Obama's attempts at fomenting a Class War

So all these attempts at class warfare by Obama are going to blow up in his face once someone pulls out a basic calculator...

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html

Obama Raises Money in New York with millionaires and billionaires!. I wonder if any owners of private jet companies attended? $38,000 a ticket.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/09/19/obama-raises-money-in-new-york/?mod=WSJBlog

Buffett’s math is a bit off....

All told, after combining corporate taxes and capital gains taxes, Buffett forked over about 45 percent of his earnings.

So why is he lying to the public repeatedly?


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/buffett_math_is_bit_off_7mGzoYiwPfsJcnWaIoptFJ

TheMercenary;757274 wrote:

So all these attempts at class warfare by Obama are going to blow up in his face once someone pulls out a basic calculator...

http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html

I don't see how anything in that article can be considered a "fact-check."

HungLikeJesus;757278 wrote:

I don't see how anything in that article can be considered a "fact-check."

Looks pretty factual to me...

"Middle-class families shouldn't pay higher taxes than millionaires and billionaires," Obama said. "That's pretty straightforward. It's hard to argue against that."
There may be individual millionaires who pay taxes at rates lower than middle-income workers. In 2009, 1,470 households filed tax returns with incomes above $1 million yet paid no federal income tax, according to the Internal Revenue Service. But that's less than 1 percent of the nearly 237,000 returns with incomes above $1 million.
This year, households making more than $1 million will pay an average of 29.1 percent of their income in federal taxes, including income taxes, payroll taxes and other taxes, according to the Tax Policy Center, a Washington think tank.
Households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay an average of 15 percent of their income in federal taxes.
Lower-income households will pay less. For example, households making between $40,000 and $50,000 will pay an average of 12.5 percent of their income in federal taxes. Households making between $20,000 and $30,000 will pay 5.7 percent.
The latest IRS figures are a few years older — and limited to federal income taxes — but show much the same thing. In 2009, taxpayers who made $1 million or more paid on average 24.4 percent of their income in federal income taxes, according to the IRS.
Those making $100,000 to $125,000 paid on average 9.9 percent in federal income taxes. Those making $50,000 to $60,000 paid an average of 6.3 percent.
Obama's claim hinges on the fact that, for high-income families and individuals, investment income is often taxed at a lower rate than wages. The top tax rate for dividends and capital gains is 15 percent. The top marginal tax rate for wages is 35 percent, though that is reserved for taxable income above $379,150.

Both Obama and Buffet are lying to the public or have no frigging clue what they are talking about. I tend to believe the later, they are parrots.

TheMercenary;757275 wrote:

Obama Raises Money in New York with millionaires and billionaires!.

So? Is it in some way hypocritical to ask people to pay higher taxes, and also ask them to support your campaign?

Neil nails it.... again....

Today’s class warfare warrior is none other than Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. In a radio interview yesterday, she had this to say:
“I’ll put it this way. You don’t deserve to keep all of it and it’s not a question of deserving because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together. And there are many things that we decide to do together like have our national security. Like have police and fire. What about the people that work at the National Institute of Health who are looking for a cure for cancer.”
Well let me ask this LibTwit a few questions.
Did we decide together to spend $760,000 on interactive dance software development for some researchers at the University of North Carolina?
Did we decide together to spend $1.2 million to convert an abandoned train station in Glassboro, NJ into a museum?
Did we decide together to spend $90,000 to build a sidewalk that leads to a ditch in Boynton, OK?
Did we decide together to give $762,000 to a Georgia Tech professor so that the good professor could “jam with world-renowned musicians” while he sought to “understand, model and support improvisation, or real-time collaborative creativity, in the context of jazz, Indian classical and avant-garde art music”?
Did we decide together to give $2.4 million to Winter Haven, FL to buy brand new 40-foot buses that will carry about three riders per hour?
Did we decide together to give the Fish and Wildlife service $6 million to build a grand new visitor’s center at a wildlife refuge that gets 80 visitors a day?
It sounds to me like Ms. Schakowsky has really embraced the idea of democracy … the majority rules. Whatever the majority wants, the majority gets --- even if it means the majority seizes your money to build a turtle tunnel.
But let’s talk about this concept that you just don’t deserve to keep all of your money. If you’ll remember, during the tea party debate the other night, a young man stood up in the audience and asked how much money do these candidates believe he should be able to keep? Here’s why the prog thought process on this concept is dangerous. You wake up at 4:30am to get to your first job on time. You bust your buns to earn a paycheck. Then later that afternoon, you show up to work at your second job, because things have been kind of tight and you and your wife could use some extra cash while you save up to buy a house or take care of a sick parent, whatever. You drive home late that night, in the dark, and you wake up early the next morning to do it all over again. You are the one busting your buns to earn this money. You are trading off some of the minutes you have to spend on this earth to produce this wealth. It belongs to you. It is yours. You decide how to spend it, how to save it and how to invest it. Then along comes government. It puts a gun to your head and says, You owe us 35% of everything you worked for. Hand it over. And the man does so, because otherwise he will end up in a jail cell.
In the world according to Jan Schakowsky, that money that you worked so hard to earn? You don’t really deserve it. After all; you -- or at least a portion of you -- belongs to the government. And just how much of you belongs to the government? Well, that’s up to people like Schakowsky to decide.

