why wont obama show his birth certificate

[drobeski 3,061]

Nope. I'm sure he does just fine. Please explain how that is relevant to me thinking it's assenine to eliminate voting priviledges for those who don't own property.

Nothing to do with that, just the notion that you think that so called

"out for poor" politicians are better for the country.....

[The Next Generation 11]

A poor man has never done anything for me.

 

A lot of our service men are poor. Why do you hate America?

[Franknbeans 46]

because he's the president?

[BunnysBastatrds 2,604]

I am in favor of eliminating voting for non-property owners who are non-tax paying.

 

 

Who do you think pays the taxes when one rents?

[pimptastic69 0]

Who do you think pays votes for the taxes when one rents?

 

 

The one's that are tied to a one year lease and not a 30 year mortgage?

 

It's easy for a renter to vote for tax increases, because they can just move to another apartment when the extra tax becomes apparent in their rent payment. Meanwhile, the landlord is still stuck with the increased property tax bill.

 

ItisatipthatFairTax.....

[nikki2200 4]

The one's that are tied to a one year lease and not a 30 year mortgage?

 

ItisatipthatFairTax.....

 

And landowners don't raise the rent or anything on their rental properties if the taxes go up so they can still make a profit on it, right?

[DankNuggs 305]

And landowners don't raise the rent or anything on their rental properties if the taxes go up so they can still make a profit on it, right?

The market determines the rent... You people don't understand that those that play by the rules of capitalism don't get free cupcakes and lunches, only the beggars... If the market can't bear the increase, it simply cuts into landlords profits.

 

You can't arbitrarily determine value, it is determined by the markets.

[DankNuggs 305]

Nope. I'm sure he does just fine. Please explain how that is relevant to me thinking it's assenine to eliminate voting priviledges for those who don't own property.

You do see the issue with people that have 'no skin in the game' swaying the financial decisions of the country right?

 

 

remember how the mortgage fiasco became so much worse becuase people bought homes with no equity, no skin in the game, and could simply walk away when things got bad... Poor people walk away when things go bad...they don't pay taxes or contribute, they are a net-taker...

 

Mensa makes a point about how that can become destructive, and our country has seen it in action and is now reeling to deal with it. Doesn't mean we can take away their votes. It does mean there has to be a fundament shift in perspective before the economy jumps off a cliff.

[nikki2200 4]

The market determines the rent... You people don't understand that those that play by the rules of capitalism don't get free cupcakes and lunches, only the beggars... If the market can't bear the increase, it simply cuts into landlords profits.

 

You can't arbitrarily determine value, it is determined by the markets.

 

Who did I say gets free cupcakes? I don't like giving away any free cupcakes. I have an issue with the concept that landowners pay taxes but renters don't. Landlords will always make sure they are making a profit on their property, which means the taxes are covered as well. If there is a tax re-evaluation, the rent goes up. If the renter can't afford it, they have to move to a crappier neighborhood. Period. What don't you understand about this? Why would someone take a loss on a rental property?

[DankNuggs 305]

Who did I say gets free cupcakes? I don't like giving away any free cupcakes. I have an issue with the concept that landowners pay taxes but renters don't. Landlords will always make sure they are making a profit on their property, which means the taxes are covered as well. If there is a tax re-evaluation, the rent goes up. If the renter can't afford it, they have to move to a crappier neighborhood. Period. What don't you understand about this? Why would someone take a loss on a rental property?

 

This is idiotic... You think every landlord in the country has enough in rent and occupancy to produce cashflow? These are the assumptions people make about business. Its pretty funny...

[DankNuggs 305]

Why would someone take a loss on a rental property?

Because you may find yourself in a situation where the rent you can get in the market isn't enough to cover all your carrying costs... You owe a monthly mortgage on it, so do you take the renter at a small loss? or do you let the unit sit empty and get ZERO $$$. Choice is yours... Plug the equation into your pink power commie machine and see what it spits out.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Outrageous and reeks of the same kind of liberal elitism you despise.

 

There's nothing outrageous or elitist about trying to protect my family from people with no vested stake being empowered to vote money out of my pocket merely because a politician promises that they can.

 

If there was no progressive taxation, it would solve the problem and negate the need for this alternative.

[DankNuggs 305]

There's nothing outrageous or elitist about trying to protect my family from people with no vested stake being empowered to vote money out of my pocket merely because a politician promises that they can.

