Yeah, We Hate Obama, But Not For The Reason Chris Matthews Suggests (Guest Post)

Loading

Chris Matthews of NBC News at the NBC All-Star party in Beverly Hills

For once I agree with what Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s Hardball, said. Matthews said that the Republicans “hate” Dear Leader Barack Hussein Obama.

You remember Chris Matthews. He said in March 2008, that “I Felt This Thrill Going Up My Leg” as Obama spoke.

Fuming over what he said was insufficient outrage at Rudy Giuliani’s assertion that Obama doesn’t “love America,” Matthews said Republicans are “haters” seven times. Matthews said:

You want to know about that fight among Republicans running for President is all about? … It’s about who can hate President Obama the most. I will finish with the contest of hate that is going on among Republican candidates for president. Who can hate Obama the most?

Yes, we conservatives (and Republicans) hate Obama. But I don’t agree with WHY Matthews said we hate.

On October 30, 2008, Obama said “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” That is the ONLY campaign promise he has kept. How has he transformed America? Here are just SOME of the reasons why we hate Obama.

  • Pay their fair share of Taxes – Obama, in an effort to play the class card, has said many times that “the rich don’t pay their fair share” of taxes. That the assertion is untrue makes us hate him. Obama said in 2012 that, “Those who have done well, including me, should pay our fair share in taxes to contribute to the nation that made our success possible. We shouldn’t get a better deal than ordinary families…[.]” Well, in 2012, the top five percent of income earners paid a majority (59%) of federal income taxes. The top 1% of income earners paid 38% of federal income taxes. The bottom half of income earners paid only 3% of federal income taxes. Concerning the deal, the tax rate for the 1% was 23%, over seven times higher than the effective rate of 3% paid by the bottom half of income earners. Finally, the top half of income earners paid 97% of all federal income taxes in 2012. Bottom line: Obama is a liar. That’s why we hate him.
  • Foreign Policy – Where to begin? Failures are literally world-wide. al Qeada, ISIS, Iran, leading from behind, strategic patience, Benghazi, the failed reset with Russia, withdrawal from Iraq, confusion in Afghanistan, red line in the sand in Lybia, peace feelers to Nicaragua, Cuba, and Venezuela. And what does Obama do? Lie, as with the Benghazi mess, say that his policies are successful, as in Yemen, and hold summits that tell us that Islam, his religion of peace, has been hijacked by extremists, and that WE are at fault because we didn’t provide jobs for the extremists. Protect us from terrorists? Nooooooooooo, all he does is tell us that terrorists don’t exist because HE killed them all. That’s why we hate him.
  • Apology tour – How can we ever forget Obama’s apology tour in 2009? He went through Europe and Africa apologizing for America, notably in Berlin and Cairo. In Paris, Obama told the French that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe. In Prague, he said America has “a moral responsibility to act” on arms control because only the US had “used a nuclear weapon.” That’s why we hate him.
  • America Not Exceptional – And who can forget his comment about American Exceptionalism? He said that America is exceptional in the same way that “the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks in Greek exceptionalism.” That was Obama’s way of saying, “No.” That’s why we hate him.
  • Wreck the Economy – The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus) was an $830 billion spending blowout sold by Obama as a way to keep unemployment from rising above 8 percent. But the stimulus failed. 2009 marked the first of four straight years when unemployment averaged more than 8%. The unemployment rate would have been even worse, would still be above 8% if so many people had not quit the labor force, driving labor-participation rates to 1970s levels. Meanwhile, Obama expanded the Welfare roll by 41%. That’s why we hate him.
  • Cut deficit in Half – Obama promised, while campaigning, to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. He didn’t even come close. He has, instead, increased the national debt to over $17 billion. That’s why we hate him.
  • Green energy fiasco, refuse to put hand over heart when National Anthem played, DOJ and IRS scandals, illegal immigration, fossil energy, gun control, rule by executive fiat, “my way or the highway” politics, race relations, Internet Neutrality, the list is long and getting longer. That’s why we hate him.

Obama fundamentally changed America to look like he wanted it, Matthews. That’s why we hate him.

And I don’t remember Matthews being outraged when Obama said, in 2008, that George W. Bush was unpatriotic. Matthews gave Obama a pass for that remark.

Further, on January 21, 2009, Matthews said, “Does Rush Limbaugh hate this country?” And to think that Matthews used to guest host on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show.

