It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama's 17-minute, 2,500-word response to woman's claim of being 'over-taxed'

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:07 AM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

Yes interesting indeed. You will also note your registration date of Feb. 23, 2009 and that mine is June 12, 2006. Not to say anything about time on the board makes one person better or not. The truth is that a person could be here for a very long time and still not be that great. But the point of pointing out joining dates is your statement that I only joined during the election cycle has me a bit puzzled (and amused) because joining two years before a presidential election year only would make me an election cycle joiner in the case of the 2008 election cycle that began in earnest two years early compared to every other one.

I have spoken quite a bit on taxes, misrepresentation, and quite a number of non political topics as well. My political involvement goes back to 1988, where at the age of 17 the local and state level republicans did spend quite a bit of time with me and I with them. One even introduced me to the then VP Bush as "Mr Vice President, this is the young man I was telling you about...". Rather than talk shop on an election talking point, I asked about when he was shot down in Pacific during WWII, waiting to see if our boys in the sub or the Japanese would get to him first, if he ever thought he would one day stand on the threshold of becoming President. That far away look in his eyes told me that I had reached him. A few years later that was confirmed when he recalled that story of being shot down in an interview.

I have also had lunch with Gov. Rhodes' (D) wife. She expressed the regret that her husband was unable to attend as planned due to handling an immediate affair of State. After 22 years, I am hardly a johnny-come-lately to the world of politics. Nor at 39, do I have the excuse of youth to cloud perceptions.

You see, when I meet people of such stature, I try to speak with them on a personal level rather than careers. It isn't the job that makes the man. In the event that I would happen to run into Obama, I'd probably talk about his childhood when he was sent to live with his grandparents in Hawaii. But that is also when the stories of his life become weird. Like how it is also about the same time that he and his mother lived on food stamps (when the program didn't exist) and his grandmother was the vice president of the Bank of Hawaii. Let's not forget his grandfather that is related to six US presidents: James Madison, Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.

Hard to talk about humble beginnings, when a little research is done. But get on topic of taxes, 142.5 billion gallons of gasoline are purchased in a year by best estimate. At 42 cents per gallon that is roughly $59.85 billion dollars collected. The whole budget for the Dept. of Transportation was $68.2 Billion. Debt, no we haven't even started on the tax collected on diesel fuel by all the truck drivers, nor the airlines, nor duty on imports...

Where does the $1.4 trillion the IRS takes in each year go to again? And how do they not complain when 10% of the people are unemployed if it takes every last cent to make sure fires get put out and schools have books and all the other nonsense that has been claimed over the years? And most importantly, how was it the country made it so many years without an income tax? Right, by at least half-way following the Constitution.

But it one thing to say I gave the man a chance, here is one the day after you joined. link One on the first bailout that Bush did--note the use of Wall St. and Main St. that later became an Obama slogan Yes, I bashed Bush on both the Bailouts and on the Mexican Pilot Program and few other issues. Keep in mind, I met the father, not the son and that Jeb was actually the favored one, not W.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:22 AM

Originally posted by Ahabstar
Yes, I bashed Bush on both the Bailouts

You waited for 8 years to hold Bush accountable just like everybody else as well evident by your previous posts and threads. Now your complaining like this woman about this administration overtaxing when these taxes had been existing well before this administration, when you had two years from joining under this administration to which you could have complained then.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:56 AM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

After re-reading your post, I now see the subtile difference. You first ask how are you being overtaxed to how is the Obama Administration overtaxing. Subtile, very subtile.

The easy answer is by continuing the previous overtaxation without repeal. The political answer would be by allowing the Bush tax cut to expire (which has not happened just yet but is speculated to occur). Neither of those answers are good enough to be a good answer so I will drag out the definition of a tax.


Main Entry: 2tax
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 14th century
1 a : a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b : a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
2 : a heavy demand

We could say the huge increase of tax on tobacco in 2009 Note the increase for roll your own from $1.10/lb to $24.78/lb. It has raised my once favorite Bali Shag to $9.50 for 1.31oz when it was $2.40 for the same pouch. But smoking is an elective. Thanks to Health Care Reform, holding a medical insurance policy is not. I can be looking at upwards of an additional $500/mo expense when it becomes into full effect. And to think I declined a new car earlier this year due to the $300/mo payment left me a bit tight on my budget. I do believe that qualifies under definition 2: a heavy demand.