http://www.boortz.com/weblogs/nealz-nuze/2011/sep/15/class-warfare-act/

TheMercenary;757277 wrote:

Buffett’s math is a bit off....



So why is he lying to the public repeatedly?


http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/buffett_math_is_bit_off_7mGzoYiwPfsJcnWaIoptFJ

Anyone who promulgates the "Double tax" myth lying to the public repeatedly. Money isn't taxed, transactions are.

You aren't "double taxed" when you pay income tax on your income and then sales tax on your purchases. They're different transactions.

And in the case described in the article, the first transaction isn't even him; its his corporation (I say "his", but he's not the only shareholder, just the most important one). That's a completely separate entity. That's like saying your maid is "double taxed" because her salary is paid out of your post-tax income.

Happy Monkey;757288 wrote:

Anyone who promulgates the "Double tax" myth lying to the public repeatedly. Money isn't taxed, transactions are.

You aren't "double taxed" when you pay income tax on your income and then sales tax on your purchases. They're different transactions.

And in the case described in the article, the first transaction isn't even him; its his corporation (I say "his", but he's not the only shareholder, just the most important one). That's a completely separate entity. That's like saying your maid is "double taxed" because her salary is paid out of your post-tax income.

If I give money to the government without choice while I control it, it is a tax, regardless of what your fantasy may be about wealth redistribution. Income and purchases are a different animal. These are investments and dividend income. It also depends on whether they are qualified or non-qualified dividends. I earn it and get taxed on it. I put it in a stock and take out the profit, I get taxed a second time.

Even if I put into stock and it earns zero, when I pull it out it is taxed a second time.

TheMercenary;757290 wrote:

Income and purchases are a different animal.

Everything's different animals. That's why it's silly and meaningless to say that the "same money" got taxed twice. Just about all money has been taxed many times, just like just about all water has been passed through different animals many times.

I earn it and get taxed on it. I put it in a stock and take out the profit, I get taxed a second time.

That's two transactions. Two different animals. You get taxed twice. If you buy an animal with your profit, you'll get taxed again on that third transaction.

Even if I put into stock and it earns zero, when I pull it out it is taxed a second time.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Not capital gains, I assume?

Where da money is....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2039422/Obama-tax-plan-Survey-reveals-wealthiest-towns-Americas-millionaires-live.html

Happy Monkey;757293 wrote:

Everything's different animals. That's why it's silly and meaningless to say that the "same money" got taxed twice. Just about all money has been taxed many times, just like just about all water has been passed through different animals many times.That's two transactions. Two different animals. You get taxed twice. If you buy an animal with your profit, you'll get taxed again on that third transaction.I'm not sure what you're referring to here. Not capital gains, I assume?

If all of that money goes into my pocket on the right, and I got taxed on it on the way in.... then I take it out and put it somewhere but on the way to my left pocket it gets taxed again.... I just got taxed twice. And we aren't talking about animals. We are talking about money.

Bottom line is this...

Obama, "Spread the wealth around..."

[YOUTUBE]Sqis9mRcWl4[/YOUTUBE]

TheMercenary;757298 wrote:

If all of that money goes into my pocket on the right, and I got taxed on it on the way in.... then I take it out and put it somewhere but on the way to my left pocket it gets taxed again.... I just got taxed twice.

And if you buy a pack of cigarretes you get taxed a third time. And if you buy gas, you get taxed a fourth time.

