• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Mr. President, this is why we have laws...

friday

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
801
Reaction score
196
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
President Obama has a now established pattern of choosing which laws he will and will not enforce. We saw it first when he decided to stop enforcing federal drug laws in states that allow medical marijuana. Next, his attorney general decided to not only stop enforcing US immigration laws, but to sue any state that did. It will be an interesting development if the Supreme Court sides with Obama against Arizona immigration laws since they mirror Federal law. Imagine waking up one morning and discovering that our immigration laws are unconstitutional.

Next Obama’s attorney general decided that bribery charges against the administration, brought by fellow Democrats, were not worth investigating. And most recently, when House Minority leader John Boehner wrote to the President inquiring on the status of implementing the President’s executive order banning taxpayer funded abortion, a bargaining chip used to turn pro-lifer Bart Stupak and his followers, Boehner received no response. Come on now, Mr. President, you even wrote that one all by yourself!

We are now beginning to learn the consequences of Obama’s attitude towards the rule of law. Only a week ago, amid discouraging polls and perceptions that Obama wasn’t actually doing anything in the gulf, Obama called BP into his office for a closed door meeting. When they emerged, BP was oh so sad and remorseful and vowed to set up a $20 billion trust fund to pay any and all damages. Obama has been touting his success ever since. Good, right?

The problem is that if Obama actually did anything, then he is guilty of extortion. Constitutionally, the President of the United States cannot walk into a closed door meeting with a public corporation and demand that they hand over cash. When Joe Barton infamously apologized to BP for the shakedown, he should have instead asked Tony Hayward the following:

“Mr. Hayward, please be very careful in how you answer these questions: Did President Obama offer you or BP anything explicitly or implicitly in order to set up the $20 billion dollar fund? Did President Obama threaten you or BP explicitly or implicitly with anything if you did not set up the fund? Did President Obama mention or imply anything about the status of your current or future drilling operations, availability of leases, or duration of the moratorium on drilling in relation to your setting up of this $20 billion fund?”

Of course, as Senator Kyl has learned, conversations in these closed door meetings don’t matter unless you are wearing a wire.

But now we are learning the folly of Obama’s shakedown and why exactly we have a legal system aside from Obama’s badge and six-shooter. When someone is taken to court and ordered to make reparations in civil and criminal issues the money is non-deductible to the offending party and non-taxable to the receiving party. Not so with this trust fund.

By avoiding the courts, BP now gets a nice $20 billion write-off on their taxes, while the victims have to pick it up. Obama’s shakedown will shift $7 billion in taxes from BP to the victims of the oil spill. But it gets better.

If the monies are recorded as income subject to self-employment tax, you can tack on an additional 15.3% to the victims’ tax bill that BP wouldn’t have had to pay. That’s another $3,060,000,000. Of the $20 billion trust fund that BP has promised to the oil spill victims, half will go to Obama’s government in taxes. All because Obama decided once again that he is too good for our constitution and rule of law.

Of course, I’m sure Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner would make an exception for them.
 

Toothpicvic

Banned
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
1,801
Reaction score
462
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
We saw it first when he decided to stop enforcing federal drug laws in states that allow medical marijuana.
I stopped reading right here. If you're an anti-pot fanatic, then I'm not going to waste my time here. All the medical studies show that cigarettes are way more harmful than pot, so quit beating this dead horse into the dirt.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Even Sarah Palin thinks that we should spend more time focusing on the serious issues instead of bantering and wasting effort over some weed.
Hell - don't tell me that stupid bitch is smarter than you :mrgreen:
. . . so out goes the need-for-weed issue.

Per the other issues: Obama does seem to be cherrypicking, sure. . . as do all partisan politicians.

By avoiding the courts, BP now gets a nice $20 billion write-off on their taxes, while the victims have to pick it up.
Statistics and facts on this?
I hope you know that BP is a British company working with international-ties . . . so that completely confuses me on how and to whom they pay taxes and answer to when it comes to this.
Would "caused a natural disaster" be acceptable to any nation as a tax-deduction?

Now - I think it foolish to think that BP would divulge their paychecks to cover the cost of cleanup and reimbursement. Businesses NEVER work that way - if a business solely relies on the public to cover the cost of anything that htey do - then of course it gets passed onto everyone. Where else would it come from? They sky?

So - BP's profits come from everyone's purchases.
BP's taxes come from everyone's purchases.
BP's fines, fees and other monies paid out come from everyone's purchases.

BP's tax 'break' that you claim they will get equals LESS money that the people have to foot - not MORE - because all of their money comes from everyone's purchases - either past or present.
 
Last edited:

joe246

Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2010
Messages
95
Reaction score
9
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
we extort people all the time who cares? i bet the people by the gulf love extortion now
 

bicycleman

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
4,244
Reaction score
945
Location
Old Virginny
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I stopped reading right here. If you're an anti-pot fanatic, then I'm not going to waste my time here. All the medical studies show that cigarettes are way more harmful than pot, so quit beating this dead horse into the dirt.
So are you high on pot right now?
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,344
Reaction score
7,210
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Her words are empty if she doesnt support kicking the feds out of the issue.
Which would include making changes to existing laws through legislation.

Not picking and choosing which laws the government will enforce.
 
Top Bottom