not all rich people are born into it and are undeserving of their success. I've never understood Obama's "fair share" thing. What is a "fair share"? And if taxes go up (which they need to), why shouldn't the burden be placed on EVERYBODY? I'm a (very much) non-1%er who is willing to pay more taxes as long as they are coupled with a fiscally responsible plan to reduce our long-term debt obligations.

That will never happen, too much like right.

pghin08
10-02-2012, 01:53 PM
What have they done to help?? That is comical. They may complain about it but they are still bearing the overwhelming majority of this country's taxes and finances. Hate them all you want but how in the world can you say "what have they done."
Not to mention the amount of the.unforced benevolence they are responsible for.


I recognize this fully, but there are two things that always weigh on me:

1. The lack of upward mobility in this country is staggering.

http://moneyland.time.com/2012/01/05/the-loss-of-upward-mobility-in-the-u-s/

2. A tax policy in which it is easier to make money with other money rather than with labor is inherently unstable. Mitt Romney's effective tax rate was 14% because the money he "makes" is derived from money he already has. My effective tax rate is higher because I work for it.

JustAlex
10-02-2012, 02:17 PM
1. You're totally pigeonholing wealthy people. I know many who have come up from nothing and have worked extremely hard to do so. You're also assuming that none of them recognize that they need to pay more tax, which is wrong.

Fair enough, but if we are talking the same Super Rich that DIRECTLY lead to the great recession of 2007-2008, then I will stand by my comments.

2. You're right. They need to be taxed more. But so does everybody in this country.

Just let the Bush Tax Cuts expire, I don't mind, sure, I'll have to pay a little more, but as long as the super rich start paying their fair share, I'll be happy.

Responses in bold.


As a broke college student and growing up until about 5 years ago in not a great financial situation, I find what you just said to be completely embarrassing.
And as a College graduate, I find your comment pointless.

JustAlex
10-02-2012, 02:26 PM
What have they done to help?? That is comical. They may complain about it but they are still bearing the overwhelming majority of this country's taxes and finances. Hate them all you want but how in the world can you say "what have they done."
Not to mention the amount of the.unforced benevolence they are responsible for.
Oh noes....the poor Rich people and their "burden".

Let me shed a tear for the same guys that brought us the huge mess that we're in, the same guys that were "bailed out" for being "too big to fail", while regular Americans loss their homes, jobs, livelihoods, EVERYTHING, and were not given anything in return.

Yes, leave the Super Rich alone.....*Insert Chris Crocker meme*

mrveggieman
10-02-2012, 02:34 PM
What have they done to help?? That is comical. They may complain about it but they are still bearing the overwhelming majority of this country's taxes and finances. Hate them all you want but how in the world can you say "what have they done."
Not to mention the amount of the.unforced benevolence they are responsible for.


What I don't understatnd is how can someone who says they are a preacher and is supposed to follow and spread the word of Jesus who by the way was a champion for the poor and spread a message of non violence can turn around and cheerlead for the ultra wealthy almost attempting to drum up sympathy for them. :confused0024: I'm sorry but I ain't got no love for the ultra rich because they are the ones who destroyed our economy, lead us into to wasteful and uneccessary wars and are trying to lead us into another one that could possibly trigger WW III.

shrewsbury
10-02-2012, 02:45 PM
so if you are rich you don't care about others?

equality does not come from accusations, nor stereotyping, nor name calling.

so the poor must not care about themselves, since they allow themselves to be poor?

Wickabee
10-02-2012, 02:51 PM
so if you are rich you don't care about others?

equality does not come from accusations, nor stereotyping, nor name calling.
You don't get rich by helping others...


so the poor must not care about themselves, since they allow themselves to be poor?
Believe it or not, some people believe this. Romney thinks 47% of the country doesn't care enough about themselves to work for anything.

