|
|
On September 18 2012 07:20 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:09 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 06:13 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 04:53 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 18:19 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I like how you have no problem digging up sources about an argument I've repeatedly said I'm not interested in discussing (how Obama is perceived), but somehow can't find any source to back up your own claim that I'm responding to. Here's where he calls bankers fat cats. President Obama has ratcheted up his rhetoric against Wall Street just as some of the nation's top bankers head to the White House for what looks increasingly likely to be a tense and combative meeting.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft, the president went after what he called the "fat cat bankers on Wall Street." He said bankers have not shown "a lot of shame" about their behavior and outsized compensation despite the bank bailouts and economic downturn.
After stating that the financial crisis was "caused in part by completely irresponsible actions on Wall Street," Mr. Obama suggested that some banks paid TARP bailout money back to the government specifically to free themselves from government-mandated constraints on executive compensation.
"I think in some cases that was a motivation," said Mr. Obama. "Which I think tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it. They don't get it. They're still puzzled, why is it that people are mad at the banks?"
"Well, let's see," continued the president. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?" Link That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview. You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you. For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already. My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post: The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"? Again, I am not interested in discussing how Obama is perceived. Yes, the main point of your original post was about how Obama is perceived. I am not interested in discussing this. What I am interested in discussing is the assertion you made to explain that perception, and that assertion only (not even the causal link you established between that assertion and the sentiment you evoke). Again (I really hope I'm not going to have to repeat this in my next post), I did not reply to your post to discuss the main point you were making - only the assertion that underlaid it. That assertion was that "Obama has levied ["a whole host of attacks"] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general". Since this idea that Obama has actually waged some kind of war against rich people is a blatantly ridiculous narrative that Republicans are and have been trying to push, I replied to your post to ask you to actually provide examples of such attacks. So far, you've provided me with absolutely nothing but cases where Obama did not actually attack "the rich", "the successful" or "private enterprise", but instead denounced practices. To assert that Obama is attacking rich people because he's denouncing some types of practices and actions that happen to be conducted by some rich people is a fallacy. I would therefore like you to provide me with actual examples of "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", or admit that they don't actually exist. Whether or not calling someone a "fat cat" constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and perspective. It is not something we can really have a factual discussion about. You need to understand that different people have a different point of view and because of that will react to things differently. Ex. You can state that oil company profits in '08 were "excessive" and argue that it is a factually correct choice of words. The price of oil was extremely high making profits "excessive". However, people in the oil industry, and other businesses for that matter, will view it as an attack. Justified or not, factual or not, it doesn't matter - they will view it as an attack. Basically anything negative can be perceived as an attack. That's why we call negative ads "attack ads". When Obama says negative things about bankers (fat cats) or the rich (fair share) then those groups will often view that negativity as an attack. You are still discussing perception. That there is a degree of subjectivity in determining whether or not a statement is an "attack" does not prevent us from looking at what and/or whom the statements are targeting in the first place (and, by the way, we can in addition discuss their degree of hostility, since "attacks" obviously denotes a high degree of hostility). When Obama says that rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes, he's not attacking the rich because that statement is not about the rich but about how much they pay in taxes - it is therefore about the tax system. One of his selling points is actually that many rich people agree with him on the matter (see even the name of his tax plan, the "Buffet rule"). That's why in the very speech the "you didn't built that" quote is taken from, he says, and I quote, "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me". He's therefore very clearly not attacking "the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general", because he's not even targeting them. Obama has never criticized "the rich" for being rich, "the successful" for being successful, or private enterprise. Never. That's why it's perfectly possible to answer objectively the question of whether he's done attacks like the ones you evoked, and the answer is he hasn't. Oh c'mon, you're just playing word games now. What you're doing is the same as Bush justifying his tax cuts that everyone is free to take advantage of reductions in capital gains taxes, even though in real terms the vast majority of the benefit goes to the rich. I might agree that Republicans exaggerate increased taxes into some kind of devoted hatred of the rich, but you can't get away with saying forcing the top 1% of the population to pay higher taxes is not targeting a specific group or attacking their success. Of course he is, he's taking money from them. Now, you may still support that. But be open and transparent about what you're exactly trying to do. If you want to tax the rich to fund programs for the poor out of a sense of fairness and equality, then that's fine as an opinion. But don't muddy up the waters and say the rich should be happy about it.
Sorry, but I don't see how wanting a category of people to pay more in taxes because you consider that it is needed and that the current tax rate is too low is equivalent to "attacking their success". By your logic, if during a single term a president passes a tax cut for rich people for the duration of a short crisis, then after three years gets taxes back to their previous level, he is "attacking rich people for their success". No, he's not. He's making changes to the tax system according to what he believes is best for the economy and the budget. When previous presidents raised taxes for everybody, were they "attacking" the U.S. taxpayers "for their success"?
|
On September 18 2012 07:09 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 06:13 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 04:53 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 18:19 kwizach wrote:I like how you have no problem digging up sources about an argument I've repeatedly said I'm not interested in discussing (how Obama is perceived), but somehow can't find any source to back up your own claim that I'm responding to. Here's where he calls bankers fat cats. President Obama has ratcheted up his rhetoric against Wall Street just as some of the nation's top bankers head to the White House for what looks increasingly likely to be a tense and combative meeting.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft, the president went after what he called the "fat cat bankers on Wall Street." He said bankers have not shown "a lot of shame" about their behavior and outsized compensation despite the bank bailouts and economic downturn.
After stating that the financial crisis was "caused in part by completely irresponsible actions on Wall Street," Mr. Obama suggested that some banks paid TARP bailout money back to the government specifically to free themselves from government-mandated constraints on executive compensation.
