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

Can you say disconnect? The President, who's been bouncing around the country fundraising (behind closed doors) and golfing, decided to use his weekly address not to address the invasion at the border, not to discuss the raging battles in Gaza or Iraq, but to vilify certain business's for avoiding taxes. What?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/07/26/weekly-address-closing-corporate-tax-loopholes

So, while Obama focuses his attention on another "it cannot wait" issue involving more funds going to DC, we have this...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/07/27/Albright-The-world-is-a-mess

Yes, the world is a mess, and so is our southern border, our VA, along with a host of other issues, but this week the one issue Obama says "cannot wait" is fixing a tax loophole. And of course he can't help but slip in the subtle "encouragement" to Rep's (the same Rep's he's been trashing for years) in Congress to join him.

OK, lets look at Obama's case here. He says "rather than double-down on the top-down economics that let a fortunate few play by their own rules, let’s embrace an economic patriotism..". This coming from a president who's intentionally distanced (separated) himself from Congress, in essence ruling unilaterally with a pen & phone and has been playing by his own rules for years. And not only him, his entire administration! Then he has the nerve to frame his argument as only a progressive could in "economic patriotism". So, the man who's resided over an administration who's allowed Veteran's to die because of neglect, who's IRS has abused it's power, who's abused his own power by making illegal recces appointments and unilaterally rewriting law, wants us to believe he's the arbiter of "economic patriotism" (whatever the hell that is)!

It might be advisable for Obama to at least try and play by the rules himself before he attempts to vilify others who are. But with that said, it would be nice to hear the president address issues we actually care about, you know, like the crisis on border or the rise in anti-antisemitism, instead of some tax loophole that I doubt 1% of US citizens know about or care about. But who knows, maybe the president hasn't heard the news "the world's a mess". That's a possibility.

 

"The best way to level the playing field is through tax reform that lowers the corporate tax rate, closes wasteful loopholes, and simplifies the tax code for everybody. But stopping companies from renouncing their citizenship just to get out of paying their fair share of taxes is something that cannot wait. That’s why, in my budget earlier this year, I proposed closing this unpatriotic tax loophole for good. Democrats in Congress have advanced proposals that would do the same thing. A couple Republicans have indicated they want to address this too, and I hope more join us. "

republicans wont like this, but I think is a great move...

 

Democrats Donors wont like it either..................this is nothing but meaningless platitudes...........

GE is a prime example..........

 

He can't say "seize wealth through what amounts to nationalization via tax code" so this is what he says instead. The left, always setting up some faceless illusory "villain" while its own house burns to the ground around it. Perhaps if there weren't so many corrupt, graft laden, bankrupting, high taxing democratic machines in power in big city politics in the US, corporations wouldn't be fleeing. Of course that "Detroit as loud clear alarm bell" theory is never a truth we will hear from the lying left.

 

I am not sure whether Obama is the incarnation of Karl Marx or Groucho Marx.

 

Real patriots don't pay taxes...

 

Its pretty stupid.

What will obama do?

Pull their passports or visit them in the middle of the night?

 

yes, the United States of America.

Well, only united when its profitable. Otherwise, Everyone for themselves.

 

Because the only way for people to unite is to pay taxes and submit to the authority of politicians in DC, right? It's not like we have families, communities, churches, and private charities or anything.

 

Real presidents don't whine when businesses react to the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/us-has-highest-corporate-income-tax-rate-oecd

 

No, not everyone has that.

- - - Updated - - -

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204662204577199492233215330
http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/01/news/economy/corporate-tax-rate/
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/us-usa-tax-corporate-idUSBREA1P04Q20140226

 

Statists will use any pretext or excuse to justify confiscating "more" wealth from the private sector, patriotism is no exception. I say to hell with taxes and patriotism.

 

Well that should be the goal, then, to strengthen these voluntary, private networks until everyone has access to them in some way. Instead, statists like Obama want everyone to fixate on politics and strengthening Washington DC, the most corrupt and wasteful institution in the entire country.

 

Is that how "moderates" who pride themselves on looking at both sides of every issue see it?

After due consideration you agree with the dear fuhrer that American corporations are just greedy and evil?

Ok, moving right along...

 

A politician telling the serfs, "You don't get to pick which rules you play by." Now that, my friends, is comedy gold.

