« Evangelical Leaders Side with Catholics on Insurance Mandate | Main | Will Iowa Social Conservatives Unite Behind Santorum? »

December 28, 2011

Poll: Evangelicals (and Everyone Else) Want Wealthy to Pay Fair Share of Taxes

Just before Christmas, Congress decided to delay major changes to income taxes. Instead, legislators gave themselves more time to negotiate by extending this year's payroll tax cuts through February. The payroll tax debate will be at the top of the agenda in 2012, but even supporters of an extended payroll tax cut know it is temporary.

Instead, most Americans prefer a more dramatic overhaul of the tax system, according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. And unlike many other political issues, the poll shows few differences between religious groups: Most people of all faiths feel taxes are unfair and that the wealthy need to pay more.

1227Tax%20Poll.JPG

A majority (54 percent) said the federal tax system was either “not too fair” or “not at all fair” in Pew's December survey, a number up from 48 percent in 2003. Also up: the percentage who say the problem with the system is that some of the wealthy do not pay their fair share. The poll found that six out of ten believe Congress needs to completely change the system.

On many political issues, evangelicals tend to poll more conservatively than other religious groups. But on the question of fairness, all religious groups have the same evaluation of the tax system. Of evangelicals, 53 percent said the system is unfair, which was about the same as every other religious groups. A majority of each major religious group said the tax system is unfair.

There were some differences in opinion over what the problem was in the tax system, but much of these differences were due to race and income, not religion. Among all religious groups, most people said the problem with the tax system is that “some wealthy people get away with not paying their fair share.” However, this view is more prominent among Christians in historically African-American churches. 82 percent of black Protestants said this was the problem, compared to around half of white Protestants and Catholics.

About one-third of white Protestants and Catholics said they were bothered by the complexity of the tax system; one fifth of those unaffiliated with a religion said the same thing. Black Protestants, however, were much less likely to say the tax system was the problem (just eight percent).

The Pew survey suggests that there are major divisions among Republicans on the issue of taxes. Among Republicans who agree with the Tea Party, only 22 percent say the wealthy need to pay their fair share while 57 percent said the problem was the complexity of the tax system. Those in the GOP who disagree with the Tea Party, however, held a different view, with most saying the wealthy do not pay their fair share.

Editor's Note: The Pew Research Center for People and the Press (Pew) provided Christianity Today with a religious breakdown of questions from the Dec. 7-11 survey of 1,521 Americans on their views of the federal tax system. However, CT is responsible for all analysis and interpretation of the results. Pew identifies evangelicals as white, non-Hispanic Protestants who described themselves as "born-again or evangelical." Around 18 percent of Americans are evangelicals by this definition. The margin of error for this subsample is around seven percentage points. The results are descriptive; religious differences could be due to partisanship, ideology, income, or other factors.

Comments

It is extremely short-sighted for evangelicals to demand that the wealthy pay even more taxes than they already do (especially considering that the wealthy pay the most taxes in this country). As someone who works for a Christian nonprofit, I have seen wealthy donors give vast amounts of their income to expand God's Kingdom and care for those in need around the world; the more they are taxed, the less they will be able give. It will also be more difficult for them to invest in the economy by opening new businesses that create jobs for those who need them. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the rich should be taxed more than the poor; the Scriptures consistently teach not to show favoritism, neither to the rich nor to the poor. We should not punish productivity by taxing those who earn more money at a higher rate than those who earn less; that is simply not fair, and it's never promoted in Scripture.