Cross posted at The Pot Stirrer

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
60 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Just a typo fix. National debt of “$17 billion” should be “$17 trillion.” Well, actually, $18 trillion. No, $18 trillion plus. Come to think of it, by the time I finish typing this and hit “post,” it will probably be $19 trillion.

I hate Chris Matthews more then I hate Obumble…

How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways.
He was hired to do a job: to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is what it says in his job description.
He cannot do the job; in his view the document under whose terms he was hired is fundamentally flawed. He should not have taken the job in the first place, as he did so under false colors.
What’s the point of an oath of office if the first thing you do is break your oath?
We once had a tripartite system: executive, legislative, and judicial. We now have a unitary system: The Executive Branch. What the other two branches do or do not do is irrelevant.
King Putt should endure the same fate as George III. Let us declare ourselves independent of the mulatto tyrant, who is neither African nor American.

I don’t HATE the guy; I can’t hate him for being incompetent. It can be very frustrating and irritating (I CAN hate the incompetency and lies) but that does not mean I hate the guy.

If I find out that the overall weakening of America, the creation of new-found racial animus, the weakening of the economy, the dilution of the electorate using illegal immigrants, the blocking of a real opportunity to be energy independent and the strengthening and encouragement of our enemies vis a vis our own projected weakness is all INTENTIONAL rather than mere incompetency, stupidity and naiveté, THEN I will hate the guy, just as I would hate any other enemy of the state.

@Bill: You shoud get off your moralizing stump and look at things a lot more critically!

@Budvarakvar: I am not moralizing, I am just stating my position. While I hate (literally hate) practically everything he has done, I don’t know the guy and cannot hate the guy. While that could change, I find it healthier to focus on the actions than the personality (too bad more of his voters didn’t do the same).

He is either the most stupid bumbler that has ever occupied the White House or the most devious, insidious schemer against the United States the country has ever known. I do firmly believe one or the other will be revealed.

It’s sometimes easier to convince a mob to hate the messenger than it is to deal with the meaning of the message.

Net Wealth Distribution in the United States

One simple and obvious response is a return to a progressive tax schedule with high-end rates comparable to those of the Ronald Reagan era. We’re not going to see that, however, because the people now in control of Congress are beholden to financial backers who want to see the top end tax rates pushed even lower, federal deficits notwithstanding. As if they didn’t have enough of an advantage already…

@Greg:

A simpler method would be to return to a Constitutional-sized Government by cutting-out 90% of the un-Constitutional growth in FedGov since the New Deal. You do not need to tax the Hell out of the producers, if the Government is not wasting dollars on shit it was never meant to be involved with in the first place.

@Greg:

One simple and obvious response is a return to a progressive tax schedule with high-end rates comparable to those of the Ronald Reagan era.

Of course you support progressive taxes. You’re a Marxist. But perhaps you could tell me why you think that the plumber who makes $35/hr should be punished by a higher tax rate if he decides to work 50 hours a week and his counterpart should pay a lower tax rate because he decides to work 35 hours a week? One is being punished for working harder and one is being rewarded for being lazy.
Where is the incentive to work harder and do better?

We’re not going to see that, however, because the people now in control of Congress are beholden to financial backers who want to see the top end tax rates pushed even lower, federal deficits notwithstanding. As if they didn’t have enough of an advantage already…

You mean like how Media Benjamin of Code Pink, and an Obama major bundler, gets invited to the White House while Obama snubs others? Or how Jay Carney gets a tony six figure job with Amazon (another Obama supporter)? Are you saying that Obama is not beholding to his financial backers like law firms, unions, the University of California (a big bundling PAC)?

You’re an idiot.

@retire05, #9:

Of course you support progressive taxes. You’re a Marxist.

I’m a person who understands the negative implications of allowing a tiny percentage of the population to eventually wind up owning everything.

I would think business-oriented republicans would have a better understanding of what it means when their customers have less and less discretionary income with which to buy their goods and services. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out. It apparently takes someone smarter than you are, however.

@Greg:

I’m a person who understands the negative implications of allowing a tiny percentage of the population to eventually wind up owning everything.

No, you’re a person who thinks that one’s ideas and hard work should be punished in order to achieve income equality. Pure Marxist. You fail to look at those who are million/billionaires: Mark Cuban, Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Michael Dell, Jeff Bezos, etc., none born into wealth. If you are so jealous of those who have achieved great wealth, then use your brain (what little there is) to come up with an invention that is wanted by the masses.