Yes, you get taxed for each transaction. That's why the "double tax" argument is silly and irrelevant. Money is taxed as it flows. There's no special relationship between salary and investments where getting taxed on your investment returns is "double tax", but getting taxed on your purchases is a different animal, and just two different taxes.

Happy Monkey;757301 wrote:

And if you buy a pack of cigarretes you get taxed a third time. And if you buy gas, you get taxed a fourth time.

Yes, you get taxed for each transaction. That's why the "double tax" argument is silly and irrelevant. Money is taxed as it flows. There's no special relationship between salary and investments where getting taxed on your investment returns is "double tax", but getting taxed on your purchases is a different animal, and just two different taxes.

Dude, we aren't talking about non-monetary exchanges. You can't compare the taxation of gas and cigarettes in the same way you talk about things with monetary value that adjust as investments, you are trying to compare consumables with monetary investment vehicles. Even the goobberment sees them as different things because they are taxed differently. Get a grip....

Cigarettes and gasoline are different things, and taxed differently.

Wages, corporate profits, and capital gains are also different things and taxed differently.

They're all different things, and taxed differently. It's silly to pick two of them, and say "that's a double tax"!

Happy Monkey;757306 wrote:

Cigarettes and gasoline are different things, and taxed differently.

Wages, corporate profits, and capital gains are also different things and taxed differently.

They're all different things, and taxed differently. It's silly to pick two of them, and say "that's a double tax"!

Sorry, again "that dog won't hunt" (Willie Clinton). You can't compare consumables to stocks.

I wonder what students would think about redistributing their GPA....

[YOUTUBE]lOyaJ2UI7Ss[/YOUTUBE]

TheMercenary;757311 wrote:

Sorry, again "that dog won't hunt" (Willie Clinton). You can't compare consumables to stocks.

That's a meaningless claim. They can be compared in many ways. One, for example, is that they are both taxed.

They can also be contrasted: They are taxed in different ways.

But more relevantly, wage income and investment income can be compared and contrasted in the same way. They are also both taxed, and taxed in different ways.

Buying investments and buying products (and, heck, buying products as investments and buying investment products) are all things you can do with your money. They, and the various ways of getting the money to do them with, are all taxable, and all handled in different ways. Picking one pair and calling them a "double tax" is silly and arbitrary.



And what were you referring to here?

Even if I put into stock and it earns zero, when I pull it out it is taxed a second time.

After almost ten years of welfare to the rich, we have what history says is supposed to happen. Job losses. Ten years of George Jr economics has created job losses that were predicted here almost ten years ago. So what do our wacko extremists want to do? Continue the same voodoo economics that have destroyed so many jobs and created the worst recession in over 70 years.

We have job losses because we have enriched the richest in America while everyone else has seen their income drop by at least 2%. Only wackos would recommend more of the same. But then many know more welfare to the rich is good because the propaganda machine says so.

And so extremists invent a new expression to deflect attention from the real problem. Too must welfare for the rich is causing hardship on all others including those who actually create jobs. Class warfare is just another example of brainwashing by soundbyte.

A Guardian piece on 'The Truth about Class War in America' is very interesting on this.

Republicans claim, in Orwellian fashion, that Obama's millionaire tax is 'class war'. The reality is that the super-rich won the war


Neither logic nor evidence supports either claim. The charge of class war is particularly obtuse. Consider simply these two facts. First, at the end of the second world war, for every dollar Washington raised in taxes on individuals, it raised $1.50 in taxes on business profits. Today, that ratio is very different: for every dollar Washington gets in taxes on individuals, it takes 25 cents in taxes on business. In short, the last half century has seen a massive shift of the burden of federal taxation off business and onto individuals.

Second, across those 50 years, the actual shift that occurred was the opposite of the much more modest reversal proposed this week by President Obama; over the same period, the federal income tax rate on the richest individuals fell from 91% to the current 35%. Yet, Republicans and conservatives use the term "class war" for what Obama proposes – and never for what the last five decades have accomplished in shifting the tax burden from the rich and corporations to the working class.

The tax structure imposed by Washington on the US over the last half-century has seen a massive double shift of the burden of taxation: from corporations to individuals and from the richest individuals to everyone else. If the national debate wants seriously to use a term like "class war" to describe Washington's tax policies, then the reality is that the class war's winners have been corporations and the rich. Its losers – the rest of us – now want to reduce our losses modestly by small increases in taxes on the super-rich (but not, or not yet, on corporations).

