• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama only paid a 26% income tax rate for 2010

Because Bammy and the Left keep making it an issue.

It's called Class Warfare.....and they've been using it since the turn of the Century.

The people that use it the most have Old Money.


Personally, I fail to see why something like this is even considered an issue.
 
I wonder how much extra the other "Tax Me More" crowd paid?
.

The numbers are coming in..........

.......Obama, Pelosi, Reid and every other Multi-millionaire Democrat paid exactly $0.00 extra in taxes.


.......the rich want to pay more.....but apparently not if your a rich greedy Democrat........
.
.
.
 
Because Bammy and the Left keep making it an issue.

It's called Class Warfare.....and they've been using it since the turn of the Century.

The people that use it the most have Old Money.

So, the lack of an extra contribution to taxes, that is so small, compared to the total numbers as to be meaningless is somehow evidence of a lack of morality/character/whatever it is you happen to be complaining about?

The practical utility of paying a small tax rate for a single individual is so meaningless that this is a nonissue.
 
Personally, I fail to see why something like this is even considered an issue.

Because people like Obama think everyone that is rich like himself should pay more taxes, but he is just got done avoiding it.
 
Because people like Obama think everyone that is rich like himself should pay more taxes, but he is just got done avoiding it.

So paying the legal tax rate is avoiding it?
 
Ahhh, here we go...your Leaders are supreme hypocrites.....as someone else said....for them its ALWAYS do as I say...not as I do.

I am still waiting for one LEFTY to show where they have EVER sent anything "extra" in.

Sorry, the true "nonsense" lies in the incessant whine that the "Rich" don't pay their "fair share".


....and that the ONLY answer anyone on the Left make the rich pay for everything....sorry....but it's true.

Now let Bammy GIVE everything but his Presidential Salary to the IRS and perhaps I'll listen to him when he is crying about the "other" rich folk.


So, the lack of an extra contribution to taxes, that is so small, compared to the total numbers as to be meaningless is somehow evidence of a lack of morality/character/whatever it is you happen to be complaining about?

The practical utility of paying a small tax rate for a single individual is so meaningless that this is a nonissue.
 
Ahhh, here we go...your Leaders are supreme hypocrites.....as someone else said....for them its ALWAYS do as I say...not as I do.

I am still waiting for one LEFTY to show where they have EVER sent anything "extra" in.

Sorry, the true "nonsense" lies in the incessant whine that the "Rich" don't pay their "fair share".


....and that the ONLY answer anyone on the Left make the rich pay for everything....sorry....but it's true.

Now let Bammy GIVE everything but his Presidential Salary to the IRS and perhaps I'll listen to him when he is crying about the "other" rich folk.

You obviously seem to be missing the point of what I am saying.

Here is a hint, its about the practical effect of an action. If an action provides no practical benefit to a cause, the moral justification for it is diminished. Meaning, for there to be a greater moral force, an action would have to be done collectively (based on how this particular situation (meaning fiscal policy) is structured), which is the reasoning behind adjusting tax rates. If one person doing something makes practically no difference, then there is no point in doing it as does not create goodness.
 
Last edited:
I can't speak for Obama's conscience, but given his high profile Ivy League background I doubt he finds irrational actions personally meaningful. Why would you hurt your family to make a point nobody cares about? Given his duties as a father and husband, that would be irresponsible.

Why did you just bring up his Ivy League background? What difference does that make? Does it take a ivy league education to see that he should act according to his beliefs?

As for the parent issue, he feels the money is extra, not needed, it wouldn't be irresponsible to pay more on that ground.


Making a statement like that gets his point across to the extent it has to be get across, actually giving back his money would be over the top.

It would be about doing what he believes.


People can't be consistently expected to act against their economic self-interest.

If they believe in higher taxes they are expected to do just that.

That's why he's appealing to society to act on their economic self-interest and pass the burden of taxes to the wealthy.

That doesn't include himself apparently.
 
No...sorry, it's youwho seem to be missing the point :)

Leadership.....not whining....and Bammy's ONLY action is to blame others for everything...you give the Bamster a pass as he decries other people for doing the same thing he does within the Rules of the Tax Code...it ain't the "revenue" skippy...it's the spending.

Econ 101.


You obviously seem to be missing the point of what I am saying.

Here is a hint, its about the practical effect of an action.
 
No...sorry, it's youwho seem to be missing the point :)

Leadership.....not whining....and Bammy's ONLY action is to blame others for everything...you give the Bamster a pass as he decries other people for doing the same thing he does within the Rules of the Tax Code...it ain't the "revenue" skippy...it's the spending.

Econ 101.

Well, other than the fact that your post is not completely coherent (or I am having trouble with your odd grammar), if one wishes to change the tax code, than that is a separate issue from paying taxes. Ultimately one issue is about the structure of something while the other issue would be about adherence to that structure. So given that, I still do not see a good basis for your complaint, only accusations that seem to bare little connection (Obama blames everyone for everything, spending vs revenue problems as examples), as far as I can tell.

It is not always a good idea to do something personally when doing something personally won't make much of a difference in attacking a problem. Wasted effort does noone any good and does not serve any cause.
 
Last edited:
Why did you just bring up his Ivy League background? What difference does that make? Does it take a ivy league education to see that he should act according to his beliefs?

As for the parent issue, he feels the money is extra, not needed, it wouldn't be irresponsible to pay more on that ground.

He's acted consistently with his beliefs. If he believed people would voluntarily pay more taxes, then he wouldn't be demanding a law to force them. If people gave what was needed to society willingly, then welfare programs wouldn't exist.