But don't take my word for it, Tax Freedom Day is one day later this year than in 2009. But I like this quote here: "Despite all these tax reductions, Americans will pay more taxes in 2010 than they will spend on food, clothing and shelter combined."

But don't take my word for it. Behold a video from the guy that brought you Bush's rendition of Sunday, Bloody Sunday.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:59 AM
reply to post by Subjective Truth

I find they are all the same! They are all corrupt and have no idea how to even answer a question. I didn't vote for Obama or McCaine , because they both had their heads up their asses. Which is how I look at all politicians. The worst out of the bunch is Democrats, they are the worst at answering questions, and when confronted they just run around circles with their heads cut off.

Obama is just a school yard bully, that is all talk and no action, and all his followers are those little bratty kids, that just say" Get him Obama", because arguing with a Democrat is just like arguing with a 5 year old!! Then you have the republican, aka parent that has to come back in and clean up after poopy pants.

That's how I see politicians.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Subjective Truth

Originally posted by illusions

Originally posted by Subjective Truth
Hmm is there any differance between someone telling you they are going to bend you over and have their way with you and the person who just does it. I think by adding the small talk it just adds insult to injury.

Originally posted by RestingInPieces
That's very offensive and I don't like it... REPORTED!!!!

For a minute there I thought you meant that you reported that you don't like being bent over and taking it...

But I realized that was not the case. LOL!

Thankfully I have not had to deal with that. But sometimes it feels like it arguing with the trolls on ATS.

You are a troll, after going through every single page of this thread you never once commented honestly about the OP you simply started attacking everyone else you tried to "spin" it like you were talking about the OP but based off of your style of typing and your picture I'm guessing you have some sort of elitist mentality of being right and other's wrong.

I mean we all have our crosses to bear (I'm an asshole for example) but seriously, and fyi before you even call me another troll, your right I'm trollin' ya and who really cares? Are you gonna go whine with a very obviously right wing biased view, about how evil this guy is? while stating that you don't play into the right and left game?

I'll let you know one thing, until the moment I read through this thread I didn't realize how idiotic I sounded when I was ragging on Barry... so thank you for that you've made me a more level headed and less D-Bag sounding person.

P.S. that comment that you lolled at (Which by the way is why I picked this here one to quote) was directed at you for what you said and how you were reported... grow up

P.P.S. on the OP I do find it fascinating and just more and more proof that the american people don't really want change, we just want it our way. Think about how Obama gave an attempt at a small answer in regards to tax law that people generally go through years and years of training for, the woman claims over-taxation to which while I can't judge either way not knowing exactly her situation IMHO I call BS. It really is a "troll" question she's just trying to get people riled up without any understanding of what goes into even just a calculation of a teeny weeny tax. Sadly taxes are essential to everyday life. Not to mention that over-taxation (Which is BS for anyone keeping score) is entirely the fault of a citizen IMO. Based off of what very, very little that I know about taxes if a specific area isn't pumping enough money into the local economy then obviously revenue is gonna go down, so we lead into a tax hike. Now for the first few years you won't worry about it, you'll just save your money more often and go out less...and what raises taxes? That's right NOT spending money...

So basically over-taxation would be her fault, and she's asking entirely as a pointed question to get a rise from Barry, He gave an incredibly short version of minor minor tax law... AND most importantly since none of us where there, we can't say whether or not he was trying to play DJ spin and the turn-tables... but as far as based off of the very vague question she asked, and the length of his answer. I'd say it was far too short.

That's my 2 billion cents, I know it was long sorry
oh and happy easter everyone go find an egg!

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 07:22 AM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

If you must quote, please quote the entire sentence for the full context. I opposed both the bailouts and the Mexican Pilot Program which became a hot topic in Feb. 2007. In July 2007, Bush ordered Sec of Transportation Peters to ignore Congress's legal order to delay by using loopholes in the language.

At the time, I was driving over the road. There were many words on the CB of marches on DC and "road justice" on Mexican trucks.

But we are way off topic there. The subject is taxes. We both agree that they need redone. We may even agree that direct tax on income needs to be removed. Personally, I think the boon to the economy would be tremendous and that industry would rebound.

