Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obama is a fucking hypocrite just like Warren Buffet.
If he truly believes that rich people like him should pay more then he should write a fucking check to cover his "fair share"
It's called leadership; something Bam Bam is lacking.
No. He followed the law. He wants to change the law to require himself to pay more. Duh.
THERE IS NO LAW that says HE CAN'T PAY MORE!!!
It is the hypocrisy that he bitches and moans AND YET HE TAKES IT!
AGAIN there is NO laws that says HE CAN"T PAY MORE!
Romney did! He didn't deduct all of his charitable donations for last year.
He left $1.8 million in donations off his return in order to live up to a statement he made about always having paid at least a 13 percent tax rate on his income.
Romney actually donated MORE money then he reported for tax purpose so he paid higher taxes!
Romney and his wife, Ann, gave 29.4 percent of their income to charity in 2011, donating $4,020,772 out of the $13,696,951 they took in.
Romney didnt deduct all of his charitable donations for last year. He left $1.8 million in donations off his return in order to live up to a statement he made about always having paid at least a 13 percent tax rate on his income. With his charity write-offs partially held back, Romney overshot that mark a bit for 2011, paying at a 14.1 percent rate.
...
If true, that's simply buying an election -- or more correctly buying a perception that will serve to take an election.
So to sum up, one guy declines deductions in order to make himself look like more of a taxpayer so that that perception might give him control of the country -- Good; another guy just takes his normal deductions like everybody else -- Bad.
OH by the way... the moderators sure were quick to MOVE this message... I might have to change it to more political!!!
LIKE Obama the hypocrite takes deductions he bemoans other take!!!
Uhh... your whole headline is about Media. Networks and headlines. Duh.
Perhaps they were still wrong. Perhaps they should have moved it to the Rubber Room.
Geez, what a whiner.
Thanks so much for sharing ... your opinion. Now, do you have any comment other than "ain't it awful" Maybe a question about his place of birth, or his religion, or his political ideology (where do you fall, is he in your opinion a Communist, a Socialist, a Muslim, a Martian?), or his grades, or his former church, or his Noble Peace Prize, or his law school awards, or his work as a community organizer (is that a bad thing, why?) or his empathy for the families in Newtown or anything else of such monumental importance it has lead for a day on Fox News Channel and the Rush Limbaugh Show?
Must be an uneasy fealing when you realize you have to resort to labels to justify your position.
Again, a leader leads by example, or does that simply not matter in todays world.
Truman said "The buck stops here", not the buck stops over yonder.
You're new here but have already established yourself as one of the willfully ignorant. That's sad, but it doesn't entirely explain your inability to read with comprehension. BTW, there is nothing wrong with labels, placing you in the set of "ain't he awful" was appropriate; no probative evidence exists not to, and placement in the willfully ignorant set seem appropriate also. Classification, it's done all the time in science.
I don't need a lecture on leadership, I was a leader in my organization. While it's true a leader sometimes leads by example, that is not a universal truth. A good leader has a vision, does not ask followers to do something s/he would not do and must convince followers that the mission is doable and worth the effort.
The leader must listen to all levels within the organization and modify the vision when necessary. It's easy to identify a faux leader, s/he has trouble changing course do to their constant concern as to how change will effect them. When the boss has greater concern for their own legacy and not the mission, failure is assured.
Must be an uneasy fealing when you realize you have to resort to labels to justify your position.
Again, a leader leads by example, or does that simply not matter in todays world.
Truman said "The buck stops here", not the buck stops over yonder.
You're new here but have already established yourself as one of the willfully ignorant. That's sad, but it doesn't entirely explain your inability to read with comprehension. BTW, there is nothing wrong with labels, placing you in the set of "ain't he awful" was appropriate; no probative evidence exists not to, and placement in the willfully ignorant set seem appropriate also. Classification, it's done all the time in science.
I don't need a lecture on leadership, I was a leader in my organization. While it's true a leader sometimes leads by example, that is not a universal truth. A good leader has a vision, does not ask followers to do something s/he would not do and must convince followers that the mission is doable and worth the effort.
The leader must listen to all levels within the organization and modify the vision when necessary. It's easy to identify a faux leader, s/he has trouble changing course do to their constant concern as to how change will effect them. When the boss has greater concern for their own legacy and not the mission, failure is assured.
Willfully ignorant because I want my leaders to live up to their words? Sheep have leaders also....
But I guess that's distracting.....
Only Republicans candidates have to live up to the standards of Democrats. The media makes sure of that.
Obama has said he should pay more.
Apparently the OP and his echo FJO believe the wealthy should pay more. I completely agree.
You find nothing disingenuous about the President's tax positions and low percentages of his political opponents and what he himself actually paid ?
I do not. I find you and others who are critical of what he paid to be not only hypocritcal but ridiculous.
Obama has said he should pay more. The taxes he paid were the taxes legally required - we must assume - taking full advantage of the tax laws as written (which always benefit the wealthy). He and the First Lady gave away a good deal of their income to a wide range of charities. If they had 'hidden' their dollars overseas you might have a legitimate reason to whine, as it stands your whine remains fully partisan all of the time and without merit.
No. He followed the law. He wants to change the law to require himself to pay more. Duh.
No. He followed the law. He wants to change the law to require himself to pay more. Duh.
Which is why its not news.
No. He followed the law. He wants to change the law to require himself to pay more. Duh.
Which is why its not news.
Only huge news when Republicans do it. Got it. He doesn't HAVE to do that you know. It takes a lot of work to get down to that low rate. He didn't HAVE to do that. Only people who want to keep more of their money go through all that trouble.
Only Republicans candidates have to live up to the standards of Democrats. The media makes sure of that.
It should have been huge news, but instead it was simply a thud.
Not saying the man did anything legally wrong. Not at all, but taking a deduction, any deduction, reducing the rate, after making taxing the wealthy a key part of his campaign should have been a huge news story.
When it was revealed that Warren Buffett paid what was it like 15% in taxes
there was such an outcry from the left.
Now Obama pays 18% and the left is saying WTF is everyone's problem.
He's doing what every law abiding citizen is doing....
Got to hand it to these lefties.They know how to get over.
Obama is a fucking hypocrite just like Warren Buffet.
If he truly believes that rich people like him should pay more then he should write a fucking check to cover his "fair share"
It's called leadership; something Bam Bam is lacking.
No, that's called insane rationalization. Neither Obama nor Buffet's point is that they personally are paying too little all by themselves. But that's the stretch you have to make to come up with this bonfire of the inanities.
Obama is a fucking hypocrite just like Warren Buffet.
If he truly believes that rich people like him should pay more then he should write a fucking check to cover his "fair share"
It's called leadership; something Bam Bam is lacking.
No, that's called insane rationalization. Neither Obama nor Buffet's point is that they personally are paying too little all by themselves. But that's the stretch you have to make to come up with this bonfire of the inanities.
Bullshit.
If I say everyone should give 10% of their income to charity you can fucking bet i would be doing it.
If Bam Bam thinks he's not paying his "fair share" then he should pony up.
?