I would think business-oriented republicans would have a better understanding of what it means when their customers have less and less discretionary income with which to buy their goods and services. It doesn’t take a genius to figure that out.

No, it doesn’t take a genius to figure it out. It is relatively simple; build/supply a product that is just as good but cheaper than your competition. Henry Ford understood that. How sad you do not.
You want greater disposable income? Reduce the tax burden on the people who spend the most. That would include the middle class that are being squeezed by Obama and the Democrats. Obamacare and now, Obamanet, is proving that.

It apparently takes someone smarter than you are, however.

Well, that leaves you out, doesn’t it?

You are one of the nitwits that would have claimed that Henry Ford didn’t deserve his wealth even though he made millions of lives better. But then, you view everything through the prism of Marxist ideals. Unfortunately for you, it has never worked where tried.

@retire05, #11:

No, you’re a person who thinks that one’s ideas and hard work should be punished in order to achieve income equality. Pure Marxist.

You apparently don’t understand the difference between equity and equality. Thinking that it’s not a good idea for a tiny percentage of the population to own an absurdly disproportionate share of the nation’s wealth and income, and wanting a rational mechanism to reduce the correlation between increasing wealth and and an increasing ability set the rules by which wealth is acquired, is not a pitch for equality.

Your problem is that you don’t want to have the real debate. You want to have some staged debate where you get to define your opponent’s position yourself, and then proceed to argue against that. It’s fairly typical of how things work on the right.

You apparently don’t understand the difference between equity and equality.

Sure I do. I just don’t accept your Marxist view that my equity should give you wealth equality.

Thinking that it’s not a good idea for a tiny percentage of the population to own an absurdly disproportionate share of the nation’s wealth and income, and wanting a rational mechanism to reduce the correlation between increasing wealth and and an increasing ability set the rules by which wealth is acquired, is not a pitch for equality.

Ironic, isn’t it that the members of your party are the cream of the crop when it comes to wealth and do nothing to share that wealth with anyone else. Instead, they hire high dollar tax lawyers to help them dodge taxes and keep even more of their money. So don’t preach to me about “equality” when your own party doesn’t practice it. Does Mark Zuckerberg really need $35 BIllion? Where are all those Zuckerberg Medical Clinics in the ghettos and barrios? Where are the Mark Cuban Day Care Centers in the ghettos and barrios?

You, and your Marxist ilk (Democrats) constantly harp on helping the poor all the while they have their hand in my pocket, not their own. And you are just too brainwashed to realize it.

Your problem is that you don’t want to have the real debate.

Why should I debate with you? You never answer a question, or address any point made by one who disagrees with you. Simply put, you are not up to a rational debate intellectually.

That’s because you’re an idiot.

@Greg: Then please explain why the 10+ trillion dollars of new digital debt has ended up in the hands of so few? If this glorious transformation was to achieve so much, then why has it only succeeded in making the ultra-rich richer while destroying the rest of us?

@Greg:

I’m a person who understands the negative implications of allowing a tiny percentage of the population to eventually wind up owning everything.

Yet you have no problem with someone like Soros, who has gone about the world wrecking national currencies and leveraging the wreckage to his own excessive profits and accumulation of wealth and power having such a strong voice in this administration. While people like the Koch’s or even Buffett or Steyer look after business interests which often results economic expansion and jobs, Soros wreaks havoc and chaos for his own personal power expansion in order to exert his own influence upon governments.

And yet he is the power behind Mr. Obama. Nice.

@Bill, #15:

Have I suggested that Soros, or anyone else, should get preferential treatment?

The vehemence of the right’s hatred for this particular Jewish philanthropist seems a bit out of character. The guy has given over $8 billion to human rights, public health, and educational causes. Not your sort of causes, apparently.

@retire05, #13:

Why should I debate with you?

I agree. Feel free to ignore my comments entirely.

@Greg:

The vehemence of the right’s hatred for this particular Jewish philanthropist seems a bit out of character.

Yeah, a Jew that sold other Jews out to the Nazis. Whatta guy!!!

The guy has given over $8 billion to human rights, public health, and educational causes.

Like what? MediaMatters that he funded with seed money? I guess that, in your book, is a “educational” cause. Name all these “causes” you seem to think he is donating money to.