Obama partakes of the same self-interest as everyone else in society, because neither he nor anyone else has strong personal incentive not to. Doesn't mean that self-interest should be allowed to continue if it compromises the continuation of the nation.

I bring up his Ivy League education because that background can foster a certain attitude about irrationality.
 
Last edited:
Well, other than the fact that your post is not completely coherent (or I am having trouble with your odd grammar), if one wishes to change the tax code, than that is a separate issue from paying taxes.

How is Bammy "leading" on this issue, that should help you.

Ultimately one issue is about the structure of something while the other issue would be about adherence to that structure. So given that, I still do not see a good basis for your complaint, only accusations that seem to bare little connection, as far as I can tell.

Try looking at it in a linear manner and not through an emotional lense, the structure is a side issue.....my statement stands Obama, and the majority of the Left are hypocrites.....IF they want to Lead why don't they give EVERYTHING they earn beyond their Public Servant salaries to "help" with the programs they want EVERYONE else to pay for...if they do not their cries of someone not paying "their fair share" ring holl and pathetic.

But then again, a lot of people on this forum seem to suffer from a lack of coherence in their arguments (and its generally the ones who think their arguments are always a slam dunk, its odd that those two things are often correlated), so I guess its to be expected.

Yes of course we could all learn so much from you folks who simply "know" better....sorry, no...:)
 
As opposed to leading by "giving" more himself....you are making an assumption about him you can't support.

He's acted consistently with his beliefs. If he believed people would voluntarily pay more taxes, then he wouldn't be demanding a law to force them. If people gave what was needed to society willingly, then welfare programs wouldn't exist.

Obama partakes of the same self-interest as everyone else in society, because neither he nor anyone else has strong personal incentive not to. Doesn't mean that self-interest should be allowed to continue if it compromises the continuation of the nation.

I bring up his Ivy League education because that background can foster a certain attitude about irrationality.
 
As opposed to leading by "giving" more himself....you are making an assumption about him you can't support.

You'll have to elaborate on that one.

"Leading" requires self-sacrifice, but it also requires people buy what you're selling. Obama ignored more lucrative careers in law to devote himself to community service. Republicans turned that virtue into a talking point against him during the election. Meanwhile, corporate personalities dominate the Republican Party.

Proving himself non-self interested had no symbolic value back then, and as such can't support his "leadership" role.
 
Last edited:
He's acted consistently with his beliefs. If he believed people would voluntarily pay more taxes, then he wouldn't be demanding a law to force them. If people gave what was needed to society willingly, then welfare programs wouldn't exist.

People give voluntarily to what they believe in everyday unlike Obama apparently. Welfare programs exist because the government said it was needed, not because it was needed. Almost all welfare programs had little to no need when they were created.

Obama partakes of the same self-interest as everyone else in society, because neither he nor anyone else has strong personal incentive not to. Doesn't mean that self-interest should be allowed to continue if it compromises the continuation of the nation.

I'm not going to get into a budget issue with you. Lets just say this, demanding things for the government for yourself and expecting me to pay for them is not reasonable or acceptable. This goes back to the same issue, pay for what you believe and do what you believe. Same issue really.

I bring up his Ivy League education because that background can foster a certain attitude about irrationality.

I'm sorry but that is offensive.
 
You'll have to elaborate on that one.

You are assuming the he would take the step to "give" more himself, that is an assumption on your part...

If he believed people would voluntarily pay more taxes, then he wouldn't be demanding a law to force them. If people gave what was needed to society willingly, then welfare programs wouldn't exist.

As to your second point.....it does not recognize that the "programs" themselves are failures, nor that that they are out of control spending wise....it simply "assumes" that we as Americans "don't give enough".
 
what is stopping him is a tax code laden with tax loopholes. the ones he wants closed

it appears you ignored the statement of Judge Learned Hand

Those loopholes aren't mandatory. :lamo
 
You are assuming the he would take the step to "give" more himself, that is an assumption on your part...

If he believed people would voluntarily pay more taxes, then he wouldn't be demanding a law to force them. If people gave what was needed to society willingly, then welfare programs wouldn't exist.

As to your second point.....it does not recognize that the "programs" themselves are failures, nor that that they are out of control spending wise....it simply "assumes" that we as Americans "don't give enough".

Are there not enough debates about welfare programs without bringing their efficiency or lack thereof to bare here? This is about the personal ethics of demanding tax increases on an income bracket when you are capitalizing on all the tax breaks you can under the current tax code.

You are assuming the he would take the step to "give" more himself, that is an assumption on your part...

I'm not following. If he passed a policy where people of his income bracket had to pay more but didn't pay himself, then that would be perilous.
 
Last edited:
I got a feeling if he had paid more, you'd be saying something about how he must think we are all dumb, how else would he think we'd all follow the 'messiah' and do something as idiotic and give more money than we had to to the government.

That or some other BS.

It blows me away how you're all defending him not paying, "his fair share".
 
I will never ever understand why the First Family's taxes are anybody's business. I can sort of understand our interest in the President's health, but not his finances.
 
Absolutely not, you see if one wants us all to "give" more the things we are "giving" to MUST be efficient...or we are simply throwing good money after bad...

The deabte is a linear one...emotions have no place in it.


Are there not enough debates about welfare programs without bringing their efficiency or lack thereof to bare here? This is about the personal ethics of demanding tax increases on an income bracket when you are capitalizing on all the tax breaks you can under the current tax code.
 
Why didn't Obama pay 100% taxes?
 
Back
Top Bottom