That's the problem. As much as the poor complain about the rich, they have a better idea about the life of the rich than the rich do of the poor (generally speaking, of course). People like Mitt Romney saying, basically, if you're poor it's because you don't take responsibility for yourself. That's where the ideas, accusations, stereotypes and name-calling come from. It's not that they're rich that's the problem, it's that they're rich, either forgot what it's like to be poor or never were, and then turn around and tell those who aren't wealthy to work harder. You want to talk stereotyping? How about this idea the rich have that everyone on welfare is a leech? How about the idea that no one with an income of more than $100,000/yr actually works? How about the idea that everyone who votes for Obama just wants a free cell phone? How about the fact that only minorities and those who want handouts would ever vote Democrat?

Oh, but I guess stereotyping one way is alright, if someone called you a name (after you saved $4.2million because of a guy you hate...)

duane1969
10-02-2012, 02:52 PM
No, I assume they don't care about others and only themselves.


Meanwhile Obama's giving them millions every year, if you read the article. What are they mad about? Someone call them a name? Awwww

Obama gives them nothing.


I hate to say this, well maybe not. Who cares if Obama allienates the super rich.

What have they done to help?

Since the top 25% of income earners in America pay over 87% of the taxes that are taken in by the governement I would say that they have done pretty much everything to help. If the government was dependent on the lower 75% of wage earners then the entire concept of America would have gone down the drain a long, long time ago.

Every cashed welfare check, every paved road, every educated child, every patrolling police officer, every state or county pre-school and every other government provided perk is 87% funded by the top 25% of wage earners.


All they want is lower taxes and bigger profits.

So you are in support of earning less money and paying more in taxes? Put your money where your mouth is and donate an additional 25% of your income on your next tax return. My guess is that you would never consider doing that because like most leftist you just want to have a say in how other people's money is taken from them and spent, you want your money left alone. when the subject of discussion becomes increasing your taxes by 15-20% you will most definitely be singing a much different tune.


They truly are the most "entitled" Americans.....since they have so much money, which in return brings them a lot of power, they feel they can do whatever they w t.

You are correct. They are truly entitled to what they have worked and earned. Unlike that other entitled group that have little to no right to what they get.


Show NO MERCY.....these guys will NOT call our bluff, they have no where to go.

That is what the French thought. It is naive to think that other countries with economic hardships will not welcome the rich with open arms in exchange for less taxes. Countries with few milionaires will gladly accept a tax rate of 10% of millions of dollars and the wealthy will gladly change their residence to a poor country in exchange for 20-30% less in taxation.

Wickabee
10-02-2012, 02:53 PM
Obama gives them nothing.

You might want to read that article and check out who benefited most under Obama...

duane1969
10-02-2012, 03:00 PM
You don't get rich by helping others...


I have 2 questions/thoughts concerning this statement.

1. Where is it written that if you are rich that you are obligated to help others and who decided that if you are rich and you don't help others that it makes you a bad person? When did it become an expectation that the wealthy have to help others?

The last time I checked, charity is not something that is demanded or taken from someone.

2. Show me someone who earns over $1 million a year and I will virtually guarantee that they do much more than you or I do to help others. The truly wealthy are the largest donators to charities and benefit programs as well as the primary group of people who start charitable organizations. I have no proof to back it up but I will venture a guesstimate that over 90% of the charities that are currently aimed at helping the poor were started by someone who would be labeled wealthy by you.

duane1969
10-02-2012, 03:01 PM
You might want to read that article and check out who benefited most under Obama...

Obama gave them nothing. The taxpayers of America gave it to them, Obama just took credit for it. In fact, when you consider that 87% of taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners, they essentially got back their own money.

Wickabee
10-02-2012, 03:08 PM
I have 2 questions/thoughts concerning this statement.

1. Where is it written that if you are rich that you are obligated to help others and who decided that if you are rich and you don't help others that it makes you a bad person? When did it become an expectation that the wealthy have to help others?
When the rich started acting like they pay 100% of taxes in the US. When they started claiming they help people. When they started claiming that lower taxes would equal them hiring more. When they decided to claim that trickle down works.