But looking at the triple threat of HCR, Cap and Trade and Amnesty burdens on the small business owner will be quite the deal breaker. Once all those illegals are clear, labor laws come into effect like minimum wage and income tax. Unemployment will rise and tax rates will have to increase at some point to compensate.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 07:56 AM
when i first came to ats, there wasn't much political idealogy, we were all together against the man so to speak.

now i can't get on ats without reading about how 'this person is a left or right extremist' blah blah blah,

i read things that couldn't even qualify as rhetoric, just dirt talking towards anyone with an agenda against their own political movement, and i know this is the case because i do not hear that tone of typing when i look into alien cryptozoology religious and other non political threads

thus far i have read into this thread all pages, but probably won't read anymore, although i find this topic interesting, and i normally try to keep up with the ats conversation on interesting threads, subjective truth came out with a rational stance on the subject matter and i give him props for clearly speaking his mind, not that i had a 'problem' that no one aggreed with him, i just thought that it was absurd that of all types of responses to his argument, which wasn't far from what i would add, were not directed at dissemenating his logic, instead it was the usual ats mindless political idealogy

so anyways, my main point is that i think just because obama might have spent 17 minutes explaining something doesn't mean jack

he could have spent 17 HOURS explaining why heavy taxes are 'ok' but it doesn't mean it's 'ok'

if i responded to a thread on ats with one paragraph versus one page, it would not mean the truth or nontruth of my statement in itself.

also, a good tool of rhetoric and whatnot is to simply drone on and on and on and on and on and on... i suppose this is done so that the person does not qualify to say 'well he never answered my question'

'well he spent 17 minutes talking! surely he answered it?!'

even a logical rational person would probably conclude, 'yes i suppose i'll have to think about that 17 minute speach for a while and let it sink in before i make the statement that he didn't answer it'

or even if you come back and say that he didn't answer the question... 17 minutes is alot of time, more than enough to throw in so many linguistic complexities and loopholes, and ways you can change your answer after you've already answered.

that is my opinion, it is based loosely on the fact that obama is great at dancing around the topic of interest whilst not really touching it, if you want to 'bash' it please bash IT

[edit on 4/4/2010 by indigothefish]

[edit on 4/4/2010 by indigothefish]

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:25 AM
If being taxed more is a good thing it should have taken 30 seconds or less to explain.

If an answer includes lies and distortions it should take much longer.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Subjective Truth

Is income tax the only tax we pay in America?

I pay at lest 5 direct and most likely a bunch more indirect.

Such a simple questioin....Why do I pay so much tax?

I bet I pay more in taxes per year than many here gross in pay, and I'm not rich or even close to it for I am at best upper middle class wage wise.

It seems with Obama and a few here that the answer to everything is more taxes on those who actually work hard to get ahead in life. I think the common term is "the evil rich", but just what is rich? The picture that the Dems put into our heads the last 40 plus years is some typical white fat guy that cheats the government out of taxes every chance he gets, but Obama labeled it at 250k and above, and that starts to represent a much different person than the stereotypical one that we all want to stick it to. Old VP Joe off handily said one time 150k, but the number really does not matter because it is variable to whatever that they deem needs to pay more taxes. That number could easily become 100k or lower and relabel the middle working class to the "affluent" to justify a hefty tax raise.

Have any of you ever understood that politics is a numbers game? A very large percentage of America makes fewer than 60k per year and the vast majority of those families pay very little if any State or Federal taxes, but they are all voters. So being a smart politician looking for numbers if I labeled the top 10% wage earners as “evil”, that need to give more so that we can redistribute the wealth, hmm, to let’s say the other 90%, that just might generate more votes from those who are ignorant, and though ignorance has no boundaries it is rather common in the lower income levels, so I guess the term for them would be “easy meat”.

I remember people saying they are going to vote for Obama because he will buy them a house or pay off their credit card bills etc… so he has and continues to manipulate this ignorance very successfully. I for one want nothing from the government that is not what we would all call common infrastructure. I don’t want money from the evil rich, I don’t want him buying me a house or paying my bills and I don’t want to be force fed his health insurance. BTW do we really need 2000 plus pages of a bill and trillions of dollars to help those truly in need of health care, and who would be in a better position to know who truely needs it, the State or feds?