To refer to this effort as if it had suddenly introduced class war into US politics is either dishonest or based on ignorance of what federal tax policies have actually been. Or perhaps, for conservatives, it is a convenient mixture of both.

The final irony of loose talk about class war is this: the Republican and conservative voices opposing all tax increases for corporations and the rich thereby provoke, as Buffett intimated and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg more explicitly warned last week, a renewal of class consciousness in the US. Then, Washington might learn what class war really is.

By Richard Wolff, Professor of Economics Emeritus at the University of Massachusetts,

Ful article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/19/class-war-america-republicans-rich

everyone: just say, "Merc, you are right. You've always been right. Every drip-drop of golden wisdom from your brain onto our cellar souls is brilliant and correct."

and then maybe he'll shuttup already.

Nah. If we did that he'd swing to the left attack from the other side.

DanaC;757353 wrote:

Nah. If we did that he'd swing to the left attack from the other side.

at least it would be a change. five, six posts all in a row spouting the same thing/POV? gets a bit weary.

oh, well. I ususally don't come to these parts anyhoo, but am feeling full of vinegar this morning. Must be the nice weather we're having. :)

eta: the simple truth is that some people's ideas and attitudes change and evolve over time and experience. Not merc. He's llike the Catholic Church in that respect. but, the quality of mercy is not, at least, strained in any way. Brevity remains the soul of wit.

Whenever I hear one of the rightwing conservative pundits whine about how any attempt to redress some of the imbalances in the tax system constitutes an act of 'class war', I get a mental image of a large man kicking a little guy repeatedly and then when the little guy lands a blow, the large man cries assault.

It's about time the middle class starts to fight back. We've been under attack since 1981.

The problem is that the rich (those making more than $250k) think that they are part of the middle class. Hell, even those making more than $100k are above the 85th percentile. They are rich too.

The median household income in the US is around $50k. That's the middle class. You get above $50k, and you are wealthier than most.

Spexxvet;757379 wrote:

It's about time the middle class starts to fight back. We've been under attack since 1981.

AMEN, brother.

TheMercenary;757318 wrote:

I wonder what students would think about redistributing their GPA....

A cute little trap but horrible analogy. To make it closer to reality, we need to get rid of the GPA cap of 4.0 and weigh classes differently. For example, an "A" in Psychology 101 should only give you a 2.0 while a "C" in any MBA course deserves at least a 10.0. An "A" would basically have to be a 100.0, maybe even more! I mean, to weigh all the classes the same is basically communist.

Brianna;757351 wrote:

everyone: just say, "Merc, you are right. You've always been right. Every drip-drop of golden wisdom from your brain onto our cellar souls is brilliant and correct."

and then maybe he'll shuttup already.

I think that you're laboring under the misapprehension that there's a real person posting as TheMercenary, when it's actually a republican-controlled spambot.

Do a google search for "fomenting class warfare" and you'll see what I mean.

That explains a lot. I never thought he'd come up with the word 'foment' on his own. It's to hard. ;)

See what I did thar?

He's a robotoid.

wiki wrote:

Perhaps the first mention of "robotoid" was in the Lost in Space episode War of the Robots which originally aired on February 9, 1966 and credits Robby the Robot as a "robotoid" and William Bramley and Ollie O'Toole as uncredited "robotoid voice" actors.[2] In the episode, the Lost in Space Robot says: It is more than a machine...it is a robotoid. The robot goes on to explain that as a robot, it is constrained by its programming, whereas the robotoid has the capability of making a choice.[3][4] The episode is described as: The family's robot is seemingly replaced when Will repairs a robotoid from an advanced civilization - until the new machine wreaks havoc by trying to take over the ship.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotoid

If one was ever fortunate enough to make a million dollars a year in income, one should willingly give back $450,000 of it to "the government"
Its the loopholes that need to be addressed. Increasing the % to almost half of ones income just seems incredibly unfair to me. I also think that considering all "income" regardless of how generated be taxed at the same rate could be an effective concept.

infinite monkey;757404 wrote:

He's a robotoid.

More like a robotard.

classicman;757419 wrote:

If one was ever fortunate enough to make a million dollars a year in income, one should willingly give back $450,000 of it to "the government"
Its the loopholes that need to be addressed. Increasing the % to almost half of ones income just seems incredibly unfair to me. I also think that considering all "income" regardless of how generated be taxed at the same rate could be an effective concept.