What is the wealthy's "fair share"? What would you have them pay? 50% of every dollar they make? More? Is that "fair"? Only 50 or so percent of citizens end up paying (not getting all of their witholding back when they file) federal income taxes. That is the wealthiest 50 percent of citizens. The poorest half of our country do not pay ANY after refund. After that, the wealthier you are, the more percentage of your income you pay (up to a certain dollar figure, depending on your filing status, at 35%). That is like working for "free" from January through April every year. It seems the wealthy already pay more than their "fair" share. Sales tax is more fair. Everyone, with some latitude for those spending entitlement dollars (food stamps for example), in a given state pays the same percentage. If you are wealthy and buy expensive things, or more items at retail, you pay a larger total of sales taxes to that state. That is fair. The federal income tax approach is already biased against the wealthy. The brackets are in black/white, you cant' argue it. Those of us frustrated about others not giving to the less fortunate really need to focus on our own paths through this life instead of demanding others change theirs. We all have weaknesses to work on before being "called to the pearly white carpet" to answer for ourselves. Demanding more for entitlements from others reeks of jealousy and envy. While I know of no commandment calling for a higher tax bracket, I do recall the one about coveting (#10). And before you respond with "everybody lies", also check out #9.

The issue of fairness and fair share is complex. Is it fair that "wealthy" people pay a disproportionately greater percentage of their income to taxes while 50 percent paid no taxes last year? How much is fair. A flat tax would seem to be fair on the surface. However, it lowers the tax rate of the wealthy. Add into this state taxes, municipal taxes, sales taxes, and government fees and the average middle class person already pays 50 percent. The bigger problem is an inefficient government that does not use tax revenue wisely. Included in that is exorbitant salaries paid to government employees. We need a fair system. However, we need to define fairness.

I would acknowledge that there are gracious wealthy Christians who share their financial blessings with not only only the evangelical community, but who contribute willingly so that their nation can be known for its concern for widows, orphans and the aliens. It may be that the wealthy pay more in absolute dollars in taxes, but it seems that studies consistently show that others pay higher percentages of the income in taxes. Let there be fairness within a tax system that is much less complex. It also seems clear that jobs are created not because those with wealth philanthropically decided to create jobs, but because of an increased demand for goods and services by those who need things. In other words, in the end consumers are more responsible for the creation of jobs than the wealthy are.

If you ask if taxes should be fair, 99.99% of people will say of course. To say that Evangelicals want the wealthy to pay their fair share is like asking how many evangelicals love their mother. That is not the same as asking if taxes should be raised on everyone generating $200,000 in income a year. Or asking what the appropriate tax level is for anyone. That is just a meaningless question used to generate left wing liberal headlines on slow news days and it's unfortunate that even CT has to play those games.

When all is said and done, the fact that more and more white evangelicals are leaning this way raises a significant question. Could it be that there is a growing awareness among the people of God that something, however indefinable, is seriously wrong with our current capitalistic system, and that whatever it is has little too do with the wealthy being over-taxed? That the gap between the haves and the have-nots is bigger than it has ever been before in the history of the nation; that most of the wealthy are too quick to rail against the sin of envy, yet slow as molasses to acknowledge the equally serious sin of greed; that even right here on this forum some may be just a tad bit too touchy about their wealth. The undeniable fact is that Jesus had a whole lot more to say about the rich, most of which was not pretty, than he did about the poor. Indeed, the Bible overall, both OT and NT, has considerably more to say about the rich in the negative than it does about the poor. Surely from a spiritual perspective, that counts for a whole lot more than some on this forum may be willing to concede.

The above person shows that she reads the bible through the lens of white guilt. It is the new consciousness for many emerging evangelicals. Actually, world Christianity may be poor and persecuted, but it is optimistic. When it reads the bible, the people see the health and wealth gospel. It is the preferred gospel of the poor. Yet, in an attempt to come to the theological aid of the poor, many neoevangelicals advocate liberation theology and a Marxist critique of economy. The eschatological context of the NT Church colored how it interacted with society and viewed wealth. Once the church settled down, it stopped living like a community of mendicant preachers waiting to be raptured. Because of its access to wealth, evangelicals have done more to ameliorate poverty than the UN or mainline denominations. We are the most generous segment of the population. By the way, in the Wisdom Tradition, righteousness and wealth go hand in hand.

Um, would all the wealthy people who are creating all of those jobs please go down to the various "Occupy" sites and collect resumes? It seems that those young people cannot find those jobs you are creating. Would you also swing by Black churches and Rust Belt communities? They have not been able to find those jobs either.

Many of the people who are paying nothing in Federal taxes would do so if they had a job or a full time job.