It was not a few years ago that an amount of 10 billion would have been headline news, well we are all successfully desensitized now that we do not even blink when 100s of billions get thrown around. All those voters who pay little taxes already don’t really care…100 billion, trillion, 10 trillion…who cares when you pay zero to generate all that money, but when a person sees their taxes go from 18% to 28% to 33% and so on upwards that in the near future 50% will be needed, the simple question of “why do I pay so much taxes” takes a lot less words to truely answer than what Obama feels the need to delute the truth with.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by Xtrozero]

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 09:10 AM

Originally posted by indigothefish
when i first came to ats, there wasn't much political idealogy, we were all
also, a good tool of rhetoric and whatnot is to simply drone on and on and on and on and on and on... i suppose this is done so that the person does not qualify to say 'well he never answered my question'

'well he spent 17 minutes talking! surely he answered it?!'

even a logical rational person would probably conclude, 'yes i suppose i'll have to think about that 17 minute speach for a while and let it sink in before i make the statement that he didn't answer it'

I agree, he could have thrown in the middle of his speech the theory of cold fusion, aliens are among us and the secrets of the universe and we would have never known....

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 09:28 AM
reply to post by Ahabstar

I agree with you that it takes very little for many to feel a heavy burden from all this.

What I see in the future is that many families will start to downsize their lifestyle, retirement plans, kids college and so on to meet this increasing burden. On the other side it will be said “well your house was already much too big for what a family of four really needs”, “there are cheaper good used cars”, “hey if your kids are not lucky/smart enough to get grants then they do not need to go to college, we do need a blue color working class”, “you do not need much in retirement, the state will provide everything…”

The funny part is during the cold war years these statements would have been labeled communism and now even Russia would find them too extreme.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 12:56 PM
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

I had to respond to this. He has sent over 40 thousand more troops to afghanistan since being in office. He hasnt started any wars but he sure as hell is sustaining one. Well occupation if you want to call it that,sustaining a illegal one to boot.

You talk about tax cuts but yet he continued the policy of bailouts and sent trillions to worthless assets basicly taxing future generations. We have had more jobs lost every month since he was in office than were created. March 2010 was the first time since he was sworn in that more jobs were created 1/3 of which were sensus jobs, 50,000 of them.

It would help to actually look at the facts instead of blindly trolling.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:26 PM
To answer the over-taxed thing, how many new things have either been taxed or was under consideration for taxation? Tanning bed tax anyone? And if Obama was gonna answer the woman's question why did he answer it with political double talk? The info he quoted in his response to her question would have answered the question [maybe] IF she were privy to the full workings of the gov't like a fellow politician. So where was the common groung in his answer. Not everybody understands the political jargon and this woman was supposedly a worker at a battery plant not a reporter or fellow pol! He tried to dazzle the crowd w/ BS. So much for the greta one being in touch with the common folk!

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:29 PM
reply to post by Southern Guardian

I believe what people are saying, we already pay TOO much in taxes. Now this Obamanation is adding MORE taxes to our already high taxes. Enough is enough, everyone can present people like you with facts on paper in black and white and you will still deny that this administration is the straw that broke the camel's back.

I am not aligned with the right or left wing, I am strictly to the constitution and bill of rights which the left and the right CANNOT argue with the supreme law of the land. You show me in the constitution where the fed can force healthcare upon the people and fine you if you don't cooperate. That is extortion plain and simple and is illegal under the constitution. If people can't see that we are doomed as a nation for the sheer ignorance of people.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 05:49 PM

Originally posted by bigshow
reply to post by Southern Guardian

I believe what people are saying, we already pay TOO much in taxes.

Some people are saying there are too many taxes, some people are saying they are paying too much. Make up your minds. Im well aware of what you mean.

Now this Obamanation is adding MORE taxes to our already high taxes.

And again I ask you where is Obama adding MORE taxes? Where? What taxes did Obama add in when he came to office? I hope you don't run away from the question like the last member.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by Southern Guardian]

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:08 PM
I listened to the speech, heard the question (at the time, I didn't really find it a out of place question actually...seemed she was genuinely concerned), and I listened to him respond.

I actually found the response interesting as he explained a few things even I didn't see connecting until it laid it out. It appeeared by the end that the measures taking place will be reducing the expenses overall...seemed logical, especially when he spoke about the roof issue.

