Obama Calls People Who Don't Want To Pay More In Taxes "Selfish"

I agree.

The thing is that in America, we have the right to be selfish. Thats not an issue for government. Its an issue of morality. An issue of conscience and personal freedom.

I agree that we should strive to help others, but Obama is definitely reaching to an extreme to make his point.

we also have the right to point out people are beign selfish. we ahev the right to complain about those that dont lifet a finger.. and more improtatnly we have the right to tax them

Absolutely, Joules.

Freedom goes both ways.

I'm just quibbling with the way Obama went about making his point. I agree that we SHOULD live in a world where people actively contribute and help the less fortunate. Its not realistic though. That doesnt mean we shouldnt try.

I agree Obama should not have made a statement like that. Pesonally, I think it's selfish too. but thinking it and saying it are too different things. Plus, I'm not running for office.

I do believe that since we are supposed to be the USA (United..States of America) that if you have power to use it for good, same goes for money...My mother always taught me to share...however, I'm not going to share what I don't have, either.

Consumer's make the world go around...and also are the ones who put money in business' pockets...consumers come in all classes.

I agree that we should strive to help others, but Obama is definitely reaching to an extreme to make his point.

Jake Tapper is distorting what he said to sell stories.  Obama said that McCain and Palin have made a virtue out of selfishness.  He did not say that wanting lower taxes is selfish - thats Jake Tappers invention that many people want to see there. 

So you think the government should get to decide what to do with more than one-third of someone's PRIVATE property?  Why not let the property owner decide? That is the essence of liberty, one of our inalienable rights.

Our greatness as a nation was built on protection of individual property rights. If we lose that, we lose who we are.  The Founders understood this; too bad so many of us living today do not.

The government is a logistical agency, created and given certain duties by the founding fathers.  As time progresses, it is up to our government to lead us into new circumstances and situations.  This, apparently, should no longer require us to pay taxes, since we have become a Socialist country, in which government owns industry.  Do you detect the bitterness in that comment?  I hope so...

It is not for the government to regulate such things as who we have sex with, or how.  The government is there to make sure that its citizens all receive certain things, to somewhat level the playing field, if you will.  Before you start shouting "COMMUNIST" or something of that nature, finish the paragraph.  When an individual cannot receive the healthcare they require due to monetary issues, when they cannot attend a school that will be able to challenge their intellect, when they have no hope of winning a lawsuit because they cannot afford proper legal counsel (and before you point out about public defenders, note the use of the word "proper"), all these examples are an encroachment on the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Given a more level playing field, with proper healthcare, education, and access to resources, an individual can at this point go forth and begin to strike their own way, no matter the background. America has become a nation of the haves, and have nots.  If you subscribe to the current doctrine blindly, I feel bad for you.  There are so many basic freedoms that we have lost over the past 100 years, and it's only going to get worse.

Enjoy your weekend, though.

I think its selfish to pile debts onto the next generations.  If you want the wars then figure out how to pay for them. 

I wouldn't worry too much. Unless you're going to die in the next 5 years you'll be paying your share. Those US dollars in your pocket will be worth maybe half.

The debt is now $10.6 trillion and adding $1 trillion /year. (Try dividing that by less then 100 million families.)

Look at history, its the Republicans that have been adding to the Debt not the Democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms

Fiscal Responsibility is not borrow and spend

Man...this kind of attitude KILLS me.  More on that later, especially if you'd be so kind as to expound a bit on your POV.

Cancer1G

Who do you think helps build hospitals, clinics, museums, etc?  Who gives to the Red Cross, United Way, etc.? Wealthy folks.  They are, indeed, very generous.  They like to decide where their money goes, rather than have our inefficient government decide for them.

And since when is being wealthy bad?  Why is everyone so jealous.  Do you think wealthy people haven't earned their money?  Maybe they have gotten an education, have worked hard, and taken some personal risk (like starting a business).  That's how you get rewarded in this country.  We are capitalists, not socialists and that is why everyone is trying to get IN America, not OUT.