As for those overpaid union government employees... Would you please come and show me how to do my job more efficiently, given that we are already understaffed? We have a volunteer office and I am already using volunteers in the place of paid staff. Would you also find me an apartment that I can rent by myself on my salary and still pay back my student loans and still eat? Some of my co-workers live 5 working adults to an apartment. We can't afford to have cars.

The wealthy pay exactly the same amount of taxes on the first $35-$45K that anyone does--zero. It is very easy to not pay any income tax--just make less than $35-45K/year--or a bit more if you have two or more children.

If you look at the total tax load of a person who makes $45K/year (and pays no income taxes) you have the social security taxes that (counting the employer's contribution) adds up to over 12%. You have sales taxes of another 4-7% of the income. Then there is property taxes--they are somewhere in the rent or on the small home. And car registration. And...

The bottom 50% do not get off free.

I hope those of us who are sharing apartments with others and can't afford a car read news sources other than the highly biased liberal news sites and their local "newspapers". If you have, then you'll know that obama has done many things to make things MUCH harder for us in the future. He has hurt the poor and is eliminating the middle class. He has made a death tax, so if anyone has been able to save any money at all in this economy (after taxes) will have it taxed again so the children get less. Maybe people need to be reminded that the money they earn is rightly theirs, and not the governments money. Who can say they are better off now than they were 4 years ago? Groceries and gasoline are much higher, home prices have plunged, there is a much higher jobless rate than is being reported, and anyone who could own a house has lost many thousands of dollars because the housing prices have plunged, and in some cases, are lower than what many people paid for their homes.

The press went crazy when Nancy Reagan ordered new china, but Michelle Obama and her girls have taken more vacations than any other past president or their wives. Michelle also has a much larger staff for her alone that is much larger than any other previous first lady.

You talk about not being able to afford a car, well obama has made it much tougher for you in the future. He tells you how he wants to help the poor and middle class, and the next day he is enacting by executive fiat, laws that will increase the prices of cars by thousands of dollars. Please read how he has added thousands of dollars to new cars in the future because of his extremely rigid emissions standards that are set to take effect in a couple of years. And BTW, he gave the Chinese the money to build the more fuel efficient cars, as if American companies didn't have the engineers to be able to do this. People who think he is pro-America are not following what he is doing. Listening to his words and then watching how he acts and you'll see nothing but lies. He talks about creating jobs by doing things like rebuilding our infrastructure, such as building bridges, and who gets the money to build the bridges? The Chinese. Please, please do more than reading your local newspaper and watching CBS news! Here is the news site for American infrastructure jobs going to the Chinese: http://abcnews.go.com/US/bringing_america_back/american-infrastructure-jobs-shipped-china/story?id=14592567

Obama's "job czar", Jeff Immelt, who one would assume is working for jobs in the US, happens to be a past president of GE. Then why is it that GE closed one of it's main factories in Waukesha, WI in August of this year, which has been the main employer in Waukesha for the past 115 years? GE will invest 2 billion dollars in China and train more than 65 engineers and use 6 research centers. More jobs lost to China, thanks a lot obama. Why aren't people calling out for justice to be done, and to have a president that isn't constantly saying one thing and then doing the opposite? Does anyone see any dangers in having these czars that answer to nobody but obama? Why would obama approve of this if he REALLY wants to help Americans? It seems like all of his plans have to do with helping the Chinese, NOT Americans. Where is the accountability? There is none. He is counting on all of the liberals to just skim their newspapers, do no research and ask no questions. Do people reading these posts care about our country any more? There are serious articles, written by people who were once liberal, who are asking if obama is purposefully trying to destroy our country because they are still wide awake enough to see what is going on. One thing is said, and the opposite is done.

And as for people who wish he was more pro-life, you're talking about someone who voted 3 times to kill any live born infants after an abortion. Are your eyes so glazed over that you can no longer see evil? Who would vote for someone who wanted doctors and nurses to kill live born infants?? I am praying that you will do some real research and pray about voting for someone who makes Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer look like conservatives. His justice department is filing lawsuits against states that refuse to use tax money to fund Planned Parenthood. He actively works across the world for pro-abortion and for LGBT issues. His speech before the UN made it clear that if any homosexuals are being harassed in any other countries, they are welcome here.