I found it a bit like reading a medium sized opening thread on explains what the concept is, where its at, and what are the factors involved...I am actually shocked it took 17 minutes though, but then again, I wasn't timing it. I think critics are bringing up the time mostly because it was an elegant layout of the taxing issues going on here.

Also made me realize I cannot be president...I would have simply responded "no your not, stop being a"

Incidently, I dont enjoy being pro-government...but the anti-government angle is simply retarded...pick a real fight, not complain about full answers.

Oh, and being anti-government on a conspiracy website is the norm...I guess I am a non-conformist.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 06:29 PM
Oh my!

He (Obama) used an afternoon (sarcasm) to answer one simple question?

"A wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care" package?"

Obama started out feisty. "Well, let's talk about that, because this is an area where there's been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I'm going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have," the president said.

By Anne E. Kornblut | April 2, 2010; 3:01 PM ET

I'm offended by his answer, frankly. First off; EVERY transaction I make, I'm being taxed, EVERY SINGLE ONE!

"Let's talk about that," he says.

I doubt she had a chance to respond, he was too busy trying to politicize an answer, easily achieved with one sentence. Had I had the opportunity, I'd have to keep bringing the question back into the dialogue, I mean, monologue?!?

Transparency? Yeah, I see right through his story telling...

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 07:32 PM
reply to post by TheWalkingFox

Because taxes are boring. Really, what's your point? people wandered off from a boring part at the end of a speech? Oh heavens to betsy, it's Obama's Hindenburg!

This "17 minutes to answer a tax question" is still at the top of the Drudge Report and has been for nearly 24 hours now so it is big news and apparently has struck a cord with the nation.

It brings up a couple of issues that the people are dealing with. Is Obama being truthful with us and what is he really trying to do, what is his agenda?

One wonders why it takes 17 minutes to answer any question let alone a relatively easy one like "are your taxes too high?". Who doesn't think they pay a lot or too much in taxes? And if we are in a recession and people are hurting and without jobs what moral right does the government have to step in and take more of our money? The audacity of the president to say "let's talk about that, there is a whole lot of misinformation" and then drone on for 17 minutes!

Not too many presidential watchers would disagree that Obama's tax policy is simply redistribution. Take from those that have money and give it to those that don't. Obama would never admit such a thing and that's why we get long winded explanations like this.

Redistribution is why he wanted Cap and Trade, historically the largest redistribution of money (based on carbon) since WWII.

Redistribution is why Obama was so serious about the HC bill. It gives government a good excuse for taking from the producers and giving to those that aren't currently covered, the poor and unemployed.

Obama's rhetorical tactic is long winded mesmerizing obfuscation by design to do just that obfuscate (muddy the water) and confuse while he goes on with his agenda behind closed doors.

This week we will be hearing more and more about how we need to tax carbon and how the EPA can be used to bring about change without the troublesome need for legislation. Meanwhile Obama's ratings continue their migration south.

[edit on 4/4/10 by plumranch]

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 08:04 PM

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Incidently, I dont enjoy being pro-government...but the anti-government angle is simply retarded...pick a real fight, not complain about full answers.

Oh, and being anti-government on a conspiracy website is the norm...I guess I am a non-conformist.

First off, I like you. You bring alot of good insight...
But you do see how the HCR bill is 2,000 pages long for a reason I can only speculate; It's to keep us lazy folks from reading the entire thing so as to not be onto how they are sticking it to us, in yet one more expanded new form of taxation to further an agenda that IMO is not "American-Dream-friendly."

These full answers are simply IMO a way to continue misinforming the public by way of complexities; Our misapprehensions, if you will. It's a rotten cycle, continually used to justify "the laws" being impressed upon us "free" slaves. Frankly, I'm tired of paying these crooks to steal from me.

Because of my tax-bracket, this new cost/insurance is taking money out of my retirement fund, food off my table. Guys like me will be jailed because we can't afford to pay the premiums. Insurance in it's self is a racket. I'm 40 years-old, and never once needed to file a claim. All those little tiny increments belong in my retirement. That's the bottom line in my book. If I have to go to the DR.'s office, it's because of some unseen Governmental aspect I'm not being told the truth about...

I want to apologize to you Saturnfx, I used your post to voice my out-rage, please know that nothing I post here is aimed toward you.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 09:04 PM
The simple answer to this is, if he answered to quickly he might have to answer another unscripted question.

new topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in