The last time I checked, charity is not something that is demanded or taken from someone.
Last time I checked it's usually done for tax purposes.


2. Show me someone who earns over $1 million a year and I will virtually guarantee that they do much more than you or I do to help others. The truly wealthy are the largest donators to charities and benefit programs as well as the primary group of people who start charitable organizations. I have no proof to back it up but I will venture a guesstimate that over 90% of the charities that are currently aimed at helping the poor were started by someone who would be labeled wealthy by you.

Most charities are companies. Go check out how much the heads of those charities pull out for their own wage. It's sickening. Real help would be keeping jobs in the US, shouldering a fair share (as in the same percentage as everyone else) of the tax burden. How about not lobbying for tax cut after tax cut. How about instead of cutting social programs giving them the money they need to run properly and efficiently (as opposed to, say, taking money away so they're less efficient and easier to abuse).

That would be real help, not stuffing a charity CEO's pockets.


Obama gave them nothing. The taxpayers of America gave it to them, Obama just took credit for it. In fact, when you consider that 87% of taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners, they essentially got back their own money.

Now THAT is a nice spin job. Kudos. In order to believe it you just have to think that taxes don't belong to the government once paid.

ensbergcollector
10-02-2012, 05:21 PM
What I don't understatnd is how can someone who says they are a preacher and is supposed to follow and spread the word of Jesus who by the way was a champion for the poor and spread a message of non violence can turn around and cheerlead for the ultra wealthy almost attempting to drum up sympathy for them. :confused0024: I'm sorry but I ain't got no love for the ultra rich because they are the ones who destroyed our economy, lead us into to wasteful and uneccessary wars and are trying to lead us into another one that could possibly trigger WW III.

please show me where I have cheerleaded for the ultra wealthy or drummed up sympathy for them. I simply commented on the idea that they have done nothing.

I am with others here. I think they need to pay more taxes but only if everyone else does as well.

Wickabee
10-02-2012, 05:35 PM
please show me where I have cheerleaded for the ultra wealthy or drummed up sympathy for them. I simply commented on the idea that they have done nothing.

I am with others here. I think they need to pay more taxes but only if everyone else does as well.

Plain and simple, capital gains tax should be higher than regular income tax. You pay more to work and less for already having enough money to allow you to sit and do nothing. That just sounds like a bad sysztem.

duwal
10-02-2012, 05:41 PM
2. Show me someone who earns over $1 million a year and I will virtually guarantee that they do much more than you or I do to help others. The truly wealthy are the largest donators to charities and benefit programs as well as the primary group of people who start charitable organizations. I have no proof to back it up but I will venture a guesstimate that over 90% of the charities that are currently aimed at helping the poor were started by someone who would be labeled wealthy by you.


As someone who makes an annual income in the seven figures I am not going to comment or put my input into this thread because as some like Wickabee are saying the rich don't want to help others :D:

Wickabee
10-02-2012, 05:51 PM
As someone who makes an annual income in the seven figures I am not going to comment or put my input into this thread because as some like Wickabee are saying the rich don't want to help others :D:

I have no idea if they want to but, generally speaking, they don't. They look out for number one. They want their taxes cut no matter what the cost to everyone else or the nation as a whole. They didn't get where they are by helping others. Often it's quite the opposite. It was rich people who ruined the economy, rich people who took Obama's bailouts and rich people who say he gives them nothing. He let them stay in control of the banking industry when they had proven themselves entirely incompetent...actually, scratch that. THEY all did pretty well for themselves after screwing everyone.
Then they have the gaul to say:
1 - Everyone blames us for everything
2 - We pay more in taxes...as long as you only look at numbers and not percentages
3 - We get blamed for everything. And my absolute favourite:
4 - Give us all the money and we'll make sure it gets to everyone...eventually...