"I think in some cases that was a motivation," said Mr. Obama. "Which I think tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it. They don't get it. They're still puzzled, why is it that people are mad at the banks?"
"Well, let's see," continued the president. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?" Link That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview. You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you. For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already. My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post: The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"? Again, I am not interested in discussing how Obama is perceived. Yes, the main point of your original post was about how Obama is perceived. I am not interested in discussing this. What I am interested in discussing is the assertion you made to explain that perception, and that assertion only (not even the causal link you established between that assertion and the sentiment you evoke). Again (I really hope I'm not going to have to repeat this in my next post), I did not reply to your post to discuss the main point you were making - only the assertion that underlaid it. That assertion was that "Obama has levied ["a whole host of attacks"] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general". Since this idea that Obama has actually waged some kind of war against rich people is a blatantly ridiculous narrative that Republicans are and have been trying to push, I replied to your post to ask you to actually provide examples of such attacks. So far, you've provided me with absolutely nothing but cases where Obama did not actually attack "the rich", "the successful" or "private enterprise", but instead denounced practices. To assert that Obama is attacking rich people because he's denouncing some types of practices and actions that happen to be conducted by some rich people is a fallacy. I would therefore like you to provide me with actual examples of "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", or admit that they don't actually exist. Whether or not calling someone a "fat cat" constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and perspective. It is not something we can really have a factual discussion about. You need to understand that different people have a different point of view and because of that will react to things differently. Ex. You can state that oil company profits in '08 were "excessive" and argue that it is a factually correct choice of words. The price of oil was extremely high making profits "excessive". However, people in the oil industry, and other businesses for that matter, will view it as an attack. Justified or not, factual or not, it doesn't matter - they will view it as an attack. Basically anything negative can be perceived as an attack. That's why we call negative ads "attack ads". When Obama says negative things about bankers (fat cats) or the rich (fair share) then those groups will often view that negativity as an attack. You are still discussing perception. That there is a degree of subjectivity in determining whether or not a statement is an "attack" does not prevent us from looking at what and/or whom the statements are targeting in the first place (and, by the way, we can in addition discuss their degree of hostility, since "attacks" obviously denotes a high degree of hostility). When Obama says that rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes, he's not attacking the rich because that statement is not about the rich but about how much they pay in taxes - it is therefore about the tax system. One of his selling points is actually that many rich people agree with him on the matter (see even the name of his tax plan, the "Buffet rule"). That's why in the very speech the "you didn't built that" quote is taken from, he says, and I quote, "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me". He's therefore very clearly not attacking "the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general", because he's not even targeting them. Obama has never criticized "the rich" for being rich, "the successful" for being successful, or private enterprise. Never. That's why it's perfectly possible to answer objectively the question of whether he's done attacks like the ones you evoked, and the answer is he hasn't.
For one thing, please stop telling me to not discuss perception. My post was about perception, we can't set it aside because that changes the context of the word "attack". If you don't want to discuss perception then you shouldn't have responded to my post.
Next when Obama says that the rich don't pay their fair share it is absolutely about the rich. Saying that someone isn't paying their fair share is a statement about them - that they aren't pulling their own weight. If it was just an argument about the tax code you wouldn't use an emotional phrase like "fair share" - you'd stick to numbers.
|
On September 18 2012 07:28 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:20 coverpunch wrote:On September 18 2012 07:09 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 06:13 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 04:53 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] Here's where he calls bankers fat cats. [quote] Link That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview. You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you. For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already. My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post: The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"? Again, I am not interested in discussing how Obama is perceived. Yes, the main point of your original post was about how Obama is perceived. I am not interested in discussing this. What I am interested in discussing is the assertion you made to explain that perception, and that assertion only (not even the causal link you established between that assertion and the sentiment you evoke). Again (I really hope I'm not going to have to repeat this in my next post), I did not reply to your post to discuss the main point you were making - only the assertion that underlaid it. That assertion was that "Obama has levied ["a whole host of attacks"] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general". Since this idea that Obama has actually waged some kind of war against rich people is a blatantly ridiculous narrative that Republicans are and have been trying to push, I replied to your post to ask you to actually provide examples of such attacks. So far, you've provided me with absolutely nothing but cases where Obama did not actually attack "the rich", "the successful" or "private enterprise", but instead denounced practices. To assert that Obama is attacking rich people because he's denouncing some types of practices and actions that happen to be conducted by some rich people is a fallacy. I would therefore like you to provide me with actual examples of "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", or admit that they don't actually exist. Whether or not calling someone a "fat cat" constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and perspective. It is not something we can really have a factual discussion about. You need to understand that different people have a different point of view and because of that will react to things differently. Ex. You can state that oil company profits in '08 were "excessive" and argue that it is a factually correct choice of words. The price of oil was extremely high making profits "excessive". However, people in the oil industry, and other businesses for that matter, will view it as an attack. Justified or not, factual or not, it doesn't matter - they will view it as an attack. Basically anything negative can be perceived as an attack. That's why we call negative ads "attack ads". When Obama says negative things about bankers (fat cats) or the rich (fair share) then those groups will often view that negativity as an attack. You are still discussing perception. That there is a degree of subjectivity in determining whether or not a statement is an "attack" does not prevent us from looking at what and/or whom the statements are targeting in the first place (and, by the way, we can in addition discuss their degree of hostility, since "attacks" obviously denotes a high degree of hostility). When Obama says that rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes, he's not attacking the rich because that statement is not about the rich but about how much they pay in taxes - it is therefore about the tax system. One of his selling points is actually that many rich people agree with him on the matter (see even the name of his tax plan, the "Buffet rule"). That's why in the very speech the "you didn't built that" quote is taken from, he says, and I quote, "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me". He's therefore very clearly not attacking "the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general", because he's not even targeting them. Obama has never criticized "the rich" for being rich, "the successful" for being successful, or private enterprise. Never. That's why it's perfectly possible to answer objectively the question of whether he's done attacks like the ones you evoked, and the answer is he hasn't. Oh c'mon, you're just playing word games now. What you're doing is the same as Bush justifying his tax cuts that everyone is free to take advantage of reductions in capital gains taxes, even though in real terms the vast majority of the benefit goes to the rich. I might agree that Republicans exaggerate increased taxes into some kind of devoted hatred of the rich, but you can't get away with saying forcing the top 1% of the population to pay higher taxes is not targeting a specific group or attacking their success. Of course he is, he's taking money from them. Now, you may still support that. But be open and transparent about what you're exactly trying to do. If you want to tax the rich to fund programs for the poor out of a sense of fairness and equality, then that's fine as an opinion. But don't muddy up the waters and say the rich should be happy about it. Sorry, but I don't see how wanting a category of people to pay more in taxes because you consider that it is needed and that the current tax rate is too low is equivalent to "attacking their success". By your logic, if during a single term a president passes a tax cut for rich people for the duration of a short crisis, then after three years gets taxes back to their previous level, he is "attacking rich people for their success". No, he's not. He's making changes to the tax system according to what he believes is best for the economy and the budget. When previous presidents raised taxes for everybody, were they "attacking" the U.S. taxpayers "for their success"?