 

If there was no progressive taxation, it would solve the problem and negate the need for this alternative.

having voting rights based on wealth isn't american. tax reform is fair game though.

[pimptastic69 0]

And landowners don't raise the rent or anything on their rental properties if the taxes go up so they can still make a profit on it, right?

 

Of course they do. To do otherwise would be moronic. The problem is that landowners are stuck with the long term consequences stemming from the choices that short term renters make.

 

Renters have no "skin in the game". They're like seagulls - they fly in when nobody wants them, make a bunch of noise, s$it all over everything and then leave. Meanwhile, property owners (not necessarily apartment owners) in the area are left to clean up after them, and are stuck with huge tax bills that they didn't vote for.

[nikki2200 4]

This is idiotic... You think every landlord in the country has enough in rent and occupancy to produce cashflow? These are the assumptions people make about business. Its pretty funny...

 

Ummm.... I have my own business. Telling other businesses how to run their business. But that's besides the point.

 

I live in a major city and have always lived in urban epi-centers and this isn't how it works, so I may have a skewed view. The demand for rentals is always higher than the supply, at least in the attractive neighborhoods. I will concede that perhaps in some areas of the country, this may not be true. Where I come from, renters more than cover the property tax on the houses.

 

And there is always the option to sell your property if you are taking a hit on it. But if we're talking about Detroit or someplace in a complete death spiral I can see what you are saying.

 

Also I love how I'm labeled a commie now because I said that renters cover the property taxes. That's awesome. You know nothing about me.

[DankNuggs 305]

Ummm.... I have my own business. Telling other businesses how to run their business. But that's besides the point.

 

I live in a major city and have always lived in urban epi-centers and this isn't how it works, so I may have a skewed view. The demand for rentals is always higher than the supply, at least in the attractive neighborhoods. I will concede that perhaps in some areas of the country, this may not be true. Where I come from, renters more than cover the property tax on the houses.

 

And there is always the option to sell your property if you are taking a hit on it. But if we're talking about Detroit or someplace in a complete death spiral I can see what you are saying.

 

Also I love how I'm labeled a commie now because I said that renters cover the property taxes. That's awesome. You know nothing about me.

You have an incredibly naive view... So the guy who bought investment property towards the height of the market and is now upside down, and rent may or may not cover his bloated financing, vs a guy who is lightly leveraged could be receiving the same amount of rent, one guy produces cashflow, one guy is in a money pit... They are all not the same.

 

I don't know what business you ar in, but im guessing it isnt real estate. The viewpoint that all businesses make money by definition is a warped one. I think the extreme liberal base and the poor are the types that have these almost stereotypical caricatures of 'the wealthy'.

[DankNuggs 305]

Of course they do. To do otherwise would be moronic. The problem is that landowners are stuck with the long term consequences stemming from the choices that short term renters make.

 

Renters have no "skin in the game". They're like seagulls - they fly in when nobody wants them, make a bunch of noise, s$it all over everything and then leave. Meanwhile, property owners (not necessarily apartment owners) in the area are left to clean up after them, and are stuck with huge tax bills that they didn't vote for.

When a guy raises his rent to cover increases, and his competition do not, he is now at a competitive disadvantage and will have to lower rent to meet the market.

[parrot 789]

You're talking about deductions allowing such a thing. That's different for me: the only way one has deductions to offset gains is through expenditures on property, which means that they're involved in the process and have much to gain or lose.

 

For most people the only real property they will ever own with material tax implications will be their home, and on the federal level that property only acts as a tax advantage. State and local property taxes are federally deductible and mortgage interest is one the most cherished personal deductions in our tax code. And gains are not relevant to the vast majority due to the ample gain exclusion - currently $500k for a married couple I believe.

[IMMensaMind 462]

Certain politicians protect the interest of the wealthy more than others. If elitists like Immensa can eliminate more and more non-wealthy people, their chances of always having tax breaks and loopholes increases greatly. That's what Immensa and anyone else who supports his stance is shooting for.

 

 

That's what we're shooting for, eh?

 

Question: how do I 'eliminate' non-wealthy people?

 

[IMMensaMind 462]

For most people the only real property they will ever own with material tax implications will be their home, and on the federal level that property only acts as a tax advantage. State and local property taxes are federally deductible and mortgage interest is one the most cherished personal deductions in our tax code. And gains are not relevant to the vast majority due to the ample gain exclusion - currently $500k for a married couple I believe.

