The Obama Thread - Original Vintage Edition

[jaxxx]

What exactly IS the "constitutional" question for his qualifications?
but this searching for crap that hasn't been applied to others of the office is WRONG! IF I'm wrong, then tell me. Support it with something solid, please.

This is an interesting question. Did the other POTUS present this information? Was it presented and accepted? Did they withhold this information? Once one becomes POTUS, does this information get 'locked' from public records?

[Big Ben]

What exactly IS the "constitutional" question for his qualifications?
but this searching for crap that hasn't been applied to others of the office is WRONG! IF I'm wrong, then tell me. Support it with something solid, please.

This is an interesting question. Did the other POTUS present this information? Was it presented and accepted? Did they withhold this information? Once one becomes POTUS, does this information get 'locked' from public records?

obama is the first president to have lived in Indonesia under a name different than the one he is currently using, i.e. Barry Soetoro was the name he was enrolled under while attending Muslim school there. Then he may have lied and claimed he was never known under any other name in his Illinois State Bar application, an ethics violation that caused him to have to resign from the bar. So things like this generate questions that wouldn't necessarily need to be asked of other presidents.

We don't have to "solidly" prove obama was born elsewhere than the US. It is a requirement for all presidents to be natural born Americans. The fact that there is inconsistency, discrepency and doubt that obama was born in the US shows there is "solid" cause for concern, particularly when obama spends over $1 million to fight having to show his birth certificate. This is "solidly" suspicious behaviour for something that is critically important for world history - that obama actually meets the requirements set forth to be president.

[ZiaAries]

obama is the first president to have lived in Indonesia under a name different than the one he is currently using, i.e. Barry Soetoro was the name he was enrolled under while attending Muslim school there. Then he may have lied and claimed he was never known under any other name in his Illinois State Bar application, an ethics violation that caused him to have to resign from the bar. So things like this generate questions that wouldn't necessarily need to be asked of other presidents.

We don't have to "solidly" prove obama was born elsewhere than the US. It is a requirement for all presidents to be natural born Americans. The fact that there is inconsistency, discrepency and doubt that obama was born in the US shows there is "solid" cause for concern, particularly when obama spends over $1 million to fight having to show his birth certificate. This is "solidly" suspicious behaviour for something that is critically important for world history - that obama actually meets the requirements set forth to be president.

I stick it in the same category as conspiracy theories; such as the ridiculous suggestion that 9/11 was an inside job... however, there are those who believe that too. This stuff about Obama would have been sniffed out and exposed in the days of Hillary trying to win the nomination if there was anything behind it. She alone would have put an end to that possibility just for her own gain. I, 100 percent, still believe in "we the people". As for the $1 million to fight showing it, if that is fact, then in political dollars that's only a drop in the bucket, and, if it were me, I would have spent it too just to piss people off who expected me to be treated differently than any one else in the same position. Just my opinion, Hot Tea. Who knows about the name as a kid and taken by his mother into a second marriage and following the man to foreign country. If there is anything hidden here, I'd bet it is that his mother was a nutjob. Didn't he come back to live with his grandparents instead of staying with his mother?

What exactly IS the "constitutional" question for his qualifications?
but this searching for crap that hasn't been applied to others of the office is WRONG! IF I'm wrong, then tell me. Support it with something solid, please.

This is an interesting question. Did the other POTUS present this information? Was it presented and accepted? Did they withhold this information? Once one becomes POTUS, does this information get 'locked' from public records?

jaxxx, Since I've been a voter, which is the majority of my years now, I've never seen another go thru this sort of thing. I would think that once they even put themselves in political view, it is indeed locked in public records, not from them.


The questions I would like to have answers to is; how did he pay for his travels abroad during his student years, and the scoop with his sister. The sister part has nothing to do with anything but how he paid for his travels and 'why' might make a difference in what I thought. On second thought, his relationship with his sister might be revealing about the whole "Soetoro" years. In all honesty, I wonder how many of us don't have a family tree where there are branches we would never bring to the light of day if we could keep it on the downlow.

[jaxxx]

I can't answer "how many" but here is a generalization:

Those in back hills of Kentucky and Northern Canada don't have branches... Their family trees go straight up

[tidho]

I'm with Zia. If there were a story the Clinton's would have rooted it out and destroyed him during the primaries.
Its a little late to do anything about it now anyway. Hopefully the energy of opposition focuses on exposing him for the President that he is rather than muddying waters with tales of his qualifications.

[Big Ben]

Saw this and thought it was worth sharing:

"Think it takes a million bucks to make it into the Top 1% of American taxpayers?
.
Think again. In 2010, it took just $343,927 to join that elite group, according to newly released statistics from the Internal Revenue Service.
.
Occupy Wall Street protesters have been railing against the Top 1%, trying to raise anger and awareness of the growing economic gap between the rich and everybody else in America.
.
But just who are these fortunate folks at the top of the income ladder?
.
Well, there were just under 1.4 million households that qualified for entry. They earned nearly 17% of the nation's income and paid roughly 37% of its income tax (actual collected revenue AFTER write-offs).
.
This flies in the face of the misinformation the left loves to throw out there that the 1% should pay more taxes (their fair share) because they make 80% of the country's total income. NO They Don't...FACT.
.
But of course, even hard - factual numbers from the IRS itself means nothing to the left.
Just watch the "Spin" they will come up with in their replies to my post. Watch and learn."