Yeah, I sure do wish that I could have taken advantage of the tax break on "heavy" cars that allowed Dr.s and lawyers to drive Hummers, when the intention was to help farmers.

Let's start by removing the limit of $106,800 on FICA.

I'm all for the FICA limit removal as well.
I thought therre was something about the Dr. "heavy car" thing that had something to do with rural areas & traveling in bad weather or something... something - lol.
No idea on the lawyer part - perhaps it helped the sink faster when we drown them?!!?!?

Spexxvet;757444 wrote:

More like a robotard.

No you di'int!

:D

Are you guys in regular high school or still in middle school?

Who, merc?

I'm not sure. He rides a different bus.

I'm in 11 X. We're the slow class.

Undertoad;757483 wrote:

Are you guys in regular high school or still in middle school?

I know you are but what am I?

I go to a one room school house. The six year olds learn calculus, the eighteen year olds play with crayons.

President Zero... anyone but Obama 2012.

mercy, you mistitled this thread. It is class warfare, it has been class warfare for a long time now. President Obama is not fomenting it, he is responding to it.

Perpetuating is more like it. Except when in campaign mode, which he clearly is.
Keep in mind, I'll probably vote for him since the option from the other side SUCK THAT MUCH MORE.

fighting back.

Attempting to stop a class massacre.

Ahhhh perspective is such a wonderful thing.

heh.. try some, you'll like it!

I gots mine & you gots yers. Thats the beauty of it.

classicman;757419 wrote:

If one was ever fortunate enough to make a million dollars a year in income,
one should willingly give back $450,000 of it to "the government"
<snip>

Edward Filene of Boston's Filene's Department Stores might have agreed with you.
He is supposed to have said:

"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me ?
I took all of it from them."

.

So if we take all the money from all the millionaires in the US how much would that help reduce the deficit today?

TheMercenary;757926 wrote:

So if we take all the money from all the millionaires in the US how much would that help reduce the deficit today?

As far as I am aware, and I stand to be corrected, nobody is proposing stripping the wealthy of their fortunes.

Ffs. Hyperbolic nonsense.

DanaC;757928 wrote:

As far as I am aware, and I stand to be corrected, nobody is proposing stripping the wealthy of their fortunes.

Ffs. Hyperbolic nonsense.

Oh, I understand that. But you would not get that sense if you listen to our president. What he says is hyperbolic nonsense because even if you were to take all of the money of all of millionaires and billionaires in this country it wouldn't pay for much of what he has already spent.

And yet apparently, if the lower than stella incomed families pay more and get less then that'll sort it out.

It's peanuts, a red herring, a distraction, and a drop in the ocean when the money is coming from the wealthy. But it's necessary and substantial, and will save the economy if it's taken from old age pensioners.

DanaC;757946 wrote:

And yet apparently, if the lower than stella incomed families pay more and get less then that'll sort it out.

It's peanuts, a red herring, a distraction, and a drop in the ocean when the money is coming from the wealthy. But it's necessary and substantial, and will save the economy if it's taken from old age pensioners.

I don't think taking it from old age pensioners would be that helpful. It's peanuts, a red herring, a distraction, and a drop in the ocean when Obama thinks he can fix the economy by continually repeating "Millionaires and Billionaires" or "Teachers, Fireman, and Policeman" in every speech, he is pandering to his base to get re-elected.

TheMercenary;757953 wrote:

he is pandering to his base to get re-elected.

And the R's are not? Please. They are all in full campaign mode.

classicman;758053 wrote:

And the R's are not? Please. They are all in full campaign mode.

No doubt.

The lengths Paul Krugman will go to further the lie that the rich don't pay their "fair share" of taxes knows no bounds.

In his New York Times column Friday, the Nobel laureate in economics claimed, "[T]he federal tax burden has fallen for all income classes":

The [Congressional] budget office's numbers show that the federal tax burden has fallen for all income classes, which itself runs counter to the rhetoric you hear from the usual suspects. But that burden has fallen much more, as a percentage of income, for the wealthy. Partly this reflects big cuts in top income tax rates, but, beyond that, there has been a major shift of taxation away from wealth and toward work: tax rates on corporate profits, capital gains and dividends have all fallen, while the payroll tax -- the main tax paid by most workers -- has gone up.