Joe biden has donated about $3,500 to charity over the past 10 years, yet he has earned over $2.5 million. Do you think that is generous?  Yet he wants everyone to be "patriotic" and pay more taxes.  He's a prime example of someone who is stingy with his own money but wants to decide how much everyone else gets to keep. Every wealthy person I know personally is very generous and philanthropic.  Even Obama, who has made a significant amount of money the past few years has given less to charity than most people with his level of income. 

Does this matter to anyone out there?

Its really not as cut and dry as we'd like to make it.

Please don't ignore the shades of gray.

Painting all rich people as benevolent souls or selfish fiends is disingenuous. Some rich people work hard, do good deeds, and are all around good people.

Others are greedy, selfish people.

The idea that all rich people work hard for their money is just as bad as the idea that poor people are poor because they're lazy.

Bev, Indiana

Cancer1G

Who do you think helps build hospitals, clinics, museums, etc?  Who gives to the Red Cross, United Way, etc.? Wealthy folks.  They are, indeed, very generous.  They like to decide where their money goes, rather than have our inefficient government decide for them.

And since when is being wealthy bad?  Why is everyone so jealous.  Do you think wealthy people haven't earned their money?  Maybe they have gotten an education, have worked hard, and taken some personal risk (like starting a business).  That's how you get rewarded in this country.  We are capitalists, not socialists and that is why everyone is trying to get IN America, not OUT.

Joe biden has donated about $3,500 to charity over the past 10 years, yet he has earned over $2.5 million. Do you think that is generous?  Yet he wants everyone to be "patriotic" and pay more taxes.  He's a prime example of someone who is stingy with his own money but wants to decide how much everyone else gets to keep. Every wealthy person I know personally is very generous and philanthropic.  Even Obama, who has made a significant amount of money the past few years has given less to charity than most people with his level of income. 

Does this matter to anyone out there?

I hope you realize that Biden would be paying the raised taxes as well, he isn't being selfish by stating that he is OK with more taxation to support this nation's infrastructure.  So, your example of Biden holds little water.

Arcanebliss

Do a little research on your buddy Joe.

The current salary of the Vice President is about $170,000, plus a $90,000 entertainment expense and another $10,000 expense allowance for personal expenses.

So, I don't know really, how Joe will be affected.  If, by his own admission, taxes will go up for those making $150,000, instead of the $200,00 (which used to be $250.000), then I guess Joe will pay more.  But why would Joe care anyway--He is hardly an example of thrift and hard work.  He is a creature of the system.  A true dependent on government.  Joe has practically no savings, in addition to giving little to charity, and that is really disgraceful for someone who has been a Senator for 32 years.  . 

What a stellar example.

Bev, Indiana

Arcanebliss

Do a little research on your buddy Joe.

The current salary of the Vice President is about $170,000, plus a $90,000 entertainment expense and another $10,000 expense allowance for personal expenses.

So, I don't know really, how Joe will be affected.  If, by his own admission, taxes will go up for those making $150,000, instead of the $200,00 (which used to be $250.000), then I guess Joe will pay more.  But why would Joe care anyway--He is hardly an example of thrift and hard work.  He is a creature of the system.  A true dependent on government.  Joe has practically no savings, in addition to giving little to charity, and that is really disgraceful for someone who has been a Senator for 32 years.  . 

What a stellar example.

Under the Obama tax plan, Biden’s taxes would go up because of his tax bracket. To see how, check out the CBS Evening News video on how the Obama and McCain tax plans differ here.

Try Again

Common-Sense

Well, you've got a point.  How dare you introduce reason into these discussions!

Stumped?  Or do I need to 'do more research'?  A stellar example of someone who will not be taxed more is myself or my entire family for that matter. 

To be honest, I wish I had the money to be paying more into supporting this nation's infrastructure.  I wish I was giving more cash to the development of our bridges, roads, schools, etc.

