Yeah, Obama Really Said This: ‘You Don’t Get To Pick Which Rules You Play By’

I'm quiet amazed people have a problem with this - one the one hand slagging everyone who DOES pick the rules they want to follow (MSM, Obama, etc), and then complaining when someone points out the bleedin' obvious - that you shouldn't be allowed to.

And then complaining about someone else's hypocrisy..........you'd think that even the most passionate antidemocratic trolls on here would think that "one law for all" has to start somewhere, and if the POTUS says it starts "here" then perhaps that might be a good development - perhaps he'll take it on board himself some day??

Sheesh.....

I believe the rules he is referring to are the tax codes and laws of the USA

he took an oath during his inauguration to uphold those laws

what is the issue here ?

Barack Obama said that the American people “don’t get to pick which rules you play by

Might be a Inside message from the sheep herder Obaahma after he got office, About his job under The puppet masters.

a reply to: Astroglide2000

That was absolutely disgusting and appalling. Seriously.

its clear from context he is talking ABOUT YOU, the american taxpayers.
"you" cant pick and choose.
"he" can and so far the "corporations" can.

its very cleverly worded

"It's hard working all by myself"

He's not working alone.. (laughs)

a reply to: SloAnPainful

Like him or not... whether he plays by his own rules or not .. he's still correct..

I can't just decide I don't like the 35mph speed limit and do 75mph because I want to ..
I don't like the price of gas at the pump so I'm going to pay 50% less because I want to ..
I'm a corporation, but I don't like the tax rate so I'm going to pay half because I want to ..

And for those saying isn't that what he's been doing for 6 years? pretty much.. so did many presidents before him..

Ronald Reagan issued 381 executive orders ( average of 48 per year, 8 years )
George Bush Sr. issued 166 executive orders ( average of 42 per year, 4 years )
William J. Clinton issued 364 executive orders ( average of 46 per year, 8 years )
George W. Bush issued 291 executive orders ( average of 36 per year, 8 years )
Barack Obama issued a total of 183 executive orders ( average of 33 per year, 5.5 years )

But lets go back in time a bit more.. Franklin D. Roosevelt? 3,522 executive orders .. yes he spent 12 years as president, but if you average out the number of orders per year it still dwarfs every other president in history with an average of 291 per year.

These executive orders are basically a president doing what he wants .. when you look at the totals .. Obama is on the low end of that..

Source: www.presidency.ucsb.edu...

Point is.. it's politics as usual, but he's not nearly the worst offender .. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman .. all WAY worse with the executive orders.. not all executive orders are bad things mind you.

But they CAN choose Barry.

They can leave. And that is exactly what they are doing.

The USA has the highest corporate taxes of any developed nation. Only Guyana has a higher tax (by one percent!).

So corporations are leaving. It's legal for them to do that. Unless he's going to pull a Venezuela or a Zimbabwe, and seize their assets before they flee.

As long as 0 plays by the rules... there's nothing to be done. It is legal to set up a subsidiary, and move your assets/profits to that subsidiary, then sell it to a foreign company in which you hold an interest.

Ireland's economy is booming from the American firms inverting there.

originally posted by: tovenar
They can leave. And that is exactly what they are doing.

Every company that leaves a country should pay extra taxes for 20 years for exporting and dealing with the country they left.

Globalisation of the economy is screwing the majority.

a reply to: theMediator

again, that isn't possible, because the assets belong to a different entity than the one which sold them. Add to that the fact that they are not based in the US, and so while you may tax individual sales, you cannot tax the foreign arm of the entity, since it is not on US soil.

All foreign companies can easily skirt the US tax code by inflating their import costs.

Imagine you own a company that makes computer games; call it "mind games", and you are based in New York.

So you go to Ireland, and set up an Irish corporation, with a US owner (you), entitled "mind games Ireland". Then you order the USA corporation to sell everything but its copyrights to the Irish company. Now, suppose your game CDs had cost $10 each to manufacture, and you sold them for $110 in the USA---a $100 profit. So you owed $39 in corporate taxes.