Depends on the context. Did he call the people he raised taxes on a bunch of fat cat vultures who weren't paying their fair share?
|
What Romney thinks 47% of the population actually is
So Romney said some really dumb things during a fundraiser for rich people. A choice quote
"During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."
|
On September 18 2012 07:54 AUGcodon wrote:What Romney thinks 47% of the population actually is So Romney said some really dumb things during a fundraiser for rich people. A choice quote Show nested quote +"During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax."
Clearly not everyone who supports Obama falls into that category, but a very large percentage of Obama's supporters do.
|
On September 18 2012 07:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:54 AUGcodon wrote:What Romney thinks 47% of the population actually is So Romney said some really dumb things during a fundraiser for rich people. A choice quote "During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax." Clearly not everyone who supports Obama falls into that category, but a very large percentage of Obama's supporters do.
Source?
|
On September 18 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:09 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 06:13 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 04:53 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 17 2012 18:19 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I like how you have no problem digging up sources about an argument I've repeatedly said I'm not interested in discussing (how Obama is perceived), but somehow can't find any source to back up your own claim that I'm responding to. Here's where he calls bankers fat cats. President Obama has ratcheted up his rhetoric against Wall Street just as some of the nation's top bankers head to the White House for what looks increasingly likely to be a tense and combative meeting.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft, the president went after what he called the "fat cat bankers on Wall Street." He said bankers have not shown "a lot of shame" about their behavior and outsized compensation despite the bank bailouts and economic downturn.
After stating that the financial crisis was "caused in part by completely irresponsible actions on Wall Street," Mr. Obama suggested that some banks paid TARP bailout money back to the government specifically to free themselves from government-mandated constraints on executive compensation.
"I think in some cases that was a motivation," said Mr. Obama. "Which I think tells me that the people on Wall Street still don't get it. They don't get it. They're still puzzled, why is it that people are mad at the banks?"
"Well, let's see," continued the president. "You guys are drawing down $10, $20 million bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem. And we've got ten percent unemployment. Why do you think people might be a little frustrated?" Link That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview. You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you. For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already. My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post: The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"? Again, I am not interested in discussing how Obama is perceived. Yes, the main point of your original post was about how Obama is perceived. I am not interested in discussing this. What I am interested in discussing is the assertion you made to explain that perception, and that assertion only (not even the causal link you established between that assertion and the sentiment you evoke). Again (I really hope I'm not going to have to repeat this in my next post), I did not reply to your post to discuss the main point you were making - only the assertion that underlaid it. That assertion was that "Obama has levied ["a whole host of attacks"] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general". Since this idea that Obama has actually waged some kind of war against rich people is a blatantly ridiculous narrative that Republicans are and have been trying to push, I replied to your post to ask you to actually provide examples of such attacks. So far, you've provided me with absolutely nothing but cases where Obama did not actually attack "the rich", "the successful" or "private enterprise", but instead denounced practices. To assert that Obama is attacking rich people because he's denouncing some types of practices and actions that happen to be conducted by some rich people is a fallacy. I would therefore like you to provide me with actual examples of "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", or admit that they don't actually exist. Whether or not calling someone a "fat cat" constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and perspective. It is not something we can really have a factual discussion about. You need to understand that different people have a different point of view and because of that will react to things differently. Ex. You can state that oil company profits in '08 were "excessive" and argue that it is a factually correct choice of words. The price of oil was extremely high making profits "excessive". However, people in the oil industry, and other businesses for that matter, will view it as an attack. Justified or not, factual or not, it doesn't matter - they will view it as an attack. Basically anything negative can be perceived as an attack. That's why we call negative ads "attack ads". When Obama says negative things about bankers (fat cats) or the rich (fair share) then those groups will often view that negativity as an attack. You are still discussing perception. That there is a degree of subjectivity in determining whether or not a statement is an "attack" does not prevent us from looking at what and/or whom the statements are targeting in the first place (and, by the way, we can in addition discuss their degree of hostility, since "attacks" obviously denotes a high degree of hostility). When Obama says that rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes, he's not attacking the rich because that statement is not about the rich but about how much they pay in taxes - it is therefore about the tax system. One of his selling points is actually that many rich people agree with him on the matter (see even the name of his tax plan, the "Buffet rule"). That's why in the very speech the "you didn't built that" quote is taken from, he says, and I quote, "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me". He's therefore very clearly not attacking "the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general", because he's not even targeting them. Obama has never criticized "the rich" for being rich, "the successful" for being successful, or private enterprise. Never. That's why it's perfectly possible to answer objectively the question of whether he's done attacks like the ones you evoked, and the answer is he hasn't. For one thing, please stop telling me to not discuss perception. My post was about perception, we can't set it aside because that changes the context of the word "attack". If you don't want to discuss perception then you shouldn't have responded to my post.