Hopefully, at least some of you will know about the new law that was just passed by a huge majority of the Senate where an American citizen can be arrested and locked away in a military prison (or FEMA)without having a trial and without even knowing the charges against them, and they can be held an indefinite time. Do you see the terrible danger that puts law abiding citizens in who speak out against our government? Do you see how that pushes us ever nearer towards fascism? Please, tell me you can see danger here, or does everyone have scales on their eyes? Obama once said he would veto that bill if it was passed by the Senate, but of course, everyone knew he would go along with it, and so he lied again, and signed the bill into law. Obama talks about the Constitution inhibiting him, and he is certainly the closest man we've ever had that is on the very edge of being a dictator. If he is president for four more years, maybe by then some of you will see how he has stripped away our Bill of Rights and our Constitution. I have seen people ask about who did the vetting for the VP of the republicans at the 2008 election, I would like to ask, who did the vetting for obama in the last election? All of his records are sealed, and he has something like 14 social security numbers, but the one he uses the most often has a number from Connecticut, a place he has never lived.

Maybe some of you are even aware of the 700 or so "FEMA" camps (once called Rex 84) that can can hold up to 2 million people, like the one in Alaska. It was supposed to be secret before, but now they are finally acknowledging them. You can find old youtube videos of a senator asking for information about the rex 84 camps, and he was told that "this is neither the time nor the place to discuss them". They have been staffed and ready to go for several years now, but it's just lately they they are finally admitting them. They now claim they will be used for disasters, but they were fully staffed and running when Hurricane Katrina hit, and of course they were not used. They will be used in the future for those who will be rebelling against a fascist regime. Right now obama is working on internet legislation that will be more oppressive than what the Chinese have. Obama is not the antichrist, but he a forerunner, and pushing us closer and closer to a one world government.

BTW, obama lied again and called it "workplace violence" when the muslim extremist at Fort Hood, killed 13 people and wounded many others. He yelled "praise to allah" in arabic, while shooting unarmed men and women and had written at least 20 emails to a muslim terrorist in Yeman, who has since been killed by a drone. This is such a danger when this particular president, who doesn't allow any terms like "muslim extremist" to be used, but has declared conservative Christians, veterans, gun owners, and anti-abortionists to be named terrorists. The USA Patriotic Act used to read:
“Acts that attempt to affect the conduct of a government by assassination, or kidnapping,”

It has now been amended to read: “Acts that: “involve acts dangerous to human life, “appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce, influence the policy of a government‚ “affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.” The change considerably broadened the definition of terrorism." You're a terrorist if you want to influence the policy of our government? That's very scary how this can be used. Remember, no trial, no proof needed, and indefinite detention. And this was a country noted for its freedoms. No more.
If he remains in office, this will probably be our last election, and people will have to start worrying about writing or saying anything against the way that things are being done in Washington DC. This Supreme Court has already ruled that they can do search and seizes of homes without a warrant.

There are so many other points. Bush had an agreement to sell a certain number of hi-tech jets to Israel, and Obama cancelled those plans, and said they could have just the jets, but not with the high-tech that was needed to defend their country. He would like Israel to go back to it's pre-1967 war borders, which makes Israel practically indefensible. Obama has never been to Israel while president, and he was extremely rude to the leader of Israel, doing things like at one visit, he refused to have his picture taken with the president, and at another, he left a list of demands that he wants Israel to do, and then obama went off to go eat with his family, leaving the leader alone in his chair. Do I really need to spell out how rude he has been to them? What are obama's plans for the future to bring us out of this depression? Just continue to give jobs to the Chinese when our country has a huge amount of unemployment? How has he helped our country and what are his plans to bring us out of the pit he has put us in? Please stop listening to his words, and research what he has actually done, and ask what his plans are for the future, if he has any. He isn't leading our country to help the people. He is good at campaigning, but has done nothing to lead our country. He hasn't brought blacks and whites together, he has brought greater divisiveness. I pray that God will give us a new leader, or else it's more than obvious that we're being punished for removing God out of every aspect of our lives and for the abortions committed, etc.

