Obama Uses Weekly Address to Vilify "Unpatriotic" Business for not Paying Fair Share

simple... say Microsoft went overseas, we would tax them to sell in the USA... smart

time to end free trade of goods and labor...

foreign outsourcing and foreign imports are killing this country, we need to tax them to even the playing field via tariffs



.

 

So, let me guess this straight. You are so brainwashed by the corporate media that you actually support paying more taxes, yourself? Because let me tell you something, when corporations dodge billions of taxes, who do you think picks up the tab? Regular Americans like you and me.

Lets get something else straight. Corporations used to pay about a third of all tax revenue in the US, now it's about 10%. America has some of the lowest rates of tax revenue among OECD nations. It's no wonder our infrastructure is crumbling, when you shift the tax burden on to the poor and middle class while giving the wealthy tax cuts. Trickle down doesn't work, but I guess you guys like being pissed on.

 

When you've lived your life without drinking a drop of water from a municipal supply, without ever setting foot on a public road, without using a single object transported on said roads, the quality of them overseen by official institutions, THEN you can go ahead and say that you owe nothing to no one.

You didn't get to where you are today without assistance from society as a whole. Nobody did.

It's only fair and just to give back in the same manner that was given to you.

 

No one is accusing the corporations of breaking any laws.

So if the tax rate is set by big government so are the other provisions of the law.

If the corporations were not being treated better by America's economic competitors than by the American government they would have no reason to leave, would they?

 

change that to "people are inherently greedy" and you might gain some small measure of validity, though the very use of the term "greedy" reeks of collectivist nonsense. it is a term used to vilify our most basic urge to better our own circumstances.

 

I'm sorry, but this president actually said in his address,
You don’t get to pick which rules you play by, which strikes me as so hypocritical his argument just dies from it's lack of moral authority.
And since his argument is a moral and not a legal one, he is his own worst enemy when it comes to his own insistence we all play by the rules.

Lecturing others on their moral duties should rightfully fall on deaf ears when Barry Hussein Obama is doing the talking.

 

I don't know anyone who objects to paying taxes that go to public works like roads and bridges and defense.

Although when we read about abuse by government employees that support gets a little strained.

But government spends a lot of our tax money on welfare programs that just take money from one citizen and give it to someone else.

That is morally wrong.

 

You are quite wrong.

We all pay taxes for those services which means there is no debt incurred in using them.

Second of all they are provided by the government not by society which are not the same thing. In fact in many many circumstances government provides them in a manner which is far less effective and effecient than private enterprise could do by simply selling them.

In fact government and society are polar opposites. Government is real. Society is an abstract concept and nothing more. One can owe nothing to an idea or abstract concept.

Fairness is irrelevant. Fainess is also an abstract concept and an enormously subjective concept. In other words what is fair to you is not fair to me and that is true for ALL people. Therefore government can never be fair to all and government should never be permitted to enforce fairness for SOME.

 

I would say Chico Marx.... slick, lying scumbag (but nowhere near as likable)

 

The govt which has a revolving door between said companies and the treasury dept. Seriously, it's comical in how easily they manipulate things to make it easier for them.

Also, the US has standards, which those other countries do not. The only way they would stay, is if the rates were what they were getting from these other countries, which amounts to nearly nothing.

- - - Updated - - -

Like I said, he is being hypocritical, but in this particular instance, he isn't wrong.

Sorry, but I take each statement as they stand. I won't dismiss something that is true just because it comes from a liar.

 

Taxcutter asks:
And just who gets to determine what is the "fair share?" Hussein Obama? Democrats?

 

I thought corporations were people?

And yeah, I'm a collectivist. People are stronger when standing together then apart. JMO

 

That revolving door works for every special interest group from business to the poor.

They are all working the system for their clients.

The solution to that is smaller government that does not have the power to tax and spend so and therefore has no pot of gold for unscrupulous public servants to abuse.

 

That's one way of looking at it. Not entirely wrong either.

Personally I think it would help if there was a ban on public servants going to work for the companies they write policy for, and vice versa. IE a banker can't go work in the treasury dept.

That kind of thing.

Strengthen and enforce ethics rules, actually go after some of these people.

 

Yes people are stronger when standing together than when apart. I agree with that.

The problem is that said description applies to more than one philosophy or idea. People gathering together for mutual benefit based on each persons volitional consent is powerful and wonderful. This is more corroboration or cooperation than collectivism however.

Collectivism always seems to result in others being forced to work or live with others with or without volitional consent. Even in Obama's speech he is attacking those who voluntarily choose to be different. It is ugly and abominable to suggest that they may not do so and must be forced to work with or for others as someone else sees fit.

 

Corporations and the wealthy dodge more in taxes than the entire welfare state combined. Is that morally wrong, too?

 

Not sure what you mean by those who voluntarily choose to be different? Can you elaborate?

Otherwise, I don't think we are disagreeing. I'm not saying anyone should be forced to work with or for someone they don't want too, but I think everyone should have to put in to the same pot that is used to solidify the same space we use, and everyone pay the proper rate applicable to how much they make.

I think the only time you should be able to be force to work is if you are receiving govt assistance IE welfare.

 

I see that Moderate Cubed has re entered the conversation.

Too bad you still don't want to reduce government but merely add new rules on top of old rules that clever crooks will find a way around.

 

Yes those who choose to renounce their citizenship in an effort to keep more of their profit free from taxation.

Putting into the same pot for whatever reason based on how much one makes is forcing one to work for another. I owe nothing to another just because I m capable of making a greater profit. Especially the government.

 

When corporations pay taxes that expense is passed to consumers through higher prices.

So what you really want is for average people like me to pay higher taxes.

 

That's a nice stand, in principle. But since the president is making an appeal to businessmen possibly looking to relocate I'm certain his appeals will fall on deaf ears given who the messenger is. I'm saying still that as a practical matter you cannot separate the message from the messenger.

 

I give you my views, unaltered. Whatever label you wish to place on them (zealot, moderate) is entirely within your own view on ideas.

I actually think there are a lot of ways that Govt can reduce itself to a more efficient model. I just think you and I have different ideas on what that would entail.

Ah ok. Thanks. I think that is a cowardly way to avoid ones social responsibility.

If we all put in the same pot, we don't work For one another, we work With each other. You use the same infrastructure as everyone else, so why wouldn't you help pay for it?

- - - Updated - - -

I think he knows he is past actual policy decisions, so now he is making political statements for the future. Statements which will be repeated across the country.

 

No one has a social responsibility. You are forced to help build the infrastructure whether you like it or not.

YEs we can all work and do well maybe even better without this assumed shared pot.

 

I understand

But I found your embrace of the far left idea that corporation are evil to be shocking coming from a person who so often wags his finger at conservatives for their lack of moderation.

 

Obama's #1 donor zip code as well as the Democratic Party's is 10005 (Wall Street). This is all a joke.

What Obama is really doing is bringing up all the crap so they can create new regulations to attack SMALL BUSINESSES. This is a distraction to make regulations to further cripple the little guy and pay off his huge Crony Capitalist buddies even more. Just try and get a loan as a small business since Obama took office. It near impossible thanks to new regulations. The paperwork is a giant set of novels. It's impossible for the small guy to run the business and fill that crap out.