I'm not discussing perception. If you want to discuss perception, do so with someone else. Your post contained something else than your statement about perception, I explained what, and I'm discussing that. If I ever say "people view Mitt Romney negatively because he's called Obama a communist pig", it'll be perfectly fine for you to only want to discuss and refute my assertion that Romney called Obama a "communist pig", without having to also discuss whether or not people view Romney negatively.
On September 18 2012 07:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Next when Obama says that the rich don't pay their fair share it is absolutely about the rich. Saying that someone isn't paying their fair share is a statement about them - that they aren't pulling their own weight. If it was just an argument about the tax code you wouldn't use an emotional phrase like "fair share" - you'd stick to numbers.
It's not about the rich being rich, no. It's about how much the rich pay in taxes. You can consider it an attack on how much the rich pay in taxes, if you want, but certainly not an attack on the rich. The difference is fundamental. If I argue that it should be illegal for everyone to discriminate based on race when servicing people, I'm not "attacking everyone", I'm attacking discrimination based on race when servicing people.
On September 18 2012 07:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:28 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 07:20 coverpunch wrote:On September 18 2012 07:09 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 06:13 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 04:53 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview. You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you. For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already. My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post: The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"? Again, I am not interested in discussing how Obama is perceived. Yes, the main point of your original post was about how Obama is perceived. I am not interested in discussing this. What I am interested in discussing is the assertion you made to explain that perception, and that assertion only (not even the causal link you established between that assertion and the sentiment you evoke). Again (I really hope I'm not going to have to repeat this in my next post), I did not reply to your post to discuss the main point you were making - only the assertion that underlaid it. That assertion was that "Obama has levied ["a whole host of attacks"] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general". Since this idea that Obama has actually waged some kind of war against rich people is a blatantly ridiculous narrative that Republicans are and have been trying to push, I replied to your post to ask you to actually provide examples of such attacks. So far, you've provided me with absolutely nothing but cases where Obama did not actually attack "the rich", "the successful" or "private enterprise", but instead denounced practices. To assert that Obama is attacking rich people because he's denouncing some types of practices and actions that happen to be conducted by some rich people is a fallacy. I would therefore like you to provide me with actual examples of "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", or admit that they don't actually exist. Whether or not calling someone a "fat cat" constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and perspective. It is not something we can really have a factual discussion about. You need to understand that different people have a different point of view and because of that will react to things differently. Ex. You can state that oil company profits in '08 were "excessive" and argue that it is a factually correct choice of words. The price of oil was extremely high making profits "excessive". However, people in the oil industry, and other businesses for that matter, will view it as an attack. Justified or not, factual or not, it doesn't matter - they will view it as an attack. Basically anything negative can be perceived as an attack. That's why we call negative ads "attack ads". When Obama says negative things about bankers (fat cats) or the rich (fair share) then those groups will often view that negativity as an attack. You are still discussing perception. That there is a degree of subjectivity in determining whether or not a statement is an "attack" does not prevent us from looking at what and/or whom the statements are targeting in the first place (and, by the way, we can in addition discuss their degree of hostility, since "attacks" obviously denotes a high degree of hostility). When Obama says that rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes, he's not attacking the rich because that statement is not about the rich but about how much they pay in taxes - it is therefore about the tax system. One of his selling points is actually that many rich people agree with him on the matter (see even the name of his tax plan, the "Buffet rule"). That's why in the very speech the "you didn't built that" quote is taken from, he says, and I quote, "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me". He's therefore very clearly not attacking "the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general", because he's not even targeting them. Obama has never criticized "the rich" for being rich, "the successful" for being successful, or private enterprise. Never. That's why it's perfectly possible to answer objectively the question of whether he's done attacks like the ones you evoked, and the answer is he hasn't. Oh c'mon, you're just playing word games now. What you're doing is the same as Bush justifying his tax cuts that everyone is free to take advantage of reductions in capital gains taxes, even though in real terms the vast majority of the benefit goes to the rich. I might agree that Republicans exaggerate increased taxes into some kind of devoted hatred of the rich, but you can't get away with saying forcing the top 1% of the population to pay higher taxes is not targeting a specific group or attacking their success. Of course he is, he's taking money from them. Now, you may still support that. But be open and transparent about what you're exactly trying to do. If you want to tax the rich to fund programs for the poor out of a sense of fairness and equality, then that's fine as an opinion. But don't muddy up the waters and say the rich should be happy about it. Sorry, but I don't see how wanting a category of people to pay more in taxes because you consider that it is needed and that the current tax rate is too low is equivalent to "attacking their success". By your logic, if during a single term a president passes a tax cut for rich people for the duration of a short crisis, then after three years gets taxes back to their previous level, he is "attacking rich people for their success". No, he's not. He's making changes to the tax system according to what he believes is best for the economy and the budget. When previous presidents raised taxes for everybody, were they "attacking" the U.S. taxpayers "for their success"? Depends on the context. Did he call the people he raised taxes on a bunch of fat cat vultures who weren't paying their fair share?
No, that's you taking different comments out of context and putting them together to change their initial meanings.
|
On September 18 2012 07:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:54 AUGcodon wrote:What Romney thinks 47% of the population actually is So Romney said some really dumb things during a fundraiser for rich people. A choice quote "During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax." Clearly not everyone who supports Obama falls into that category, but a very large percentage of Obama's supporters do.