@Greg:

I agree. Feel free to ignore my comments entirely.

Nah, b!tch slapping you is way too much fun. And you obviously enjoy having the hell hammered out of you.

You try to slap. I wouldn’t apply the word “bitch” to you, as that’s not how I was brought up. If you wish to adopt the term yourself as a means of self description, I suppose that’s entirely up to you.

@Greg:

You try to slap.

Nope. Every time you run and hide, refusing to answer questions or a counterpoint, you show that I, and others, hit their mark.

Running and hiding is apparently how you describe ceasing to respond to your taunts and insults that follow any substantive point or observation.

@Greg:

Only an idiot would consider a question a “taunt.” Or a useful idiot that has no legitimate response without making themselves look even more like an idiot.

Just how compulsive are you about having the last word? Can you resist the urge to say something else? Consider this a test of your willpower.

@Greg:

Ah, changing the subject again, I see.

And those giving a test should be smarter than the ones taking it. You failed on that requirement.

Don’t worry about me. I have not drank the Marxist Koolaid as you have. And I am not a coward who runs from questions like you do. I suggest your worry about the fact that you continue to prove you’re an idiot.

@Greg: “Have I suggested that Soros, or anyone else, should get preferential treatment?” Who said anything about “preferential treatment”? I merely asked why you don’t object to the influence of such a ultra-wealthy manipulator as you bemoan the wealthy in America. Apparently, your hypocrisy-override cannot engage and you are compelled to tangent away to other diversions.

Like race, for instance. Personally, I have high regard and respect for the Jewish community, but I do find a Jew that would help Nazis exterminate his neighbors dispicable. What is your regard for Obama and the left allowing one such person manipulate their actions?

The Koch brothers have built hospitals, contributed to schools and even to the NAACP and have contributed to the economy and tens of thousands of jobs, yet the left vilifies them. Not your kind of contributions?

The Koch brothers promote a political agenda that favors and empowers people such as themselves. Koch Industries and their subsidiaries don’t exactly have stellar reputations as friends and protectors of the environment. It doesn’t take much online digging to turn up some very negative information. Koch Industries is the 13th largest emitter of toxic air pollutants in the United States.

That’s not to deny that they fund many things that are of positive value. The question is whether those positives outweigh all of the negatives. Our opinions on that point obviously differ.

Hate
I am sorry I though Christians were taught that was wronh

@Greg:

You know, Gullible Greggie, I just love your links. Each time you post one, there is some little gem inside that shows how large your hypocrisy is. So Koch Industries is #13, eh?

I guess you just breezed past #8. You know, like totally ignoring #8. And who would #8 be, you ask? Surprise, surprise, it is GE. Remember GE, Gullible Greggie? The company who employs Jeffrey Immelt, the very CEO who was a huge money bundler for the Obama campaigns and as a reward, who Obama appointed to Obama’s jobs “committee?” The very company that was paying no taxes and outsourcing American jobs to China faster than you can say AF-1, all the while Immelt was telling The Won how to create jobs in the U.S.?

Nothing stinks stronger than your liberal hypocrisy in the afternoon.

No doubt about it; you’re still an idiot.

@retire05, #28:

The comment I was responding to had to do with my attitude toward the Koch brothers, not Jeffrey Immelt.

By the way, Jeffrey Immelt is a life-long Republican, not a Democrat.

@Greg:

Sorry, Gullible Greggie, but Immelt is not a “life-long” Republican and unless you have access to his voting record, you have no way to back that statement up (no surprise, you continue to throw shite thinking no one will bother to check your claims).

According to Immelt’s donation records, he gives just as much, if not more, to Democrats and Democrat committees. Any “life-long” Republican would not donate one damn dime to any fascist Democrat.

But hey, continue to show what an idiot you are. I think you have learned to like doing that.

@Greg:

The Koch brothers ….

Gee, Greg, if I didn’t know better, I would swear you are avoiding the discussion of Soros, the destroyer of currencies and disrupter of nations. Say it ain’t so.

You know who pollutes? Soros. Media Matters is a major source of pollution. Soros funds groups that incite riots, as they did in Ferguson. When Soros ruins a currency, who do you think suffers as he makes obscene profits? PEOPLE. Soros wants to destroy capitalism and the United States currency and he and Obama are in league.

