I'd be curious if they ever did a study on Money Donated versus Time Donated....some people don't donate funds but put many hours in on Charities.

Just curious if that gets taken into consideration.

Or like my wife who earned 3-4X less than she easily could because she was dedicated to helping families with autistic kids most of whom were dirt poor?

-spence

This isn't rocket science.

Democrats typically place more value on the ability of government to bring strength of the collective. This may be as simple as belief in Federal college loans and grants to help educate our children to build a strong economy.

Yes, there are a lot of moving parts when you really analyze it, but some assertion you can't prove doesn't invalidate it.

-spence

Or Kennedy and Roosevelt and so on.

Did having money interfere with their election or Presidency? I don't think so as
we were united as Americans.
This $$ thing is just another perpetrated divider between rich and poor.
This administration has highly perfected the game of division.
They are dividers not uniters and imho we need to bring this country together
if we will ever be able to solve our mega problems.

You mean like Cheney who claimed that Obama might bring about another attack?

There's plenty of division on both sides, but look to the late 1990s House for some inspiration.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There was certainly a fair amount of critical comments regarding Geithner's taxes when it came up from people from both sides of the fence. The issue with Mitt is that people would like to know what tax advantages, especially off shore tax havens, he took advantage of. If he is legit it is not a problem being wealthy
Ike Kerry. It is ironic to me that Mitt"s father was the candidate who initiated multiple year tax disclosure and he is turning this into a bigger issue than it should be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Probably less than the cost to treat Anne Romney's MS for which the horse is used to help with the disease. The Romney's donated about $20,000 to the U.S. Equestrian Team Foundation.

Do you need to see Romney's tax return to find out how much it costs to maintain and train a dressage horse?

Why am I getting the vibe that the Obama team is turning this into an issue, not Romney?

Whatever.

I am very familiar with MS in my family... no one was prescribed 'Dressage' as a treatment.....


So you get pissed at what the gov't take from you, but not if the top 1% get to skirt the same taxes by moving money offshore, or taking 'losses'?

Are you sure he didn't inherit his wealth? He certainly made a lot more for himself, no denying that.... but he didn't start out dirt poor, or even middle class.....
To paraphrase that awful Trump Roast on Comedy central... "after college he put his nose to the grindstone, worked hard, and borrowed (inherited) X Millions from his father...."

That was his opinion, not starting a class warfare.
Remember how Obama pledged to bring us all together, it was a big
part of all his other failed campaighn promises.

Bull$hit...It was part of a calculated effort to paint Democrats as weak by personally exploiting 9/11.

Class warfare has been around and will be around forever.

-spence

It's a shame he's been such a pussy with Al Queda.....

That's a great point, but let me say 2things...

(1) liberals had more money than conservatives, which makes perfect sense, when you consider the liberal strongholds like Hollywood and Manhattan...

(2) the "who really cares" study did not, I don't think, look at time donated. But they did look at who donates more blood, and it was conservatives.

But you raise a valid point, not everyone has extra cash...

A fair question...I would not release any additional tax returns, because even if they show he paid taxes, liberals will use his income as a club against him. They did it to McCain, and they've been doing it to Romney all along.

It's OK for Brad Pitt to be rich, but not Mitt Romney. Try telling me liberals don't feel that way...

Romney cannot win in this arena, so he should just say "the IRS has never come aftre me, unlike Tim Geithner, so I'm clean. My income is no one's business, all you nee dto know is I obeyed all laws, and I donated a hell of a lot more to charity than that cheapskate Joe Biden".

I can prove that liberals think that conservatives don't care about the poor (they say that all the time). And I can prove that theory is bullsh*t. That's all I was trying to prove, and it's easy to prove. Everything else you say is a pathetic attempt to cloud that reality.

Right, and it's being perpetrated by Obama and Biden, 2 guys who are rich. Did I miss something? When Obama vacations at the Vineyard, does he stay at a campground or a youth hostel?

Where does he get off implying he's not wealthy, and how gullable are the liberals who jump on board?

The easiest thing in politics is to tell a bunch of disgruntled idiots that nothing bad that heppens is "their own" fault. Rather, they got screwed by that "other" guy. And if you can paint that "other" guy as rich and white, so much the better.

ONE PERSONS WEALTH DOES NOT CAUSE ANOTHER PERSONS POVERTY.