Graph showing 2008 election by income
Okay. For simplicity sake, everyone who made less than 30,000 and voted obama are "entitled" people. That comprise 12-13% outta 47% of the democrats who voted. Way to just insult 34% of the people who voted democrat.
|
On September 18 2012 07:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:54 AUGcodon wrote:What Romney thinks 47% of the population actually is So Romney said some really dumb things during a fundraiser for rich people. A choice quote "During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax." Clearly not everyone who supports Obama falls into that category, but a very large percentage of Obama's supporters do.
You never fail to provide comedy for this forum.
|
On September 18 2012 07:28 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:20 coverpunch wrote:On September 18 2012 07:09 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 06:13 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 04:53 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 02:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:[quote] Here's where he calls bankers fat cats. [quote] Link That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview. You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you. For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already. My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post: The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"? Again, I am not interested in discussing how Obama is perceived. Yes, the main point of your original post was about how Obama is perceived. I am not interested in discussing this. What I am interested in discussing is the assertion you made to explain that perception, and that assertion only (not even the causal link you established between that assertion and the sentiment you evoke). Again (I really hope I'm not going to have to repeat this in my next post), I did not reply to your post to discuss the main point you were making - only the assertion that underlaid it. That assertion was that "Obama has levied ["a whole host of attacks"] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general". Since this idea that Obama has actually waged some kind of war against rich people is a blatantly ridiculous narrative that Republicans are and have been trying to push, I replied to your post to ask you to actually provide examples of such attacks. So far, you've provided me with absolutely nothing but cases where Obama did not actually attack "the rich", "the successful" or "private enterprise", but instead denounced practices. To assert that Obama is attacking rich people because he's denouncing some types of practices and actions that happen to be conducted by some rich people is a fallacy. I would therefore like you to provide me with actual examples of "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", or admit that they don't actually exist. Whether or not calling someone a "fat cat" constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and perspective. It is not something we can really have a factual discussion about. You need to understand that different people have a different point of view and because of that will react to things differently. Ex. You can state that oil company profits in '08 were "excessive" and argue that it is a factually correct choice of words. The price of oil was extremely high making profits "excessive". However, people in the oil industry, and other businesses for that matter, will view it as an attack. Justified or not, factual or not, it doesn't matter - they will view it as an attack. Basically anything negative can be perceived as an attack. That's why we call negative ads "attack ads". When Obama says negative things about bankers (fat cats) or the rich (fair share) then those groups will often view that negativity as an attack. You are still discussing perception. That there is a degree of subjectivity in determining whether or not a statement is an "attack" does not prevent us from looking at what and/or whom the statements are targeting in the first place (and, by the way, we can in addition discuss their degree of hostility, since "attacks" obviously denotes a high degree of hostility). When Obama says that rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes, he's not attacking the rich because that statement is not about the rich but about how much they pay in taxes - it is therefore about the tax system. One of his selling points is actually that many rich people agree with him on the matter (see even the name of his tax plan, the "Buffet rule"). That's why in the very speech the "you didn't built that" quote is taken from, he says, and I quote, "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me". He's therefore very clearly not attacking "the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general", because he's not even targeting them. Obama has never criticized "the rich" for being rich, "the successful" for being successful, or private enterprise. Never. That's why it's perfectly possible to answer objectively the question of whether he's done attacks like the ones you evoked, and the answer is he hasn't. Oh c'mon, you're just playing word games now. What you're doing is the same as Bush justifying his tax cuts that everyone is free to take advantage of reductions in capital gains taxes, even though in real terms the vast majority of the benefit goes to the rich. I might agree that Republicans exaggerate increased taxes into some kind of devoted hatred of the rich, but you can't get away with saying forcing the top 1% of the population to pay higher taxes is not targeting a specific group or attacking their success. Of course he is, he's taking money from them. Now, you may still support that. But be open and transparent about what you're exactly trying to do. If you want to tax the rich to fund programs for the poor out of a sense of fairness and equality, then that's fine as an opinion. But don't muddy up the waters and say the rich should be happy about it. Sorry, but I don't see how wanting a category of people to pay more in taxes because you consider that it is needed and that the current tax rate is too low is equivalent to "attacking their success". By your logic, if during a single term a president passes a tax cut for rich people for the duration of a short crisis, then after three years gets taxes back to their previous level, he is "attacking rich people for their success". No, he's not. He's making changes to the tax system according to what he believes is best for the economy and the budget. When previous presidents raised taxes for everybody, were they "attacking" the U.S. taxpayers "for their success"?
But Obama's not talking about just letting tax rates go back to where they were, he's talking about raising them too.
Like this (from http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/):
No household making more than $1 million each year should pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle-class family pays.
And yes, when previous presidents raised taxes, they were attacking the monetary rewards of success (not success itself). But what you're doing by casting this purely about fairness is just demagoguery and that's why it is so unconvincing. Past presidents could get support for raising taxes because it went to specific causes, most often war. If Obama is saying "let's raise taxes because we need to fund xyz", then let's have that discussion about whether it is a worthy investment.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Obama saying he needs to raise taxes on the rich because America has acute problems that need to be paid for. Reasonable minds may disagree but that's a good discussion. But to just say "we should raise taxes on the rich because they're rich but I'm not attacking the rich" is ridiculous.
EDIT: To clarify further, implying that rich people paying higher taxes makes society more fair is dumb. Sure, it makes things fair, in one dimension. But what about allowing people to maximize their potential? How is it fair that someone who squandered their opportunities gets taxed at a lower rate than someone who turned it into something successful? This is a subtle and sophisticated equation and I think it's dumb for Obama or anyone else to act like a simple fix will make the scales go even.
|
United States41960 Posts
On September 18 2012 07:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:54 AUGcodon wrote:What Romney thinks 47% of the population actually is So Romney said some really dumb things during a fundraiser for rich people. A choice quote "During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax." Clearly not everyone who supports Obama falls into that category, but a very large percentage of Obama's supporters do.