Meanwhile, Koch employs 50,000 directly with over 200,000 jobs dependent upon them. Soros is scum while Koch employs. Obama chooses Soros. Just about says all that needs to be said.

By the way, Jeffrey Immelt is a life-long Republican, not a Democrat.

Yeah, that’s probably why Immelt turned GE’s NBC and MSNBC into Obama cheerleaders. I swear, Greg; is there no stupid fantasy you will not try to foist on intelligent people?

Silly and weak, Greg. Really silly and very, very weak.

Well, the New York Post—a Rupert Murdoch-owned, conservative-leaning newspaper—states that Jeffrey Immelt is a life-long republican:

Back when he agreed to advise the Obama administration on economics, General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt told friends that he thought it would be good for GE and good for the country. A life-long Republican, Immelt said he believed he could at the very least moderate the president’s distinctly anti-business instincts.
That was three years ago; these days Immelt is telling friends something quite different.

There’s also the small matter of the Democratic Party’s progressive element having waged a campaign to get Jeffrey Immelt booted from the Obama administration. They certainly don’t seem to have ever viewed him as one of their own.

The guy has certainly behaved like a republican in how he has managed the businesses he’s headed. (Assuming you judge republicans by what they actually do, rather than by what they say.) What was it that somebody once said about walking like a duck, talking like a duck, and acting like a duck? There’s all of that, in addition to the sign he wears around his neck that says DUCK. But believe whatever you want. I understand that evidence generally isn’t required.

@Greg:

Well, the New York Post—a Rupert Murdoch-owned, conservative-leaning newspaper—states that Jeffrey Immelt is a life-long republican:

Wait…..WAIT…….you’re now using a Murdoch-owned publication as credible? When did your enlightenment happen? Was it recent, like just a few minutes ago?

There’s also the small matter of the Democratic Party’s progressive element having waged a campaign to get Jeffrey Immelt booted from the Obama administration. They certainly don’t seem to have ever viewed him as one of their own.

Russ Feingold, and MOVE-ON.ORG was the catalyst for that demand. You know, the George Soros funded MoveOn.org? Oh, my, we have come full circle back to George Soros, the George Soros you don’t want to talk about and you managed to do that all by your widdle self, Gullible Greggie. But old Georgie failed because Immelt remained on Obama’s job council another 22 months after they demand he be booted.

Why are you so obsessed with ducks? Is it because you can only quack the DNC talking points?

You’re ever the idiot.

@retire05, #34:

Bloomberg Business has also cited the fact that Jeffrey Immelt is a republican.

A year ago in a Chief Executive interview, Jeffrey Immelt stated so himself:

J.P. Donlon, for Chief Executive: You’ve spent a lot of time in Washington on the president’s council. Tell us, what does the country have to do to provide a sufficient platform for manufacturers to succeed?

Immelt: I always start the answer to this question with, I’m a Republican. I was then and I am today.

Can you find a single reference stating that Immelt is a Democrat? Or did you get this information by way of a private, destroy-after-reading message from Cloud Cuckoo Land?

@Greg:

Can you find a single reference stating that Immelt is a Democrat? Or did you get this information by way of a private, destroy-after-reading message from Cloud Cuckoo Land?

Wait, you’re asking me questions and expect answers? Really? You, who never answers any question put to you and you think you have the right to expect answers from others? You’re not just an idiot, you’re a hypocrite.

Where did I say Immelt was a Democrat? Frankly, Immelt is one of those mushy middle hacks who donates his money where he thinks he will get the best bang for his buck, be it $10,000 to Democrat Party of Deleware or $2,500.00 to Lindsay Graham or $3,000 to Debbie Stabenow or what ever pol he wants in his pocket. The list is lengthy, and there are lots of donations to lots of Democrats and Republicans.

Now, no more about Immelt. You need to answer the questions I asked you or show, once again, what a coward you are.

I’d wrongly assumed there was some point to your comment in post #31:

Sorry, Gullible Greggie, but Immelt is not a “life-long” Republican and unless you have access to his voting record, you have no way to back that statement up (no surprise, you continue to throw shite thinking no one will bother to check your claims).

You know, it’s always you who starts this sort of pointless digression. The reason I said Immelt is a Republican is because that’s what every source that’s commented on the point has indicated, and because that’s what he’s always said himself. If you didn’t care about the point, and don’t have any sources stating otherwise, I don’t know why you bothered to make an issue of it.