These are the Romney supporters. They don't care about anything but lower taxes for themselves. They don't even care how those tax cuts will be paid for. Want proof? How exactly do Romney and Ryan plan to pay for it. I watched an interview with Ryan and he could not come up with a straight answer. The only things he actually said were, "It's cost neutral" and when asked to explain how, he said, "It would take too long for me to go over the math."

Now, I know of one poster who likes to tell me that when I say something, I don't back it up but expect everyone to believe me. Now, that's not true and entirely his opinion (funny how some people can recognize an opinion without being specifically told it isn't fact) but I would like to know what he thinks of Ryan saying his cuts are "revenue neutral" but refusing to explain how they come to be revenue neutral.

Of course, if said poster (or others) are simply mindless, blind followers of the Republican party, they will see no wrong with it, I'm sure.

ensbergcollector
10-02-2012, 06:16 PM
wick - the rich make up the overwhelming percent of voluntary charitable giving. how can you say they don't want to help anyone?

better question is, since when did paying more taxes equal wanting to help people? I don't view someone who pays more taxes as wanting to help anyone. I view it as obeying the law. I see someone who does it voluntarily as wanting to help people.

Wickabee
10-02-2012, 06:29 PM
wick - the rich make up the overwhelming percent of voluntary charitable giving. how can you say they don't want to help anyone?
Not to be a jerk, but is there anything backing that up?


better question is, since when did paying more taxes equal wanting to help people? I don't view someone who pays more taxes as wanting to help anyone. I view it as obeying the law. I see someone who does it voluntarily as wanting to help people.
You're looking at it backwards. NOT wanting to pay taxes is NOT wanting to help pay for things everyone, yes, even the rich, use. Things like police and firemen, teachers, roads, bridges and any other infrastructure the government pays for. Constantly wanting your taxes cut because "I pay more in numbers...though less in percentage" says to me you don't want to help pay for the things you use.

Let me ask you this. How does it make sense that, if you're working to get by, you pay X in taxes, but if you already have a bunch of money and invest it, allowing you to sit and basically contribute nothing to the world, you pay X-Y?

How is that a good, or fair, system?

AUTaxMan
10-02-2012, 06:30 PM
No. They're mad because our President is waging a verbal war against the very ideals that helped these people ascend the economic scale. Not all rich people are born into it and are undeserving of their success. I've never understood Obama's "fair share" thing. What is a "fair share"? And if taxes go up (which they need to), why shouldn't the burden be placed on EVERYBODY? I'm a (very much) non-1%er who is willing to pay more taxes as long as they are coupled with a fiscally responsible plan to reduce our long-term debt obligations.

I believe something like 80% of millionaires are self-made. Maybe more than that.

Wickabee
10-02-2012, 06:32 PM
AUT, what do you think of Ryan saying in interview that it would take too long to explain the math, but we should trust him that his tax cuts are revenue neutral?

AUTaxMan
10-02-2012, 06:58 PM
AUT, what do you think of Ryan saying in interview that it would take too long to explain the math, but we should trust him that his tax cuts are revenue neutral?

Random thoughts. I think it would take too long to explain in short order, but I don't see how they can be revenue neutral, at least initially. If they spark the growth that Romney and Ryan think they will, then maybe, but one man's economic growth projections are going to differ from another's. I wouldn't say they are lying or being dishonest. However, they do need to pinpoint exactly what deductions they are going to target and for whom. Also, elimination of the estate tax is very optimistic, but if that died on the floor of congress, it would make it a lot easier to have the plan be revenue neutral. Claims of raising taxes on middle class are nonsense and based on nothing more than wobbly assumptions. I saw an analysis today where it showed under ROmney's plan, the average American would pay something like a 5.7% effective rate, whereas under Obama's it was 8.1%. Bowles-Simpson was like 13%. And that was from a website criticizing the Romney plan for its vagueness. In fairness, both side's plans lack tremendous detail, but Romneys is certainly more detailed than Obama's. All you can find on Obama's plan is (a) let Bush tax cuts expire for 200 S and 250 MFJ, (b) eliminate corporate loopholes (of course, not defining which industries Obama will try to destroy with taxes (probably oil and gas) and which ones he will cater to (probably renewable energy)).