There is a difference between being selfish and entitled and wishing to live in a society where people take care of each other and collectively provide for some services. Characterising people as just wanting what their betters have misses the point, it's not just about something for them, it's about the kind of country you want to build. Obviously there is a degree of voting for self interest but if that was the dominant motive behind voting then the current Republican platform would never get into power, you have people with very little who believe in individualism and will vote for tax cuts for the rich while never expecting to earn enough to benefit from them. Writing off half the population of the country as entitled, jealous and irresponsible is insulting, arrogant and completely misses the point. It's an ideological conflict and if it tends to be poorer Americans who think there should be a little more equality in society it's probably linked to the fact that they're the ones who understand the problems that the inequality creates.
You can't have it both ways. If you're going to make the claim that individualism is an ideological standpoint and not just rich guys wanting to pay less tax and buy more yachts then you have to acknowledge that collectivism is also an ideological standpoint and not just entitled proles wanting to steal your yachts.
|
On September 18 2012 08:09 AUGcodon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:58 xDaunt wrote:On September 18 2012 07:54 AUGcodon wrote:What Romney thinks 47% of the population actually is So Romney said some really dumb things during a fundraiser for rich people. A choice quote "During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax." Clearly not everyone who supports Obama falls into that category, but a very large percentage of Obama's supporters do. Graph showing 2008 election by incomeOkay. For simplicity sake, everyone who made less than 30,000 and democrats are "entitled" people. That comprise 12-13% outta 47% of the democrats who voted. Way to just insult 34% of the people who voted democrat.
I think xdaunt is cherry picking what part of the statement he agrees with. A lot of democrats want healthcare for everyone, food for everyone, shelter for those who need it and help with mortgages/affordable housing etc So I'm sure most of these voters will vote democrat no matter what and some of what Romney says is sort of true I guess idk.
Obviously the whole, they don't pay income tax is ridiculous and we feel entitled to everything is ridiculous and debatable, but that's politics for you.
|
On September 18 2012 07:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:54 AUGcodon wrote:What Romney thinks 47% of the population actually is So Romney said some really dumb things during a fundraiser for rich people. A choice quote "During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied: There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax." Clearly not everyone who supports Obama falls into that category, but a very large percentage of Obama's supporters do.
And most of Obama's supporters have been paying a higher percentage in income tax than Romney for the past ten years. Go figure.
I'd rather not debate whether or not people agree with Mitt Romney -- it feels like it would be a rehash of the arguments we've had the last 10 months.
But what do you guys think? Does the link hurt or help Romney win the election?
|
On September 18 2012 08:12 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:28 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 07:20 coverpunch wrote:On September 18 2012 07:09 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 06:13 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 04:53 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview. You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you. For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already. My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post: The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"? Again, I am not interested in discussing how Obama is perceived. Yes, the main point of your original post was about how Obama is perceived. I am not interested in discussing this. What I am interested in discussing is the assertion you made to explain that perception, and that assertion only (not even the causal link you established between that assertion and the sentiment you evoke). Again (I really hope I'm not going to have to repeat this in my next post), I did not reply to your post to discuss the main point you were making - only the assertion that underlaid it. That assertion was that "Obama has levied ["a whole host of attacks"] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general". Since this idea that Obama has actually waged some kind of war against rich people is a blatantly ridiculous narrative that Republicans are and have been trying to push, I replied to your post to ask you to actually provide examples of such attacks. So far, you've provided me with absolutely nothing but cases where Obama did not actually attack "the rich", "the successful" or "private enterprise", but instead denounced practices. To assert that Obama is attacking rich people because he's denouncing some types of practices and actions that happen to be conducted by some rich people is a fallacy. I would therefore like you to provide me with actual examples of "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", or admit that they don't actually exist. Whether or not calling someone a "fat cat" constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and perspective. It is not something we can really have a factual discussion about. You need to understand that different people have a different point of view and because of that will react to things differently. Ex. You can state that oil company profits in '08 were "excessive" and argue that it is a factually correct choice of words. The price of oil was extremely high making profits "excessive". However, people in the oil industry, and other businesses for that matter, will view it as an attack. Justified or not, factual or not, it doesn't matter - they will view it as an attack. Basically anything negative can be perceived as an attack. That's why we call negative ads "attack ads". When Obama says negative things about bankers (fat cats) or the rich (fair share) then those groups will often view that negativity as an attack. You are still discussing perception. That there is a degree of subjectivity in determining whether or not a statement is an "attack" does not prevent us from looking at what and/or whom the statements are targeting in the first place (and, by the way, we can in addition discuss their degree of hostility, since "attacks" obviously denotes a high degree of hostility). When Obama says that rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes, he's not attacking the rich because that statement is not about the rich but about how much they pay in taxes - it is therefore about the tax system. One of his selling points is actually that many rich people agree with him on the matter (see even the name of his tax plan, the "Buffet rule"). That's why in the very speech the "you didn't built that" quote is taken from, he says, and I quote, "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me". He's therefore very clearly not attacking "the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general", because he's not even targeting them. Obama has never criticized "the rich" for being rich, "the successful" for being successful, or private enterprise. Never. That's why it's perfectly possible to answer objectively the question of whether he's done attacks like the ones you evoked, and the answer is he hasn't. Oh c'mon, you're just playing word games now. What you're doing is the same as Bush justifying his tax cuts that everyone is free to take advantage of reductions in capital gains taxes, even though in real terms the vast majority of the benefit goes to the rich. I might agree that Republicans exaggerate increased taxes into some kind of devoted hatred of the rich, but you can't get away with saying forcing the top 1% of the population to pay higher taxes is not targeting a specific group or attacking their success. Of course he is, he's taking money from them. Now, you may still support that. But be open and transparent about what you're exactly trying to do. If you want to tax the rich to fund programs for the poor out of a sense of fairness and equality, then that's fine as an opinion. But don't muddy up the waters and say the rich should be happy about it. Sorry, but I don't see how wanting a category of people to pay more in taxes because you consider that it is needed and that the current tax rate is too low is equivalent to "attacking their success". By your logic, if during a single term a president passes a tax cut for rich people for the duration of a short crisis, then after three years gets taxes back to their previous level, he is "attacking rich people for their success". No, he's not. He's making changes to the tax system according to what he believes is best for the economy and the budget. When previous presidents raised taxes for everybody, were they "attacking" the U.S. taxpayers "for their success"? But Obama's not talking about just letting tax rates go back to where they were, he's talking about raising them too. Like this (from http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/):Show nested quote +
No household making more than $1 million each year should pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle-class family pays.