@RJ and John Perry and Bee A. Daniels -- You've all misunderstood how the tax brackets work. A person whose income falls into the X% tax rate doe NOT simply pay X% of their income in taxes. If we had a 50% tax rate, it would NOT mean that a taxpayer in that bracket would pay "50% of every dollar they make." That's because U.S. income tax rates are MARGINAL rates, which means that each marginal increase in income is taxed at a higher rate without affecting the amounts taxed at the lower rates.

For example, using hypothetical tax brackets for ease of calculation, if the rates are 10% for income up to $50,000, 25% for income over 50,000, and 30% for income over 100,000, and 35% for income over 150,000, then a taxpayer who made $200,000 in taxable income, which would put him/her into the 35% bracket, would pay the following: (50,000 x 10%) + (50,000 x 25%) + (50,000 x 30%) + (50,000 x 35%) = $50,000 in taxes. Under this example, that taxpayer's EFFECTIVE rate would be 25% (because $50,000 is 25% of 200,000). This, of course, is nowhere near a straight 35% of that taxpayer's $200,000 income, which would be $70,000. Wikipedia has a more detailed explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States

It is flatly false to say that the "average middle class person already pays 50 percent" or that "those making over $180,000 pay up to 70% in taxes." It's not correct to ADD state and local income tax rates on top of one's federal tax rate because, if one itemizs on their federal taxes, then state and local income taxes are deductible as an itemized deduction, which lowers one's federal taxes. So, in the example above, a taxpayer making $200,000 would owe $50,000 in federal taxes. If, however, that taxpayer paid $5,000 in state an local income taxes, then that tax taxpayer would DEDUCT the $5,000 from their federal taxes owed, meaning that taxpayer would then only owe $45,000 in federal taxes. Moreover, school levies and the like, which are property taxes and not income taxes, are, in any event, also deductible, which further lowers one's taxes. Thus, the more one pays in state and local income and property taxes, the LOWER your federal taxes are (if you itemize).

Even if you added just social security and medicare payroll taxes (and counted both the employee AND employer portions), that would only add another 13.3% (10.4% for soc. security and 2.9% for medicare) to one's federal taxes (and most of that is only on the first $106,700 of income). If you do the calculation, (106,800 x .104) + (200,000 x .029) = $16,907. If you add the $16,907 to the $45,000 in the previous paragraph, that brings the taxpayer to $61,907 in federal income, social security and medicare taxes. That's still an effective rate of just under 31%, nowhere near to either 50% or 70%. And, a taxpayer making $200,000 is likely to have additional valuable deductions, such as mortgage interest, charitable deductions, property taxes, or business expenses, which would drive down their total effectgive federal tax rate even further.

And, if you're Warrent Buffet, or a hedge fund manager, and make most of your "income" from investment income, then your investment income is taxed at the capital gains rate of only 15%.

It's good to have a full debate about tax and other policy, but it's impossible to have a serious debate with folks who have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the American tax system works.

@Sharon -- "The USA Patriotic Act ... has now been amended to read: “Acts that: “involve acts dangerous to human life, “appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce, influence the policy of a government‚ “affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping.” The change considerably broadened the definition of terrorism. You're a terrorist if you want to influence the policy of our government? That's very scary how this can be used. Remember, no trial, no proof needed, and indefinite detention. And this was a country noted for its freedoms. No more."

-- Sounds like scary black helicopter stuff ... until you read the actual text of the statute. In order to create false hysteria, you (or your sources) have omitted the critical word "and" from the text. Here's the text of the statute, which, instead, requires that an act meet the requirements of subsection (A), (B) AND (C) to constitute "domestic terrorism." An act that merely seeks to influence the government, without ALSO involving a criminal act that is dangerous to human life, is NOT domestic terrorism.