Wickabee
10-02-2012, 07:13 PM
Random thoughts. I think it would take too long to explain in short order, but I don't see how they can be revenue neutral, at least initially. If they spark the growth that Romney and Ryan think they will, then maybe, but one man's economic growth projections are going to differ from another's. I wouldn't say they are lying or being dishonest. However, they do need to pinpoint exactly what deductions they are going to target and for whom. Also, elimination of the estate tax is very optimistic, but if that died on the floor of congress, it would make it a lot easier to have the plan be revenue neutral. Claims of raising taxes on middle class are nonsense and based on nothing more than wobbly assumptions. I saw an analysis today where it showed under ROmney's plan, the average American would pay something like a 5.7% effective rate, whereas under Obama's it was 8.1%. Bowles-Simpson was like 13%. And that was from a website criticizing the Romney plan for its vagueness. In fairness, both side's plans lack tremendous detail, but Romneys is certainly more detailed than Obama's. All you can find on Obama's plan is (a) let Bush tax cuts expire for 200 S and 250 MFJ, (b) eliminate corporate loopholes (of course, not defining which industries Obama will try to destroy with taxes (probably oil and gas) and which ones he will cater to (probably renewable energy)).

You raise some interesting points, though I would disagree Romney/Ryan has put out more details than their opponent. I would say probably about even. The difference is we already have a basic idea how Obama works (or doesn't, depending who you are) but very little idea what Romney/Ryan have in store. It's the same ol' same ol' vs the unknown. The unknown scares me more because it pretty much refuses to give anyone even a glimpse. Ryan is promising great things and, when asked how, he just glosses over it with, "It would take too long to explain."

I really wish I could find a clip of it online, but I can't. I'm just wondering if you feel okay supporting someone who has basically said, "Look, I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to do it, but if you elect me, everything will come up roses. Trust me," and refuse to back it up?

AUTaxMan
10-02-2012, 09:40 PM
You raise some interesting points, though I would disagree Romney/Ryan has put out more details than their opponent. I would say probably about even. The difference is we already have a basic idea how Obama works (or doesn't, depending who you are) but very little idea what Romney/Ryan have in store. It's the same ol' same ol' vs the unknown. The unknown scares me more because it pretty much refuses to give anyone even a glimpse. Ryan is promising great things and, when asked how, he just glosses over it with, "It would take too long to explain."

I really wish I could find a clip of it online, but I can't. I'm just wondering if you feel okay supporting someone who has basically said, "Look, I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to do it, but if you elect me, everything will come up roses. Trust me," and refuse to back it up?

Both sides are doing this: "Look, I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to do it, but if you elect me, everything will come up roses. Trust me." If you are going to criticize one side for vagueness, you need to criticize both, because neither is showing their hand. Vagueness about the particulars of tax plans being equal, I would base my voting decision on something else.

Wickabee
10-02-2012, 11:00 PM
Both sides are doing this: "Look, I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to do it, but if you elect me, everything will come up roses. Trust me." If you are going to criticize one side for vagueness, you need to criticize both, because neither is showing their hand. Vagueness about the particulars of tax plans being equal, I would base my voting decision on something else.

The difference is, after four years of Obama, you do have a general idea how he does things. Romney and Ryan are the ones who need to prove they're better than the incumbent. It's in their best interest to not be vague, especially if Obama is being vague (and he is).

Thing about Ryan that bugs me is, when his selection was made public everyone said he would be the one to rid the campaign of vagueness. He would finally put this campaign on track and get to the issues and answer questions. However, when it comes time to answer the question he says, "It will take too long to explain."

...