And yes, when previous presidents raised taxes, they were attacking the monetary rewards of success (not success itself). But what you're doing by casting this purely about fairness is just demagoguery and that's why it is so unconvincing. Past presidents could get support for raising taxes because it went to specific causes, most often war. If Obama is saying "let's raise taxes because we need to fund xyz", then let's have that discussion about whether it is a worthy investment. I don't think there's anything wrong with Obama saying he needs to raise taxes on the rich because America has acute problems that need to be paid for. Reasonable minds may disagree but that's a good discussion. But to just say "we should raise taxes on the rich because they're rich but I'm not attacking the rich" is ridiculous.
Whether or not he's letting tax rates go back to where they were is irrelevant to the point I'm making. If Obama's mindset was "these people are rich and I disapprove of them being rich so I will raise taxes to attack their being rich", then I would absolutely agree with you. That would be an actual attack on rich people for being rich. But that's clearly not what his mindset is. He's not raising taxes on rich people because they're rich and he wants to attack and punish them for being rich, he's raising taxes on rich people because he believes the tax system has to be changed if we want to be able to reduce deficits.
|
On September 18 2012 08:12 coverpunch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:28 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 07:20 coverpunch wrote:On September 18 2012 07:09 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 06:55 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 06:13 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 05:27 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 04:53 kwizach wrote:On September 18 2012 04:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 18 2012 03:38 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
That's not "attacking" the rich for being rich. That's certainly not attacking "private enterprise". That is, instead, criticizing two things some bankers were, according to him, guilty of: not taking and admitting to their share of responsibility for the financial crisis, and already getting back to big bonuses despite what had just happened. There's no other reproach there. Had the bankers not been guilty of those two things according to him, he would not have said those words. The relevant independent variable is therefore not that they're rich or that they're bankers, but that they're guilty in his view of what he denounces in the interview. You are missing the point completely. When you choose to use terms like "fat cats" enough, eventually the people that the term is levied at start to dislike you. For the nth time, I am not discussing the perception that people have of Obama. I am discussing the claim that you made regarding the "attacks" that you said he's made "on the rich, the successful and private enterprise". It seems that you're the one missing the point, since I've explained this several times already. My claim was regarding perceptions. His "attacks" were not Obama hitting people with sticks. The attacks I was referring to were pokes and jabs at certain people. Reread my original post: The one liner comes from there, but the sentiment comes from a whole host of attacks Obama has levied on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general. Note that I use the word sentiment. I'm arguing that the sentiment stems from Obama's attacks - things like calling people "fat cats" or saying that the rich aren't doing their part. These are attacks - justified or not - it doesn't matter. Do you have a better explanation or do you just not like my choice of the word "attack"? Again, I am not interested in discussing how Obama is perceived. Yes, the main point of your original post was about how Obama is perceived. I am not interested in discussing this. What I am interested in discussing is the assertion you made to explain that perception, and that assertion only (not even the causal link you established between that assertion and the sentiment you evoke). Again (I really hope I'm not going to have to repeat this in my next post), I did not reply to your post to discuss the main point you were making - only the assertion that underlaid it. That assertion was that "Obama has levied ["a whole host of attacks"] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general". Since this idea that Obama has actually waged some kind of war against rich people is a blatantly ridiculous narrative that Republicans are and have been trying to push, I replied to your post to ask you to actually provide examples of such attacks. So far, you've provided me with absolutely nothing but cases where Obama did not actually attack "the rich", "the successful" or "private enterprise", but instead denounced practices. To assert that Obama is attacking rich people because he's denouncing some types of practices and actions that happen to be conducted by some rich people is a fallacy. I would therefore like you to provide me with actual examples of "attacks [...] on the rich, the successful and private enterprise", or admit that they don't actually exist. Whether or not calling someone a "fat cat" constitutes an attack is a matter of opinion and perspective. It is not something we can really have a factual discussion about. You need to understand that different people have a different point of view and because of that will react to things differently. Ex. You can state that oil company profits in '08 were "excessive" and argue that it is a factually correct choice of words. The price of oil was extremely high making profits "excessive". However, people in the oil industry, and other businesses for that matter, will view it as an attack. Justified or not, factual or not, it doesn't matter - they will view it as an attack. Basically anything negative can be perceived as an attack. That's why we call negative ads "attack ads". When Obama says negative things about bankers (fat cats) or the rich (fair share) then those groups will often view that negativity as an attack. You are still discussing perception. That there is a degree of subjectivity in determining whether or not a statement is an "attack" does not prevent us from looking at what and/or whom the statements are targeting in the first place (and, by the way, we can in addition discuss their degree of hostility, since "attacks" obviously denotes a high degree of hostility). When Obama says that rich people are not paying their fair share of taxes, he's not attacking the rich because that statement is not about the rich but about how much they pay in taxes - it is therefore about the tax system. One of his selling points is actually that many rich people agree with him on the matter (see even the name of his tax plan, the "Buffet rule"). That's why in the very speech the "you didn't built that" quote