Liberals and Romney's taxes

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I read a lot of news so to have not seen something isn't claiming ignorance, it means the story might not have had much of a life. Looking online it looks like a remark made months ago, by a single person and not carried elsewhere aside from the manufactured outrage.

Really? Like who cares...


Palin was criticized because the RNC spend $150,000.00 in CAMPAIGN MONEY on clothing for her. Big difference.


Completely different situations.

Obama produced a perfectly legal birth certificate long ago, although I'm not sure he was even required to unless Congress was to challenge his citizenship.

Romney has produced nothing although he's not required by law either. It's certainly fair to question what he's hiding.

Ultimately these issues both come down to simple politics. What's good for the goose apparently is good for the gander



I think you meant to yell "Fore!" to the adjacent fairway.

"Really? Like who cares..."

Spence, you already know this, but you're pretending you don't...it's not just the dress. Throughout the campaign, the liberals have desperately tried to paint Romney as out of touch with regular Americans, because of his wealth. Do you deny that? If you admit it's happening, where was this concern when John Kerry ran?

"Obama produced a perfectly legal birth certificate long ago"

True, but not the long form, which put the issue to rest. Why did he wait so long, why did it take the idiot Trump to finally get Obama to disclose it?

I also notice you chose not to address the fact that Obama chose as Treasury Secretary, a guy who irrefutably tried to dodge his taxes. So if someone who actively tried to avoid his taxes can be Treasury Secretary, why can't someone who seemingly obeyed all laws, and never ran afoul of the IRS, run for President?

There's way more evidence to suggest that Geithner is a tax cheat, yet libs didn't utter a peep. All of a sudden, it's imperitive to show that everyone is paying "his fair share", which in the deranged world of liberalism, somehow means paying more than the law requires you to pay.

Those laws setting up tax shelters survived two years of liberal control of the legislative and executive branch. If your party didn't feel those laws were worth changing, by what logic can you fault Romney for obeying those laws? Your party had absolute authority to change those laws, and chose not to. Why is that, exactly?

That's what I meant when I said game-set-match, and you know that, yet you dodged that entire issue

I admit the comparison to the birthers is a bit of a stretch...however, my other point is irrefutable, and that is this...if Romney paid taxes according to laws that Obama and team chose to leave in place, how do you blame Romney for that? Do you really expect people to pay more than what the IRS says they owe?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Really? Like who cares..."

Spence, you already know this, but you're pretending you don't...it's not just the dress. Throughout the campaign, the liberals have desperately tried to paint Romney as out of touch with regular Americans, because of his wealth. Do you deny that? If you admit it's happening, where was this concern when John Kerry ran

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

That was his opinion, not starting a class warfare.

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

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Class warfare has been around and will be around forever.

-spence

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

.
This $$ thing is just another perpetrated divider between rich and poor.
.

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.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Throughout the campaign, the liberals have desperately tried to paint Romney as out of touch with regular Americans, because of his wealth. Do you deny that? If you admit it's happening, where was this concern when John Kerry ran?

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.

[Mr. Sandman]

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

The fact is Obama has pissed away more money and done less with what he spent than just about all the presidents combined. .

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?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by Mr. Sandman

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.


.

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Cutting their taxes would put more money into the economy creating jobs and increased revenue. Use the increased revenue to pay down the 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

[justplugit]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

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

[justplugit]

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