 

Your own CNN link states that Barry Obama wants to lower our corporate tax rate and close up tax loopholes.
I believe that it's staggeringly hypocritical to appeal to patriotism considering how the Obama regime operates.

 

*shrug* I'd rather have a consistent over-arching system that can deal with everyone, rather then an uneven, inconsistent system like that.

Never said I was a moderate when it comes to companies paying their fair share. Also Companies are inherently greedy. It is, by design, a structure designed to acquire as much profit as possible. I applaud those companies who respect the social contract, but that is why I believe it is up to the Govt to mold the system so as to create a balance between the betterment of the people, while having a reasonable system for corporations to achieve those same goals.

And what is wrong with lowering the rate, and closing the loopholes? I think both are great ideas.

 

I didn't know moderates had an on and off switch that allows you to be reasonable some of the time but far left zealots at other times.

We live and learn I suppose.

 

Nothing at all.
I just think Barry Obama is the last person in the world who should be lecturing others on their patriotism.

 

Everyone has beliefs. Personally I don't think it's zealotry to believe everyone should pay their fair share, but if you wish to assign that to be 'far-left', that is up to you. I can't tell you what to believe.

While I agree that he is being hypocritical, I don't think he is wrong in this instance.

 

"Fair share" as defined by lefties who think corporation respond as they do because they are just evil.

 

I see your point and agree with it but see something more disturbing.

The collectivist ideas he expresses are quite awful.
The left are correct when they criticize conservatives for blind jingoistic patriotism. Having said that the attempt to redifine patriotism as he does is just as bad.

We are not all in this together and we do not rise or fall as one. My life is not contingent or dependent on every other individual in the nation ( or world or even my neghborhood ) having a life of their own.

Sorry to break it to him but I owe nothing to another human being or group of humans just because they have a pulse. If I rise and succeed while others fall or fail that is not something which places a burden on me. It is this essential recognition of a persons right to own themselves and not to own or be owned by others which caused the rise of America as a superpower.

While it sounds good to stop people from renouncing their citizenship to avoid taxes the fact is they are doing so for a reason and it is that reason which needs to be stopped.

It is a backhanded attempt at more of the same which means to blame inequality for problems which it never caused and punish those who succeed based on the fact that they succeed.

 

The problem with that is one of equality. I believe that no system of government will be satisfactory without providing equality. A system where all of these things are carried out on a voluntary basis, without the need for an overarching structure can lead to immense gains in terms of cost efficiency and less wastage, but it also runs the risk of putting people on very uneven ground.

I believe that everyone has the right to the same social safety net, but if there is no regulatory body to ensure it, I don't think that will happen at this stage; some people would be left out in the cold, and I don't think that is good enough in a civilized society.

What if a person who cannot make a living by themselves is stuck in a place where nobody wants to take care of them? Do we just let them die?

No, we force people to help them indirectly, by forcing them to pay taxes.

I think it's perfectly fine that Obama strikes back at the corporations that try to dodge taxes by exploiting loopholes. You can have your profits or your freedom from pitching in for the good of society. You can't have both.

 

Fair Share as defined by the Corporate Tax rate. If Corporations are people, they should pay the same amount as people. Using massive profits and job offers to pay politicians to create loopholes for them to pay less tax (or in some cases, even get refunds) is unfair to the US people by any definition you wish to give it.

If they closed the loopholes, and lowered the rate to a more sensible one, nobody would have anything to say.

 

The problem is that Barack cannot address any of those other issues in any sort of meaningful ways simply because due to his actions or inaction he's either caused them to occur in the first place or to become much more worse than they used to be. This corporate renouncement of citizen stuff, for instance, notice that he said nothing whatsoever about the policies of his administration that are perhaps encouraging a handful of companies to take such a step. Just what has he been doing of late as KING Barack with his phone and his pen to convince those companies or corporations that they need to vacate ASAP just to remain economically viable in today's world?

For instance, there's a difference between stopping companies from conducting practices via greed that cause vast harm to this nation and then stopping them when all they are really trying to do is remain viable in the competitive world-wide marketplace. Which is happening? What might have been a result of Barack ruling from on-high?

So essentially Barack can no longer address important issues in any meaningful way because either the bulk of the nation no longer trusts him -- he WAS rated as the worst president of many decades -- or because he's in some way either the cause or an enabler of the problems.