SEC. 802. DEFINITION OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
(a) Domestic Terrorism Defined.--Section 2331 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- [...]
by adding at the end the following:
``(5) the term `domestic terrorism' means activities that--
``(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
``(B) appear to be intended--
``(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
``(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; AND
``(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.''. (Emphasis added).

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ56/html/PLAW-107publ56.htm

BTW, despite your clear implication that this "amendment" is part of an evil plot by Pres. Obama to take away our freedoms, the fact is that the text above, enacted as part of Public Law 107-56, was part of the original USA Patriot Act passed in 2001, under the administration of President Bush.

You need to check your sources because, like the example above, almost everything you said about Pres. Obama is similarly false, or distorted, or misquoted, or backwards, or just plain wrong. Do you really think, for example, that with Google Earth the existence of 700 fully operational FEMA camps capable of housing 2 million people could actually be hidden from the public? Seriously?

To Bill Above:

It is impossible for me to be looking at the situation "through white guilt" because I am not white. And even if I were, would not obedience to Christ be the best way to get rid of that guilt?

CL, you obviously ignored the other 6 or so points showing how obama is increasing jobs alright-but in China. And as for the camps, lots of us have known about them for many years, and if you google rex 84 camps, you'll find lots of information on them. The govt just thought they were secret or something, since there is a youtube video of a senator asking for information on them, and being told that this was neither the time nor place to discuss them. Check it out-there are lots of pictures of them, they are throughout North America. You might want to check things out before going on the attack. I'm surprised, but not really, that you so naively agree to give up your Constitutional rights. Everything he does is for your own good, lol. And of course the rex 84 camps were way before this administration. This is just the first administration to admit to them. And it was both parties that voted to have American citizens arrested and detained for an indefinite time. If that doesn't scare you, you're had too much koolaid.

The top one percent--I'm closer to the bottom 1 than the top 1--already pays more than 25% or all federal income taxes in this country. The rich already pay way more than their fair share. Is this greed, ignorance, or malice driving these liberal talking points??

"Is it greed, ignorance or malice driving these liberal points"? None of the above, at least not in my middle class mind, I pray; but ultimately that's for the Lord to judge. Seems to me that the right wing is just mad because most Americans are not buying the paranoia of Fox and co. Seriously though, shouldn't we be paying more attention to what Jesus has to say about riches than to Fox?

Say what you will about redistributive government and high upper bracket taxes, but statistics clearly show the redistribution of wealth in this country is going to the top percentages of the wealthy. As to Obama sending jobs to China, that is the work of consumers who want to buy cheap and executives who want to maximize profits by sending jobs to a country where the poor are willing to work for near starvation wages with no environmental/safety standards. If Christians were to place love of God and neighbor first, as opposed to the American dream of material prosperity, things might be different.

So, a Greco-Roman civilization/culture wannabe/proclaim themselves "christian"!

In such a Fanatical culture, governmente employees, teachers, policemen, et al are considered by many to be overpaid.

While "professional" athletes, many of them foreigners who don't even speak the language and did Not go to college are Paid Millions of dollars; And for doing what?

Good Lord in Heaven; they don't even do a full 8 hrs. work/day. These same Greco-Roman fanatics are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a seat at the Superbowl. But yeah the Mailman is overpaid.

A Greco-Roman Culture wannabe "christian". Sure, sure I'll believe it when I see it!

.

@Sharon -- If you won't do the research yourself...

"He has made a death tax...."

-- False. The "estate tax" goes back to World War I. In 2001, the Bush tax cuts law also phased out and then eliminated the estate tax as of 2010. However, all of those tax cuts were written to "sunset" in 2010 in order to comply with the "Byrd Rule," which generally prohibits provisions affecting the deficit for more than 10 year without a vote of a "supermajority" of 60. In late 2010, Congress passed and Pres. Obama signed a bill which extended many of the cuts, and reinstated the estate tax, although with a significantly larger exemption and with a lower rate than it previously had.