 

If someone owns their home, they pay taxes. My response wasn't addressing the situation you name here, but instead a situation where someone owns property but doesn't have 'income'.

 

That's how I took it anyway.

[IMMensaMind 462]

having voting rights based on wealth isn't american. tax reform is fair game though.

 

Having blocks of voters able to vote money out of the pockets of others isn't American either. My stance was formed in response to something which already violates basic tenets.

 

I would cede your point entirely if taxes were the same level for everyone; if 50% of the public didn't somehow avoid the Federal Income Tax, and as such become a constituency for politicians willing and able to raise my taxes without raising theirs.

 

That is not an irrational, outrageous or unAmerican stance.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

IMM often goes too far.

 

Here's something from November 2010 that illustrates how IMM and I see things differently in regards to idiot voters. Last November, both IMM and I were hoping that Joe Miller, the Tea Party-backed, Sarah Palin-endorsed Republican would win the Alaska Senate race against the write-in crooked incumbent candidate, Lisa Murkowski. It was a pretty close race but unfortunately, Murkowski seemed to have won with a comfortable enough margin.

 

Now Lisa Murkowski has a rather difficult name to spell and plenty of mistakes occurred on her write-in ballots. Miller filed a lawsuit to have the improperly filled out ballots thrown out. I saw this as a backdoor way to steal a lost election and even though I wanted Miller to win, I found this strategy ethically dubious. IMM though, sided with Miller. He had no hesitation to call for any misspellings or ballots with stray marks should not be included in the total. No doubt, 99% of these ballots would be Murkowski ballots. Finding enough of them would mean throwing the election to Miller.

 

I am pretty familiar with that election battle. The thing there was that under Alaska law, voter intent is paramount. So mis-spellings, erroneous markings, etc. should be disregarded as long as voter intent can be discerned. Obviously there are some problems with this idea (Who determines voter intent? How good is "good enough"?), but it flows from the basic principle that every man has the right to vote and have his vote counted.

 

Mensa apparently doesn't believe in that principle at all, which is just sickening to me. People without property shouldn't be allowed to vote? Seriously? What is this, the middle focking ages?

[Gepetto 1,454]

Who did I say gets free cupcakes? I don't like giving away any free cupcakes. I have an issue with the concept that landowners pay taxes but renters don't. Landlords will always make sure they are making a profit on their property, which means the taxes are covered as well. If there is a tax re-evaluation, the rent goes up. If the renter can't afford it, they have to move to a crappier neighborhood. Period. What don't you understand about this? Why would someone take a loss on a rental property?

 

Renters have to fill vacancies. That gets harder and harder to do when property taxes increase. HTH

[IMMensaMind 462]

I am pretty familiar with that election battle. The thing there was that under Alaska law, voter intent is paramount. So mis-spellings, erroneous markings, etc. should be disregarded as long as voter intent can be discerned. Obviously there are some problems with this idea (Who determines voter intent? How good is "good enough"?), but it flows from the basic principle that every man has the right to vote and have his vote counted.

 

More than once, if lefties have shots at it.

 

Mensa apparently doesn't believe in that principle at all, which is just sickening to me. People without property shouldn't be allowed to vote? Seriously? What is this, the middle focking ages?

 

I stand by my position. You lefties love to vote money out of the pockets of others. If you revert back to the Constitutional principle of taxing everyone the same rate (equal under the law), then I don't worry about those 50% who don't pay taxes being more than willing to pay for their care with my wallet.

[Voltaire 5,491]

There's nothing outrageous or elitist about trying to protect my family from people with no vested stake being empowered to vote money out of my pocket merely because a politician promises that they can.

 

You're blowing my mind here. I actually agree with you. People who don't pay taxes shouldn't get to vote money out of taxpayer's pockets into their own.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Wow. Just wow. I don't even know what to say to this.

[Voltaire 5,491]

Wow. Just wow. I don't even know what to say to this.

Not all of his crackpot ideas are so crackpot. Some, like this one, are merely impossible. Since voting rights are already extended out to non-taxpayers, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube by taking them away. Holy fock, the sh*tstorm that would cause.

 

Still, he has a valid point. People on the public dole can and do vote money out of everybody else's pockets into their own. That's not right.