Really? The wealthy don't let go of their money?

Ever heard of Carnegie? Rockefeller? How JP Chase SAVED us nearly 100 years ago? How about the Gates Foundation?

What about all of those with money who started businesses and employ millions of people?

The ones who started businesses, and employ millions of people at low wages, and are constantly finding ways to cut corners, you mean? Large corporations coming into an area, putting the little man out of business, and in certain instances the landscaping required to handle incoming facilities can go so far as to completely change local run off patterns, flooding other properties nearby, or things of that nature. 

Whether it be increases in the premiums an individual has to pay for Health Insurance, or demanding longer hours of salaried employees, thereby reducing the actual hourly pay while working an individual harder?

Are THOSE the businesses you're talking about?

There are ALWAYS exceptions to every rule.  I guess the people who responded negatively to my comments must be in the category I described; otherwise you wouldn't have gotten so defensive.  I'm very well aware of the fact that not ALL rich people are stingy misers, but a good portion (the ones who think helping others is unfair) of them are reluctant to part with their money.

And don't give me that crap about people who donate to charity (Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc.) or give to organizations;  they get serious tax write-offs.

Common Sense, thank you for pointing that out - I shouldn't have made such a generalized statement and I wasn't trying to imply that ALL rich people have this attitude. 

Mike

So are you saying you want to go to work--work hard--and keep ten cents of every dollar?  Or even just fifty cents?  If people are asked to give up 50 or up to 90 percent of their income, what would be their incentive to earn or be productive or hire anyone.  Why would they want to spend anything on research and development, if they were assured 50 cents or less on the dollar?

I don't know about you, but I think the government has and always will be a terrible steward of our money. Our country back then was not growing nearly like today, but the Reagan tax cuts that drastically reduced all rates, especially that top marginal rate, ushered in the largest period of economic expansion in our history.  The world is a very different place today than it was in 1963.  Today, many more people are living in the U.S. and entitlement programs are out of control. To keep the greater number of people employed, we need faster growth.  Plus, as you will recall, we didn't have the global economy back then like we have today.

You simply can't do the same things that worked back then today.  I appreciate your nostalgia, but it just won't work.

Mike,

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” —Thomas Jefferson

Bev, Indiana

Mike

So are you saying you want to go to work--work hard--and keep ten cents of every dollar?  Or even just fifty cents?  If people are asked to give up 50 or up to 90 percent of their income, what would be their incentive to earn or be productive or hire anyone.  Why would they want to spend anything on research and development, if they were assured 50 cents or less on the dollar?

I don't know about you, but I think the government has and always will be a terrible steward of our money. Our country back then was not growing nearly like today, but the Reagan tax cuts that drastically reduced all rates, especially that top marginal rate, ushered in the largest period of economic expansion in our history.  The world is a very different place today than it was in 1963.  Today, many more people are living in the U.S. and entitlement programs are out of control. To keep the greater number of people employed, we need faster growth.  Plus, as you will recall, we didn't have the global economy back then like we have today.

You simply can't do the same things that worked back then today.  I appreciate your nostalgia, but it just won't work.

50-90 percent? lol?

Wow, the first good hard laugh of the day - thanks a bunch! 

He would restore the 36 and 39.6 percent rates imposed on the highest income taxpayers.

Also, that's only 5% of the nation and not even hitting the hilarious percentage range you suggested.

arcane

Stop laughing and actually read Mike's post to which I was referring.

 I was responding to Mike, and his discussion regarding the fact that people paid close to 90% at the top marginal rate in the good old days he refers to.  True, in the 1940's people paid that. It was  JFK who lowered top rates to 70%, which is still unbelievably high. I made no statement that Obama wants to raise taxes to that level--but I certainly don't think he wants to stop at 39.6% or incomes above $200,000.

but I certainly don't think he wants to stop at 39.6 or incomes above $200,000.