Really? Well let's look at some of the CBO's numbers:

Continues:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/09/23/krugman-falsely-claims-federal-tax-burden-has-fallen-all-income-class

Having played around on that site, i think I'm beginning to see why it is you seem so angry most of the time.

DanaC;758137 wrote:

Having played around on that site, i think I'm beginning to see why it is you seem so angry most of the time.

eh... some of it is ok, I hate all the media now days. I like individuals on various channels. The only place I find something remotely close to the middle is on PBS News Hour.

TheMercenary;758140 wrote:

I hate all the media now days.

An extremist understands everything in terms of hate. View your tag line. If representing facts honestly, then you also said that you openly advocated murder of innocent people. Ergo that tagline. Your hate justified by their politics.

Creating a world that is only black and white; good and evil; them and us; etc is so much easier. Those are the people who bring extremists to power. Hitler being a perfect exact. Hitler came to power by preaching to the same emotions you use. Hate justified by 'black and white' thinking.

It is easy to identify the most wacko extremists. Everything is in terms of liberal and conservatives. Black and white is how dumb people are told how to think. Reality is about moderates verses extremists. Only extremists invent bogeymen (ie liberals) to justify their hate. Hitler used Jews. TheMercenary uses liberals.

Hitler had his gas chambers. Fortunately we don't let TheMercenary have knives made from WTC steel.

Your grammar is really slipping lately.

Merc is out there where Pluto used to be. Tea bot for sure. :right:

TheMercenary;757926 wrote:

So if we take all the money from all the millionaires in the US how much would that help reduce the deficit today?

I can't remember the source (I think it was on the ABC (Aust)) but the net worth of US citizens is over 60 trillion.

The defecit is 15 trillion, or so.

So - define that group of Americans who have half of the wealth. It is probably about 10%, maybe more or less. Sieze half of the wealth of this group, and the deficit is gone.


Not that I'm advocating that, but since you asked, I thought the numbers should be discussed. It could be done. There's your class warfare for you. Except in real class warfare, we'd take ALL their money and shoot them to boot.

classicman;758312 wrote:

Your grammar is really slipping lately.

What about his grampa?

I looked for the grammatical errors, but me couldn't see none.

*shrugs*

infinite monkey;758506 wrote:

I looked for the grammatical errors, but me couldn't see none.

*shrugs*

any punch in a sucker.

ZenGum;758470 wrote:

I can't remember the source (I think it was on the ABC (Aust)) but the net worth of US citizens is over 60 trillion.

The defecit is 15 trillion, or so.

So - define that group of Americans who have half of the wealth. It is probably about 10%, maybe more or less. Sieze half of the wealth of this group, and the deficit is gone.


Not that I'm advocating that, but since you asked, I thought the numbers should be discussed. It could be done. There's your class warfare for you. Except in real class warfare, we'd take ALL their money and shoot them to boot.

Let's just take the top 10% and the lower 10% and shoot all of them, take all their money and start over with what we have left after we pay the bills.

You'd have about 30 people left alive, Merc.

Stormieweather;759127 wrote:

You'd have about 30 people left alive, Merc.

Really?

One worried Mo Fo.... The snake is eating it's tail.

Cornell Belcher: Cain's "Brainwashed" Remark Was "Racist, Bigoted"


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/30/cornell_belcher_cains_brainwashed_remark_was_a_racist_bigoted_statement.html

Just curious mercy, what does your post have to do with President Obama?

EVERYTHING does! Its all a plot, I'm telling ya. :eyebrow:

No class warfare?

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/27/opinion/raines-class-warfare/index.html?hpt=op_r1

I think it *is* class warfare. I think you [strike]lie[/strike] don't understand when you use the word "foment" when "defends against" or "responds to" would have been more appropriate. But, I'm no grammer nazi.

It is class warfare. And though you seem incapable of perceiving it, he is the Commander-in-Chief for you *and* for me; our mutual champion in this war against our shared enemy.

BigV;760732 wrote:

I think it *is* class warfare. I think you [strike]lie[/strike] don't understand when you use the word "foment" when "defends against" or "responds to" would have been more appropriate. But, I'm no grammer nazi.

It is class warfare. And though you seem incapable of perceiving it, he is the Commander-in-Chief for you *and* for me; our mutual champion in this war against our shared enemy.

Thanks for another lecture I don't need.