Once you move to Ireland, then your "MindGames Ireland" company still makes the CDs for $10. But now it sells them to MindGames USA for $109 each. So the US company only shows a net $1 profit. And since corporate tax is calculated on your net profit only, it basically cut your tax bill by over 38% !

That is over-simplified, of course, but it gives you a flavor of the profits to be realized, and how tax-structuring can be far more lucrative than actually reforming your profit-making structure. It is usually easier to cut taxes rather than to cut costs.

Lots of companies whitewash their profits this way. Practically every automaker. The foreign ones build a few body plants in the US, but all the fillings come from their factories back in the home country, and cost all of the US sales' profits.

Even the "American" auto companies do this. Their US sales represent a minority of total revenue; and most of that money gets paid to suppliers overseas. The suppliers are indeed foreign companies, who all coincidentally have US owners, who also own the US car company that is their paper "client."

I know of a case where a manufacturer was making a product in the USA, shipping the product to Asia to have the "made in USA" stickers peeled off, then re-selling them back to the US corporation. The expense of doing so "ate up all the profit", and the US company paid only a small corporate tax. The Asian company (based in Dublin) was making record profits. The IRS made them stop, but they had gotten away with it for at least 4 years before being called out. At which point they simply moved their whole manufacturing process overseas. They didn't move offshore until the IRS made them, though.

a reply to: SloAnPainful

I disagree with Obama most of the time. But in this particular case the message IS more important than the messanger.

Corps. that engage in the behavior of reincorporating in the another country for the SOLE purpose of evading taxes are committing tax fraud. I am a registered tax preparer, almost CPA, and this behavior goes beyond tax planning and minimization, it is tax evasion pure and simple.

There are two more things to take away from this besides the obvious. 1 - our dear B.O. has just pushed the wedge in a little deeper to divide the classes. Why, those awful wealthy people doing this to hurt the lower-class! 2 - some of the corporations he's talking about are his biggest contributors. GE comes to mind. He's talking out both sides of his mouth.

It's true that there are corporations that declare their profits elsewhere. What any half-witted businessman would do is lower the corporate taxes and get what they can from these companies to keep them here. It's a win-win. But then, our government isn't made up of businessmen. It's made up of moochers, scammers and crooks. That goes for both sides of the isle.

originally posted by: th3dudeabides
a reply to: SloAnPainful


Corps. that engage in the behavior of reincorporating in the another country for the SOLE purpose of evading taxes are committing tax fraud. I am a registered tax preparer, almost CPA, and this behavior goes beyond tax planning and minimization, it is tax evasion pure and simple.

Is it illegal? That's what fraud is, right? My CPA tells me that minimizing your 'exposure' to tax is not a crime. Tax avoidance is legal.

Fraud means deceit, correct? Unless they are filing bogus (i.e., "Fraudulent") forms, it isn't fraud, correct?

I was advised that it remains legal to minimize your future tax liabilities. It is when you horse around with current and past liabilities that you get in trouble.

If you are ALMOST A CPA, I wonder that you haven't communicated the distinction here. As a professional tax-payer, I certainly know the difference.

If they're committing crimes (breaking the rules) then by all means go get them.

If they're just limiting their liability, not committing crimes (playing within the rules) then either change the rules or stop bitching about it.

I love these politicians who write and pass the rules then get all upset when people play by the rules.

Here's an idea: say what you mean and mean what you say.

Seeing as how they don't my best guess is that the politicians want the rules to remain as they are so they go around giving little speeches about these evil corporations and rich people who commit no crimes and play by the rules to incite their moron base to vote.

This is identical to all the crying about universal background checks by politicians who refuse to open up NICS.

If you don't really want to fix anything then shut the # up about it.

They aren't picking and ignoring rules as they please. They are just using current wording of the tax laws to their benefit.

Obummer should know this....he's already a pro at that..

Besides, those companies should stay in Merica....not like Obummer is trying to raise the taxes on them or anything.