I'm sorry, but that's a polite way of saying "You can't possibly understand it." If it "takes too long" let editing worry about it and answer the freakin' question.

pghin08
10-03-2012, 09:54 AM
The difference is, after four years of Obama, you do have a general idea how he does things. Romney and Ryan are the ones who need to prove they're better than the incumbent. It's in their best interest to not be vague, especially if Obama is being vague (and he is).

Thing about Ryan that bugs me is, when his selection was made public everyone said he would be the one to rid the campaign of vagueness. He would finally put this campaign on track and get to the issues and answer questions. However, when it comes time to answer the question he says, "It will take too long to explain."

...

I'm sorry, but that's a polite way of saying "You can't possibly understand it." If it "takes too long" let editing worry about it and answer the freakin' question.

Ezra Klein had a quote about this that made me chuckle: "Ryan pretends that the policy is too complicated for the country to understand, when in fact it’s too flawed for him to explain."

mrveggieman
10-03-2012, 10:12 AM
Both sides are doing this: "Look, I'm not going to tell you how I'm going to do it, but if you elect me, everything will come up roses. Trust me." If you are going to criticize one side for vagueness, you need to criticize both, because neither is showing their hand. Vagueness about the particulars of tax plans being equal, I would base my voting decision on something else.

And what in the world would that be taxman?

AUTaxMan
10-03-2012, 12:11 PM
Ezra Klein had a quote about this that made me chuckle: "Ryan pretends that the policy is too complicated for the country to understand, when in fact it’s too flawed for him to explain."

I saw that line. It's a good zinger, but it's not entirely true.

AUTaxMan
10-03-2012, 12:12 PM
The difference is, after four years of Obama, you do have a general idea how he does things. Romney and Ryan are the ones who need to prove they're better than the incumbent. It's in their best interest to not be vague, especially if Obama is being vague (and he is).

Thing about Ryan that bugs me is, when his selection was made public everyone said he would be the one to rid the campaign of vagueness. He would finally put this campaign on track and get to the issues and answer questions. However, when it comes time to answer the question he says, "It will take too long to explain."

...

I'm sorry, but that's a polite way of saying "You can't possibly understand it." If it "takes too long" let editing worry about it and answer the freakin' question.

There is no possible way you can be offended by Ryan's comments about the tax plan and not be more offended by the repeated smugness of Obama.

Wickabee
10-03-2012, 12:31 PM
There is no possible way you can be offended by Ryan's comments about the tax plan and not be more offended by the repeated smugness of Obama.

So you think I should be offended by a personality flaw, but not by comments...

But really, even if he was saying the American public too stupid to understand, I don't find it offensive. It seems to be the position of the GOP that people are idiots, so it doesn't matter what you tell them.

AUTaxMan
10-03-2012, 01:14 PM
So you think I should be offended by a personality flaw, but not by comments...

But really, even if he was saying the American public too stupid to understand, I don't find it offensive. It seems to be the position of the GOP that people are idiots, so it doesn't matter what you tell them.

Obama's smugness and condescension is displayed in his words routinely. Watch the debate tonight if you want some evidence.

And it seems that Obama's position on just about everything is that people are idiots, so it doesn't matter than you blatantly lie to them. My overarching point is that everything you accuse the GOP of, the Dems are just as bad if not worse, so people should make their decision on an objective basis, and not just how they feel about someone.

Wickabee
10-03-2012, 01:40 PM
Obama's smugness and condescension is displayed in his words routinely. Watch the debate tonight if you want some evidence.

And it seems that Obama's position on just about everything is that people are idiots, so it doesn't matter than you blatantly lie to them. My overarching point is that everything you accuse the GOP of, the Dems are just as bad if not worse, so people should make their decision on an objective basis, and not just how they feel about someone.

If that's the case, no one should vote. They're both liars and think the American public is stupid. I just don't see the Dems being "as bad" as the GOP. The GOP has made promises about the election they couldn't even keep. At least Obama can do that, if not keep the promises he makes during the campaign.