[Mungwater 601]

So technically I'm a renter in an urban area, receive government benefits from my GI bill and about 15% of monthly income is tax payers moneyy. Does that count as being on the government dime and can't vote? Where does the line get crossed?

 

As a vet of two combat tours, that would be a tough pill to swallow. Isn't the American way that everyone has a say?

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Not all of his crackpot ideas are so crackpot. Some, like this one, are merely impossible. Since voting rights are already extended out to non-taxpayers, you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube by taking them away. Holy fock, the sh*tstorm that would cause.

 

Still, he has a valid point. People on the public dole can and do vote money out of everybody else's pockets into their own. That's not right.

 

So your ideal form of government is some sort of aristocracy where only landowners have the right to vote? And the peasants can just go fock themselves? That's pretty messed up man.

[IMMensaMind 462]

So technically I'm a renter in an urban area, receive government benefits from my GI bill and about 15% of monthly income is tax payers moneyy. Does that count as being on the government dime and can't vote? Where does the line get crossed?

 

As a vet of two combat tours, that would be a tough pill to swallow. Isn't the American way that everyone has a say?

 

Nope. You've served; you've proven your worth to society. Not only that, but do you pay income taxes?

[IMMensaMind 462]

So your ideal form of government is some sort of aristocracy where only landowners have the right to vote? And the peasants can just go fock themselves? That's pretty messed up man.

 

Is it messed up that people can vote money out of other people's pockets? I haven't heard you acknowledge that even once.

[Mungwater 601]

Nope. You've served; you've proven your worth to society. Not only that, but do you pay income taxes?

 

Yeah, I pay income taxes.

 

Sounds a bit like starship trooper, can I go kill bugs now?

[Voltaire 5,491]

So your ideal form of government is some sort of aristocracy where only landowners have the right to vote? And the peasants can just go fock themselves? That's pretty messed up man.

No. I think anybody that pays taxes should be able to vote and that would include the employees at McDonald's.

 

I'm saying that people who don't pay taxes shouldn't get a say in how that money is spent. If you don't contribute to society, you would get no voice in how society governs itself. People who pull the cart get a say in where it goes, people who ride in the cart do not.

 

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Is it messed up that people can vote money out of other people's pockets? I haven't heard you acknowledge that even once.

 

First of all, your concept presupposes that every political decision made involves the use of funds from your pocket. That is not necessarily true. What about legislation on social issues? What about the selection of judges? What about foreign policy decisions (at least those depending on personnel & resources already in place)?

 

Second of all, you assume that everyone who pays taxes owns property. Also not true. Plenty of people pay income tax but don't own property. Nearly everyone pays sales tax but many do not own property. Even people who rent don't pay property taxes, but guess what a portion of their rent is? That's right, to account for the property taxes of the owner.

 

Third of all, even assuming that we are talking about a destitute person who does not make enough money to be taxed, buys very little, and owns no loand, that person should still be able to take part in our democratic system. And if you're in a position where those guys have enough political clout that they can demand that funds be taken from the rich, well then that's going to happen whether there is democracy or not. If they're allowed to vote then the political fights between the haves and have-nots is resolved in a relatively civil and painless fashion. If they aren't allowed to vote, you have a revolution on your hands.

 

So in short, your little theory rests upon a number of false assumptions and it is completely inpractical in any event. And that's not even mentioning the fact that "one man, one vote" is the very heart of our democratic system. So we'll add Un-American (and I hate that term because it's often abused) to the list of what's wrong with your little proposal.

[Drizzay 745]

He just did.

[redtodd 7]

He just did.

 

I wonder if there is white out over the name and "Barak Obama" handwritten over it.

[nikki2200 4]

He just did.

 

Thank focking god. Wonder what conspiracy theory is next on the list for the neanderthals to drool over.

[posty 2,810]

He just did.

 

For those that want to see it...

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

 

Now why couldn't he have just done this on day one when questions arose?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/27/white-house-releases-obama-birth-certificate/?hpt=T1&iref=BN1

 

(CNN) – The White House released President Obama's original birth certificate Wednesday.

 

The surprise release follows recent and sustained remarks by businessman Donald Trump, among others, that raised doubts as to whether the president was born in the United States.

 

 

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/04/27/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

For those that want to see it...

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/birth-certificate-long-form.pdf

 

Now why couldn't he have just done this on day one when questions arose?

 

I am thinking that he might have been busy with things that are actually important and trying to not be distracted by obscure requests from the uneducated.