Typical Gullible Greggie post:

#1 – Defend Obama and Democrats
#2 – Claim Republicans are bad
#3 – Ask questions of those who disagree with #1 and #2
#4 – Refuse to answer questions asked by those who disagree #1 and #2
#5 – If all else fails, change subject

@Greg (reply button doesn’t seem to be working) AGAIN, I believe the subject was SOROS and his scumbaggery and why someone that has such a deep love for the United States of America would align himself with such trash. But, the same could be asked of his association with Immelt (and vice versa), but that one is pretty easy; Obama lets Immelt rob the taxpayer in exchange for NBC and MSNBC running a propaganda mill for far left ideology. The same reason he allows Buffett to skate on a billion in owed taxes and Sharpton dodging $4 million in taxes owed; utile mouthpieces. In other words, Obama lets the American taxpayer pay for his propaganda.

Why, Greg? Why is this OK but others are not? Why would Obama invite such scum to associate with?

@Bill, #39:

Obama lets Immelt rob the taxpayer in exchange for NBC and MSNBC running a propaganda mill for far left ideology.

Obama didn’t let him do anything. GE’s escape from corporate tax liabilities likely involved nothing that other U.S. corporations don’t do on a totally routine basis. Essentially GE’s optimization of legal loopholes and tax dodges allowed them to realize a taxation objective that many republicans openly advocate as an ideal situation: They paid no corporate taxes at all for a year.

If GE’s optimization of tax dodges represented robbery of the taxpayers, many other U.S. corporations and Republican Party supporters can likely be charged as well.

@Greg:

If GE’s optimization of tax dodges represented robbery of the taxpayers, many other U.S. corporations and Republican Party supporters can likely be charged as well.

Ah, Gullible Greggie, you never fail to expose your rabid partisanship. I guess only Republican Party supporters take advantage of tax loop holes. You know, those like Nancy Pelosi or Dianne Feinstein’s husband, or George Soros (who you don’t want to talk about) or Bill Gates (who is a BIG Dem) or any of the other many rich Democrats we hear whining about how the tax code is unfair to the “little guy” all the while they hire tony tax lawyers to protect them from paying their “fair share.”

Perhaps Obama should insist that anyone who works for his administration, pay their taxes. Or anyone who has an inside track to the Oval Office, like Al Sharpton, pay their taxes. Instead, Democrats throw their arms open to welcome tax cheats like Al Sharpton and Timothy Geithner.

You are, and remain, an idiot.

Gullible Greggie’s bunch:

41 Obama White House aides owe the IRS $831,000 in back taxes — and they’re not alone

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/congress-taxes-irs.html

@retire05, #41:

I guess only Republican Party supporters take advantage of tax loop holes.

I didn’t say that, did I?

It is in the Republican Party, however, where we’ll find most people who advocate lowering or entirely eliminating corporate taxes—a goal which GE realized under the leadership of Mr. Immelt. Apparently the fact that he was associated with the Obama Administration for a time has left you somewhat conflicted about whether optimizing legal tax avoidance is a good thing or a bad thing.

@Greg:

It is in the Republican Party, however, where we’ll find most people who advocate lowering or entirely eliminating corporate taxes—

“corporate” taxes is a misnomer that you progressives love to throw around while ignoring who really pays those taxes. It is the consumer, in higher costs of goods and services that pay those taxes; it is the police office and school teacher, who is invested in those companies through their retirement funds, that pay those taxes in the form of lower dividends.

Those “corporate” taxes as you progressives love to call them, are being paid by the very people that should not have to pay them. The more taxes a company pays, taking it off the top, the less money investors, like police officers and school teachers, realize.

Of course, being the weasel you are, you don’t want to talk about the 41 White House aids that owe over 3/4th of a billion dollars in back taxes or about Al Sharpton who owes what? $4 million in back taxes? I guess they are just evil Republicans who are cheating the system in your feeble mind.

Do you never tire of being an idiot?

@Greg; Still unwilling to address Soros. I understand fully. He is a wretched human being and trying to explain what someone that is for “the little guy” would align himself with one that rapes nations and economies is a toughie, to be sure.