Not sure where you learned about the word but this is the definition I use:

fo·ment&#8194; &#8194;[foh-ment]
verb (used with object)
1.
to instigate or foster (discord, rebellion, etc.); promote the growth or development of: to foment trouble; to foment discontent.

I have not "lied" about anything. He is the CIC of military forces. He is not "your" CIC.

His goal during his run up to the nation is to divide the groups of have's and have not's and foment a class warfare in an effort to win re-election and I think he should be removed from office through any legal means. Show what's your issue?

There was already a class war going on. It's been waged for the last couple of decades, by the elite, on the working class. But we (we, as in, the working class) have been fed the propaganda about high taxation hurting jobs, trickle down, and the good old "American Dream".

We've been royally eff'd.

Obama is useless simply because he isn't accomplishing anything for the middle class. He hasn't gone nearly far enough or done enough or led enough. He may have opened a few eyes, but too many are still buying that old bull about "trickle down".

But pulease, Obama didn't start the class war. Or "foment" it. He is helping to highlight the one being waged on the average American. And you can be damn sure there are PLENTY of powerful people who do not want that to happen.

Class Warfare
Income Inequality
Trickle down

TheMercenary;760739 wrote:

Thanks for another lecture I don't need.

Yes you do.

Not sure where you learned about the word but this is the definition I use:

fo·ment&#8194; &#8194;[foh-ment]
verb (used with object)
1.
to instigate or foster (discord, rebellion, etc.); promote the growth or development of: to foment trouble; to foment discontent.

Ok, which sense of "foment" are you using?

For that matter, I'm not sure where you learned about the word "warfare", but this is the definition I use:

war·fare&#8194; &#8194;[wawr-fair]
noun
1.
the process of military struggle between two nations or groups of nations; war.
2.
armed conflict between two massed enemies, armies, or the like.
3.
conflict, especially when vicious and unrelenting, between competitors, political rivals, etc.

Maybe what you're saying is Obama is promoting the development of vicious and unrelenting conflict between political rivals. Assuming you're being literal in your use of language. That would be a bit novel, but ok. In my common use of foment it means to incite, to spark, to start, to instigate trouble. I don't believe Obama has started this fight. He's just the first President to take MY side (and your side, economically speaking). As for CiC, I was just playing along with your warfare imagery. Any time you want to shift to strictly literal language, you tell me (in plain terms, please). I will do the same.

I have not "lied" about anything. He is the CIC of military forces. He is not "your" CIC.

His goal during his run up to the nation is to divide the groups of have's and have not's and foment a class warfare in an effort to win re-election and I think he should be removed from office through any legal means. Show what's your issue?

My issue is that we, Americans, are in the midst of such a class warfare as you describe. I'm agreeing with you. What my issue is that although you and I are probably on the same side of this "warfare", the positions you defend are those of the other side of this warfare. That's why I struck "lied" and went with other words. Frankly the whole characterization as "class warfare" is pretty hyperbolic and has real limits as for how useful it is. It's quite a limited framework for what is really in our country.

In war, the goal is to defeat the enemy. Come on. The different political parties are not enemies. Rivals, but anyone who gets whipped into a froth about the "enemy" has lost it. And "defeat"? Really? Do you want subjugation of the enemy? See where I'm goin here? The whole war metaphor is .. .. of extremely limited use for *MY* goal of getting stuff done.

BigV;760792 wrote:

Yes you do.

No, you are wasting oxygen.

Ok, which sense of "foment" are you using?

For that matter, I'm not sure where you learned about the word "warfare", but this is the definition I use:

Nice try at a change of the subject.

The rest of your comments are a failure at an attempt to justify your position. Obama is Fomenting a Class war in an effort to get re-elected. It is a class war in all of the classic sense of the word. He is trying to split the electorate, no differently than the Republickins tried to split the electorate on Gay Marriage and a host of other stupid issues.

V, you're leaving blood on the wall. Might need to get your head looked at mate.

The people trying to foment a class war are the right wingers. As soon as there is any discussion of tax reform, they (and Merc) scream "class war" with the implication that taxing the upper 5% or 10% is a communist plot. Its perfectly fine to pour tax payer money on banking and investment firms, but God forbid that any corp or anyone in the upper income brackets pay even .5% more in taxes. Sounds like socialism to me.

DanaC;761104 wrote:

V, you're leaving blood on the wall. Might need to get your head looked at mate.

The truth hurts.