You're entitled to your opinion, even if there's no evidence to back it up.

arcabebliss

Just look at the voting record of Obama and Biden.  Actions speak louder than words. They never met a tax increase they didn't like--on any income.

Bev, Indiana

arcabebliss

Just look at the voting record of Obama and Biden.  Actions speak louder than words. They never met a tax increase they didn't like--on any income.

Right, and we know they would like to raise taxes as is evident by their tax proposals.

Your point?  You're preaching to a choir here.  This doesn't make the statement of "but I certainly don't think he wants to stop at 39.6 or incomes above $200,000." factual on any level.  What you just stated is not evidence that they plan on raising the taxation beyond 39%.  Seriously, point out to me where in their voting records they have voted for taxation beyond 39%.

Have fun finding that.

I'm not looking to the past for our solutions today nor to take from one and give to the other. The bottom line is, we are in debt, big time, fast growing, unsustainable debt. You don't need a Ph.D. in economics or mathematics to understand a simple point: you can't spend more than you take in. We've been doing this since Reagan and it's immoral and untenable. Check out this graph if you don't believe me. I'm talking about doing something about the national debt, which is our collective obligation, not stealing from one person and giving to another. You may disagree on how we got into this debt, but this doesn't matter anymore. Now that it's an obligation, we have to pay it or at least get it under control.

We need some kind of combination of increased revenues and lower spending to get at this debt. The problem is, it can't all happen on the spending side. We have a crumbling infrastructure that has to be rebuilt and Social Security and Medicare entitlements that are going to go through the roof with the retirement of the Baby Boomers. We have the military to support. Of course, we think we can go after "welfare," but when you dig into the numbers, there's not much there. For example, Medicaid, which is a convenient target for spending reduction, only has 15% of its money going to non-disabled adults, usually for poor mothers. The other 85% goes to the elderly poor, the disabled, and poor kids. Is that what we've come to, not letting these people go to the doctor? If so, then this is not the America I love. Earmarks come out to a rounding error in the budget. John McCain is being dishonest when he talks about earmarks.

If any genius out there can figure out how to get some control over the national debt and not increase taxes, let me know. We did the experiment over the past 8 years (and during the Reagan and Bush I years before this - only under Clinton did debt not increase relative to GDP), and we now have empirical evidence that it doesn't work.

Wow...well said, Mike.  The empirical evidence statement was something else, btw...

Just look at the voting record of Obama and Biden.  Actions speak louder than words. They never met a tax increase they didn't like--on any income.

Its obvious you havent looked at their voting record and you you draw the conclusions you want to draw. 

There are plenty of taxes they dont like.  For example higher pay roll taxes.

If you actaully paid attention to the policies and votes you would see they want to lower taxes for many Americans while recocognizing that there are fiscal realities.

McCain used to oppose Bushs tax policies until he ran for President and decided that becoming President meant to him saying anything and ignoring fiscal reality.

Wilfred

To compare today to the 1890's is absurd!  There was not an education system like today, which enables everyone to have a chance at success.  Society was quite different. Read Jefferson's quote provided by Darkdonnie (above).  The last line says it all.

What this country should guarantee is the equal opportunity to succeed to all CITIZENS , but it has no business guaranteeing the outcome

Bev, Indiana

Wilfred

To compare today to the 1890's is absurd!  There was not an education system like today, which enables everyone to have a chance at success.  Society was quite different. Read Jefferson's quote provided by Darkdonnie (above).  The last line says it all.

I hope someone else appreciates the irony in stating that comparing the current era to a previous one is absurd, then employing a quote on the nation's political system that was made during a previous era.

Seriously.

Maybe Obama should give a portion of his campaign funds collected to Mc Cain since he was more innovative and industrious in fund raising than Mc Cain. Spread that wealth, Redistribute the money from the haves to the have nots

Unfortunately I believe you are correct.  But, hey, it's not over yet.

All we can do now is vote and pray!

Good Luck to Us!

J.