The issue with Immelt is that he was a major supporter of Obama who was and is a major supporter of higher taxes, particularly on business. Immelt was made the “jobs czar” for his Joseph Goebbels imitation was well. Then, it turns out Immelt is working with the Chinese to help them build large commercial aircraft (something that has military application as well), sending jobs to China AND paying 0% taxes on GE profits, keeping every penny off-shore. Why does Obama pal around with such anti-little guy people? Doesn’t that make him sort of a hypocrite?

@retire05, #44:

“corporate” taxes is a misnomer that you progressives love to throw around while ignoring who really pays those taxes. It is the consumer, in higher costs of goods and services that pay those taxes; it is the police office and school teacher, who is invested in those companies through their retirement funds, that pay those taxes in the form of lower dividends.

Republicans don’t want taxes to be collected from corporations. They don’t much like the idea of capital gains taxes, either. If you were to remove those types of taxes, a particular segment of our society would benefit to a far greater degree than others, and the others would somehow have to make up the difference.

Can you figure out who that might be?

If you want corporations to have the same constitutional rights as people, perhaps you shouldn’t be so whiny about the fact that they come with some of the same tax obligations as people.

@Greg:

Republicans don’t want taxes to be collected from corporations.

Obviously, you failed Econ 101. Corporations don’t pay taxes. They take it off the top of their profits, which reduces the amount of money paid in dividends to their investors who own stock via 401(k) and retirement plans.

They don’t much like the idea of capital gains taxes, either.

What I object to is your Marxist system of taxing every thing that moves. How does that help society? Why not reduce the amount of spending the federal leviathan consumes every year?

If you were to remove those types of taxes, a particular segment of our society would benefit to a far greater degree than others, and the others would somehow have to make up the difference.

Can you figure out who that might be?

Yeah, the poor schmuck who works for a living and contributes to his 401(k) or retirement plan. He gets hit with less money from dividends then gets taxed again by capital gains taxes when he sells it to pay his bills. But hey, what do you care? You’re a Marxist.

If you want corporations to have the same constitutional rights as people, perhaps you shouldn’t be so whiny about the fact that they come with some of the same tax obligations as people.

Again, you prove that you’re an idiot. The taxes are not absorbed by the company. They are passed on in the cost of goods and services and in dividends to investors.

Do you ever tire of proving how stupid you are?

@retire05, #47:

I’m growing weary of your continuous insults. Perhaps you should find a more vulnerable target than myself. You’re really not going to figure out how to do me any psychological damage, and you’re only making yourself look like an idiot trying.

I really don’t understand the mean-spiritedness that seems increasingly common on the right these days. I was puzzling over that as I was reading the sad story about Tom Schweich’s death earlier this afternoon. People are even turning it on their own party members. Maybe it comes from anger-driven politics. Wherever it comes from, it’s certainly damaging public discourse.

@Greg: I haven’t issued any insults and yet you still refuse to address the Soros hypocrisy issue.

@Greg:

I’m growing weary of your continuous insults.

Then leave. Your ilk seems to have no trouble insulting conservatives, calling them worse than Nazis, or other similar untrue smears. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen and go to one of the many far left websites that will treat your widdle feelings with tenderness. That is, unless you express some conservative views where you will probably be subjected to such profane insults your hair will catch on fire, right before you get booted as DailyKos/HuffingtonPost/Salon, et al, tend to do with conservatives. But you see, FA being a conservative blog, they allow you full First Amendment rights, even though you most certainly are a Marxist.

Perhaps you should find a more vulnerable target than myself.

Oh, I think you are a perfect target. At every turn, you exhibit how indoctrinated you are and every time you dodge a question or change the subject because you have no good answer, you prove that dogmatic ideology of the far left is insupportable. Yes, you are a perfect target. You, and every other radical left winger.

You’re really not going to figure out how to do me any psychological damage, and you’re only making yourself look like an idiot trying.

The psychological damage you obviously suffer from happened long before you came here. It was ingrained, like all indoctrination is. I take no credit for that.

I really don’t understand the mean-spiritedness that seems increasingly common on the right these days.

Funny, as I read the internet, both right, and left, sources, it seems the mean-spiritedness seems to come mostly from the left side of the aisle. Would you like some comments from Democrats that prove that? Just look at the comments made by your ilk about Benjamin Netanyahu yesterday? Calling him a child? Telling him to go home? Other comments made about Tea Party attendees? Racist, bigoted, et al. All applied to those on the right/conservative side by the left.

You remain an idiot.