History of estate tax: irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/ninetyestate.pdf
Explanation of sunset: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Growth_and_Tax_Relief_Reconciliation_Act_of_2001
2010 law reinstating it: See Title III, Sec. 301: gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ312/html/PLAW-111publ312.htm

"[T]he new law that was just passed by a huge majority of the Senate where an American citizen can be arrested and locked away in a military prison (or FEMA)without having a trial and without even knowing the charges against them, and they can be held an indefinite time."

-- False. Although this is a highly technical legal issue, this detailed explanation by highly regarded law professors at the non-ideological Lawfare blog explains what the new statute does, and doesn't, do. lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-faq-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

"[H]e is enacting by executive fiat, laws that will increase the prices of cars by thousands of dollars.... because of his extremely rigid emissions standards that are set to take effect in a couple of years."

-- False. First, there's no "executive fiat." EPA and the Nat'l Highway Traffic Safety Administration, at Pres. Obama's direction, have jointly proposed the new rules, by publishing them in the federal register for public comment, which is the standard method required to be used by all presidents for issuing government regulations. EPA and NHTSA were given rule-making authority over these issues by Congress decades ago. Second, you again omit a crucial fact: The $2,000 increased vehicle costs are offset by savings in fuel costs so that "the typical driver would save a total of $5,200 to $6,600 ... in fuel costs over the lifetime of a MY 2025 vehicle and, even after accounting for the higher vehicle cost, CONSUMERS WOULD SAVE A NET $3,000 to $4,400 ... over the vehicle’s lifetime." (Emphasis added.) Here's the detailed proposal, including how to submit comments and when/where the public hearings are going to be held. This is hardly an "executive fiat" from someone "on the very edge of being a dictator." nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2017-25_CAFE_NPRM.pdf

"He talks about creating jobs by doing things like rebuilding our infrastructure, such as building bridges, and who gets the money to build the bridges? The Chinese.... What are obama's plans for the future to bring us out of this depression? Just continue to give jobs to the Chinese when our country has a huge amount of unemployment?"

-- False. It's state and local politicians giving the contracts to the Chinese, not Pres. Obama. The California bridge was begun under Republican Gov. Schwarzenegger. These state and local governments are rejecting federal money so they do NOT have to comply with federal statutes requiring American labor. nytimes.com/2011/06/26/business/global/26bridge.html?pagewanted=all

"[Y]ou're talking about someone who voted 3 times to kill any live born infants after an abortion... Who would vote for someone who wanted doctors and nurses to kill live born infants??"

-- False. Pres. Obama voted AGAINST the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which would have required infants, born with any degree of vital signs, to be treated as full human beings and thus requiring use of heroic measures to prolong their "life" no matter how futile or painful, and regardless of their viability. An Illinois law already required treatment for viable infants. Nothing prevented doctors from treating such infants. As Pulitzer Prize-winning PolitiFact.com explained in ruling Sen. Rick Santorum's similar claim was a "pants-on-fire" lie, "To reiterate what’s not in dispute: Obama opposed 'born alive' legislation in Illinois and gave several reasons for opposing the proposals. But at no time did he make the argument that infants who survived botched abortions should be killed." politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/mar/10/rick-santorum/rick-santorum-said-obama-said-any-child-born-prema/ (Includes links to the actual Illinois legislation.)

"All of his records are sealed, and he has something like 14 social security numbers, but the one he uses the most often has a number from Connecticut, a place he has never lived."

-- False. snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/ssn.asp

"This Supreme Court has already ruled that they can do search and seizes of homes without a warrant."

-- False. And ludicrous. I defy you to cite a US Supreme Court case that says anything like that.

Re the "FEMA" camps...

-- Not only is it FALSE, but it's so false that even Glenn Beck thinks it's a nutty conspiracy theory. Here is the completely non-political Popular Mechanics debunking the whole thing including links to not one, but TWO, Beck shows refuting the claim. One of the supposed pictures of a FEMA camp is actually of a facility in North Korea. popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4312850

How many more viral emails and internet conspiracy theories are you going to re-post here before you realize that your sources are just making stuff up? You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're NOT entitled to your own facts.