To believe in liberal economics, you must disagree with that statement.

A mental disorder.

I have always given him high marks in that area. It's also worth noting that in this area, most of what he has done us continue the policies of the previous administration (Gitmo is open, war tribunals still happen, drone attack sstill happen, the Patriot Act is still in place). These are all things Bush got attacked for, now Obama is happily using them to score political points with folks like you. Ironic, isn't it?

Of what money he actually borrowed, which was not millions, did he pay it back? What he actually inherited from his father's will he donated to Brigham Young U. He was already rich by then, and didn't need the money. But he did put that inheritance to a good use to help others. His father helped with college expenses and buying his first house. I have helped my son with a great deal of his college expenses as well as catholic school expenses including a select high school, which were not cheap. So do most middle class, and even some poorer, families.

I notice you like to take some of your political opinions from comedy shows. I guess that's OK, for entertainment. Just sayin.

Spence isn't saying that horseback riding doesn't help her MS...what Spence is saying, because Obama has told him to say it, is that the horseback riding makes Romney one of "them".

The rich.

The enemy.

The one that has caused all of our problems.

The one who isn't paying his fair share (as if the millions he pays in taxes, and the millions he gives to charity, and the jobs he creates, are not enough!)

This, from the Obama who said he, and only he, could descend from the heavens and unite us all. Now it's "us" versus "them".

The irony is that the folks that Obama is attacking (rich businessmen, for the most part), are the ones who do so much for the rest of us. They lower the tax burden for the rest of us, they pay taxes for things like public schools that they will never use, they give big $$ to charity, and they create jobs. Those bastards!

To believe Obama, one must be willing to believe that if we could just tweak! tax rates, just a bit, on the billionaires, that all of our problems would be solved. That's ridiculous, just like just about everything else on the liberal ideological platform.

I saw Obama last night talking about CEO pay compared to the middle class. Waah, waah, waah. Does Obama think that Steven Spielberg's butler makes as much money as Spielberg does? How about Barbara Streisand's gardener, how much does he make?

So if the CEO of Goldman Sachs pays entry-level bankers less than he makes, that's exploitative. When Will Smith pays his nanny less than he makes, that's something else I guess, maybe Spence can explain the difference...

Class WARFARE has not always been around in America.

Human nature has always been around and ENVIOUS, but that is a far cry from the diviseve class WARFARE we have seen over the past few years.

If we are honest, we both know that the warfare is being propagated by politicians
to get votes.
United we stand, divided we fall.

Spence, you say class warfare has been around forever. Even if I agree with that (which I do not), didn't Obama run on "hope and change"? So why can he defend his horrible tactics by saying "everyone else does it".

Sorry. If his entire 2008 campaign was based on some vague notion called "change", he cannot then say he's only hitting below the belt "because everyone does it". He was supposed to be different, right? Or am I remembering the 2008 campaign incorrectly?

Again, the hypocrisy. Kennedy had mega bucks from his father who got them
from questionable sources.
In addition Jacquelin set the style for the day with her expensive clothes
and was an avid horeswoman that owned many horses.

While there was talk of Joe Kennedy's $ sources, I never remember any class
warfare over John's money or criticism about his wife's expensive clothes
or horses.

The so called "rich" are the only ones PAYING taxes anymore.
 

Found this laying round my hard drive...


The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
(The top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%)


This is the data for calendar year 2003 just released in October 2005 by the Internal Revenue Service. The share of total income taxes paid by the top 1% of wage earners rose to 34.27% from 33.71% in 2002. Their income share (not just wages) rose from 16.12% to 16.77%. However, their average tax rate actually dropped from 27.25% down to 24.31%



*Data covers calendar year 2003, not fiscal year 2003
- and includes all income, not just wages, excluding Social Security