is taken from, he says, and I quote, "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me". He's therefore very clearly not attacking "the rich, the successful and private enterprise in general", because he's not even targeting them. Obama has never criticized "the rich" for being rich, "the successful" for being successful, or private enterprise. Never. That's why it's perfectly possible to answer objectively the question of whether he's done attacks like the ones you evoked, and the answer is he hasn't. Oh c'mon, you're just playing word games now. What you're doing is the same as Bush justifying his tax cuts that everyone is free to take advantage of reductions in capital gains taxes, even though in real terms the vast majority of the benefit goes to the rich. I might agree that Republicans exaggerate increased taxes into some kind of devoted hatred of the rich, but you can't get away with saying forcing the top 1% of the population to pay higher taxes is not targeting a specific group or attacking their success. Of course he is, he's taking money from them. Now, you may still support that. But be open and transparent about what you're exactly trying to do. If you want to tax the rich to fund programs for the poor out of a sense of fairness and equality, then that's fine as an opinion. But don't muddy up the waters and say the rich should be happy about it. Sorry, but I don't see how wanting a category of people to pay more in taxes because you consider that it is needed and that the current tax rate is too low is equivalent to "attacking their success". By your logic, if during a single term a president passes a tax cut for rich people for the duration of a short crisis, then after three years gets taxes back to their previous level, he is "attacking rich people for their success". No, he's not. He's making changes to the tax system according to what he believes is best for the economy and the budget. When previous presidents raised taxes for everybody, were they "attacking" the U.S. taxpayers "for their success"? But Obama's not talking about just letting tax rates go back to where they were, he's talking about raising them too. Like this (from http://www.barackobama.com/taxes/):Show nested quote +
No household making more than $1 million each year should pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle-class family pays.
And yes, when previous presidents raised taxes, they were attacking the monetary rewards of success (not success itself). But what you're doing by casting this purely about fairness is just demagoguery and that's why it is so unconvincing. Past presidents could get support for raising taxes because it went to specific causes, most often war. If Obama is saying "let's raise taxes because we need to fund xyz", then let's have that discussion about whether it is a worthy investment. I don't think there's anything wrong with Obama saying he needs to raise taxes on the rich because America has acute problems that need to be paid for. Reasonable minds may disagree but that's a good discussion. But to just say "we should raise taxes on the rich because they're rich but I'm not attacking the rich" is ridiculous. EDIT: To clarify further, implying that rich people paying higher taxes makes society more fair is dumb. Sure, it makes things fair, in one dimension. But what about allowing people to maximize their potential? How is it fair that someone who squandered their opportunities gets taxed at a lower rate than someone who turned it into something successful? This is a subtle and sophisticated equation and I think it's dumb for Obama or anyone else to act like a simple fix will make the scales go even.
"No household making more than $1 million each year should pay a smaller share of their income in taxes than a middle-class family pays."
Wanting even tax rates = attacking the rich? On what planet does that make sense?
|
|
|
On September 18 2012 08:12 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: To clarify further, implying that rich people paying higher taxes makes society more fair is dumb. Sure, it makes things fair, in one dimension. But what about allowing people to maximize their potential? How is it fair that someone who squandered their opportunities gets taxed at a lower rate than someone who turned it into something successful? This is a subtle and sophisticated equation and I think it's dumb for Obama or anyone else to act like a simple fix will make the scales go even.
Why does it make sense to increase taxes on middle-class and lower income people during a recession, when you need them to have enough disposable income to purchase the goods and services that make successful people successful?
For me, it's not just about 'fairness', it's about making sure the largest and strongest consumer base stays that way. I wish Democrats made that argument more often.
|
From that article:
![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/09/17/article-2204664-1510C074000005DC-670_233x409.jpg)
This might be the worst photo of a person that I've ever seen. Isn't that EXACTLY what you imagine when you hear "fat cat"?
I can't imagine what they threw away to land on this one as the best.
|
On September 18 2012 08:27 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 08:12 coverpunch wrote:
EDIT: To clarify further, implying that rich people paying higher taxes makes society more fair is dumb. Sure, it makes things fair, in one dimension. But what about allowing people to maximize their potential? How is it fair that someone who squandered their opportunities gets taxed at a lower rate than someone who turned it into something successful? This is a subtle and sophisticated equation and I think it's dumb for Obama or anyone else to act like a simple fix will make the scales go even. Why does it make sense to increase taxes on middle-class and lower income people during a recession, when you need them to have enough disposable income to purchase the goods and services that make successful people successful? For me, it's not just about 'fairness', it's about making sure the largest and strongest consumer base stays that way. I wish Democrats made that argument more often.
I wish EVERYONE made that kind of argument more often. We can disagree but at least we're having a reasonable discussion about both the costs, the opportunity costs, and the benefits of tax policy. Politicians are always guilty of selling their policy by muddying or obfuscating at least one of those.
As for your initial question, it's a non-issue. We're not in a recession (yet) and neither wants to raise taxes on the non-rich.
|
On September 18 2012 08:29 coverpunch wrote:From that article: This might be the worst photo of a person that I've ever seen. Isn't that EXACTLY what you imagine when you hear "fat cat"? I can't imagine what they threw away to land on this one as the best.
That's not a fat cat. This is.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://ramp.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/fatcat.jpg)