Another person then added:

"And the top 10% pay 70% of all non-entitlement taxes, while the bottom 47% pays 0% meaning that the 'medium top' 43% pays 30%. For anyone whose IQ is above 90, there is no 99% and 1%, if one has to divide the population into two groups it'd be the 47% and 53%--the non-taxpayers and the taxpayers."

[tidho]

"And the top 10% pay 70% of all non-entitlement taxes, while the bottom 47% pays 0% meaning that the 'medium top' 43% pays 30%. For anyone whose IQ is above 90, there is no 99% and 1%, if one has to divide the population into two groups it'd be the 47% and 53%--the non-taxpayers and the taxpayers."

Very true.

I wonder what the political party split of each of those groups is.

Anyway, Obama is out promoting his Buffett Rule as the latest definition of 'fairness' and the right thing to do.....even though Obama made more than a million dollars in 2010 but didn't pay 30% of it in Federal Income Taxes. Guess is wasn't fair or right yet.

[Big Ben]

"And the top 10% pay 70% of all non-entitlement taxes, while the bottom 47% pays 0% meaning that the 'medium top' 43% pays 30%. For anyone whose IQ is above 90, there is no 99% and 1%, if one has to divide the population into two groups it'd be the 47% and 53%--the non-taxpayers and the taxpayers."

Very true.

I wonder what the political party split of each of those groups is.

Anyway, Obama is out promoting his Buffett Rule as the latest definition of 'fairness' and the right thing to do.....even though Obama made more than a million dollars in 2010 but didn't pay 30% of it in Federal Income Taxes. Guess is wasn't fair or right yet.

It is so nauseating to hear the stupid argument that the 47% do pay taxes, i.e. social security and medicare taxes. Those are specialized taxes which in theory anyway will accrue to the benefit of and be returned to the individual, with profit, assuming those programs don't go bankrupt first. But paying no federal income taxes means that these people get away with contributing ZERO (0) to the public good - no contribution toward roads, bridges, public transportation, national defense, border security, anti-terrorism activities, etc. Those 47% need to start paying their fair share.

o'bumma is in Florida on the taxpayers' dime giving class warfare speeches and inciting unhappiness and envy of successful people. He is the most divisive figure I have ever seen holding a public position and he does it on purpose. Now that Santorum is out of the race, I hope Romney can devote his energy and resources to educating the American public about the perniciousness of bh o'bumma.

Furthermore, o'bumma had the audacity to try to influence and intimidate the Supreme Court in their decision about obamacare. The sheer arogance of the man is unbelievable, as he thinks he is King/dictator and is above the law and the foundation of the American system of checks and balances.

[Big Ben]

I'm sharing this with you:

Ten men go out to eat every day and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate in the resturant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. He said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meals by $20. The meal for the ten now cost just $80."

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men -- the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat.

So, the owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But, once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!"shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night, the tenth man didn't show up to eat, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

[ZiaAries]

I'm officially pissed off. Obama only paid 20% taxes. What did he have to deduct? He eats and lives off taxpayers. His and his wife's clothes are deductible. He doesn't need cars.

I'm thinking about his last State of the Union address. So, the joke goes like this; How do you know when a politician is lying? Answer: His lips are moving.

[Winston Smith]

I'm sharing this with you:

Ten men go out to eat every day and the bill for all ten comes to $100.

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7.

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men ate in the resturant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. He said, "Since you are all such good customers, I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meals by $20. The meal for the ten now cost just $80."

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes, so the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six men -- the paying customers?

How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from every body's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to eat.

So, the owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay!

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But, once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"

"Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!"

"That's true!!"shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night, the tenth man didn't show up to eat, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up any more. In fact, they might start eating overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.

For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

I like this. Post it on the main board Ben.

[bigwillie]

agree with Winston Smith that made a long story short BB

[ZiaAries]

Ben, there is a tax thread in Member Chit Chat. I think Winston started it if you want to search and post. Too bad my fellow southern girl can't read your example. However, I don't think it will matter to those, American or not, of the "stick it to the rich" mentality.

[Big Ben]

I'm officially pissed off. Obama only paid 20% taxes. What did he have to deduct? He eats and lives off taxpayers. His and his wife's clothes are deductible. He doesn't need cars.

I'm thinking about his last State of the Union address. So, the joke goes like this; How do you know when a politician is lying? Answer: His lips are moving.

Zia, obama is a hypocrite. His proposed Buffett rule conveniently would not affect him. He should go after his own Treasury Secretary, Tim Geitner, who willfully EVADED paying his taxes, as did others in the obama administration.

obama is trying to divide the country by class (class warfare against successful people), by race (My son would look like Trayvon Martin and the Cambridge police obviously acted stupidly, by gender (phony "War on Women"). I hope you see through his non-stop phony campaign tactics and will vote for Romney in November.

Romney is not perfect, but he is far preferable to o'bumma, the worst president in American history.

[ZiaAries]

Ben, I'm asking because I don't know... Why did Romney put money in Swiss banks?