Think of it this way: less than 3-1/2 dollars out of every $100 paid in income taxes in the United States is paid by someone in the bottom 50% of wage earners. Are the top half millionaires? Noooo, more like "thousandaires." The top 50% were those individuals or couples filing jointly who earned $29,019 and up in 2003. (The top 1% earned $295,495-plus.) Americans who want to are continuing to improve their lives, and those who don't want to, aren't. Here are the wage earners in each category and the percentages they pay:
The top 1% pay over a third, 34.27% of all income taxes. (Up from 2003: 33.71%) The top 5% pay 54.36% of all income taxes (Up from 2002: 53.80%). The top 10% pay 65.84% (Up from 2002: 65.73%). The top 25% pay 83.88% (Down from 2002: 83.90%). The top 50% pay 96.54% (Up from 2002: 96.50%). The bottom 50%? They pay a paltry 3.46% of all income taxes (Down from 2002: 3.50%). The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%! And who earns what? The top 1% earns 16.77% of all income (2002: 16.12%). The top 5% earns 31.18% of all the income (2002: 30.55%). The top 10% earns 42.36% of all the income (2002: 41.77%); the top 25% earns 64.86% of all the income (2002: 64.37%) , and the top 50% earns 86.01% (2002: 85.77%) of all the income.



The bottom 50% is paying a tiny bit of the taxes, so you can't give them much of a tax cut by definition. Yet these are the people to whom the Democrats claim to want to give tax cuts. Remember this the next time you hear the "tax cuts for the rich" business. Understand that the so-called rich are about the only ones paying taxes anymore.



As far as Romney sheltering any income, that is his right. He didn't lie about it. You can do it too, and you WOULD do it if you earned that kind of money. For example, the US government has triple tax free bonds you can buy, you can even by them in a fund so even regular people can play the game.


The fact is Obama has pissed away more money and done less with what he spent than just about all the presidents combined. Frankly I think Romney is far more fiscally responsible that obama, but don't expect free hand outs and checks just sent to people to stimulate the economy. Who in turn run to Walmart and buy something made in china. What an idiot he was with that program.

Very true, and somethiing that in a fair world, would result in Obama getting clobbered in November. No one has ever spent that kind of dough with nothing to show for it. And he's probably going to get re-elected. I don't get it. He spent a ton of money, has very little to show for it, and he's a lying, vindictive, race-baiting jerk on top of all that.

Matt Damon recently said he was disappointed in Obama's performance. Every other president lets that go. Not Obama. Obama had to say somethiing like "hey Matt, I saw your new movie, and I was disappointed in your performance too". That's presidential?

Tax increases for the rich to pay down our debt is bunk.

It's estimated the increased taxes would bring in $80-$90 Billion, chump change when it comes to a $16 Trilion debt.
If it were put to the debt, like they claim it would ;), how would that create jobs and improve the economy?
Cutting their taxes would put more money into the economy, creating jobs and increased revenue. Use the increased revenue to pay down the debt.

Cutting all Govt programs by 10% ,prolly all waste anyway, is the way to go.
I can hear it now, "we can't cut entitlement programs, what will people do?"
Tighten their belt just like families do when less money is coming in.
We are broke. Libs have great intentions but lead with their emotions instead of their heads.
Again, we are broke. Our Gross national product is 1 Trillion less than our debt.

That's certainly the conventional wisdom isn't it?

If it were true you'd think we'd see it more consistently. In the real world though there are a lot more factors that influence the economic cycles than just capital.

Wealth continues to concentrate and companies are sitting on trillions in cash. Put simply, if access to wealth was sure to drive revenue you'd think the economy should be cranking right now.

-spence

Spence,
in the real world we are Broke!
In the real world the Govt can't provde evertbody with what they want.
In the real world you have to work for what you want.

There's a good argument for some restraint, I'll give you that.

But lowering taxes isn't going to fix the economy. The wealthy have plenty of money and they're not investing in job growth...because crushing household debt is still leaving consumers without any power to purchase.

Romney's solution for this appears to be to make the problem worse. Give the wealthy more money and raise taxes on everyone else.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busine...COX_story.html

Seems sort of backwards doesn't it?

I'd wager that the effective tax rate will have little to do with the economic recovery which will follow it's own cycle.

-spence

Agree about the cycle, but taxing and Govt. spending will never speed
the cycle up.

No doubt that spending reductions would help with confidence as well as the massive amount of debt service.

Spending reductions have a flip side though as well. Ryan's plans before looked to eliminate 4+ million Government jobs. While that might make the Fed smaller, it also increases the unemployed and weakens the consumer base and shifts burden to the States.

Increasing revenues via taxation doesn't magically fix the problem, but combined with modest cuts can have a meaningful impact that's short-term.

Right now I don't think it's reasonable nor necessary to have a perfect end game solution. We simply need to be moving the ball in the right direction.

-spence

The more you impose taxes on those that earn big money, the more they will seek ways to shelter it.

The government should be creating incentives for investments in this country but they want the rich to risk it all then tax them when it works out. Well, if they risk it in areas that need investment, they need to be allowed to KEEP the earnings tax free for a significant period.


The government just creates roadblocks for business, they believe profits are a sin and anyone who makes profits are bad people and should be punished (taxed)

As sited abouve, taxing the so called rich will not solve anything, in fact it will not help anything. I do agree however that many wall street types are in a position to move all earned income to unearned income or take it as stock or some other form and pay a lot less tax and defer paying on most of it. This is within the law but if they had a very simple tax plan (ie a flat tax) no one could escape paying their fair share and there would be no deductions or shelters.

'No doubt that spending reductions would help with confidence..."

Obama not only doubts that, he denies it.

"While that might make the Fed smaller, it also increases the unemployed "

Spence, if government (feds and local) would loosen the noose around our necks, confidence would grow (as you said), so businesses would take some of that money and grow, and hire many displaced federal employees. The fedweral government was not designed to be a jobs program.

"We simply need to be moving the ball in the right direction."

Well, Obama's idea of "the right direction" seems to be to double-down on failed, expensive ideas. He has added to the debt, failed to curtail unemployment, and done exactly nothing to address entitlement programs (except to demonize those who propose ideas). Spence, how is that "moving the ball in the right direction"?

if you understand the progressives you realize that for them, this is moving the ball in the right direction:uhuh: everything you mentioned results in greater dependence on government....it's a wife-beater mentality really:) don't worry...it hurts them more than it hurts you...honestly

I think they call it the "new normal"

Yes, it's all part of the final solution.

-spence

you have to admit...it's a hell of a lot easier to find takers for your newly create healthcare bureaucracy/benefits if they don't have jobs and if businesses are struggling with costs....along with all of your other expanding bureaucracies :uhuh:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/05/bu...arts.html?_r=1

:huh:

-spence

An article on growing dependence on government:Harsanyi: Dependency nation

the federal bureaucracy, it's reach, regulations, dependants and employees has grown and will continue to...state and local losses account for the "reduction' you point to....

"By many measures, the federal government has indeed grown during Obama's tenure. Spending as a share of the economy has gone up. The number of federal employees has risen. More Americans are relying on federal assistance.

Employees: The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

The federal government has been one of the few areas that's grown during the economic downturn. The private sector remains down 1.1 million jobs from the start of 2009, while state and local governments have shed 635,000 positions."

Did Obama really make government bigger? - Jan. 25, 2012


"But while state and local jobs evaporated, Labor Department statistics show that the federal government , not counting the postal service, has grown by 143,000 employees during Obama’s tenure.

Looking solely at the increase in non-postal-service federal employees during Obama’s tenure, the president has overseen a 5.1 percent increase in size of the federal workforce."

Government Job Loss: President Obama’s Catch 22 - ABC News



and I don't know how much credit you want or should claim for your hero when it comes to reductions in state and local

Plan to cut 15 percent of state workforce sails through committee

Posted by: Baird Helgeson
January 19, 2011 -

Reigniting tensions between Republicans legislators and public employees, a House committee on Wednesday approved a proposal to reduce the state’s workforce by 15 percent.

“This proposal is about more than balancing the budget. It is about balancing government,” said the bill’s author, state Rep. Keith Downey, R-Edina. “For too long, state government has relied on one-time measures and looked the other way to foreboding fiscal crisis. Our state can no longer afford the status quo, and our citizens deserve better.”

Democrats blasted the measure as a ham-handed effort to cut state workers without ushering in any reform to make government work better. They called it “economic suicide” in a struggling economy to eliminate 5,000 workers.


http://www.startribune.com/politics/114219459.html

life of Juia was a great flick

“The Life of Julia,” an ode to an imaginary woman who lived her entire life benefiting from government dependency and other people’s money rather than individual initiative and hard work.

Americans, the administration’s case goes, should be able to enjoy housing aid, student loan forgiveness, food stamps, free birth control, government retirement plans, universal internet service, medical insurance, and that’s just for starters.