Liberals and Romney's taxes

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That doesn't negate the studies that show that conservatives dobnate more.

Have those studies been adjusted for the vastly different demographics (age, race, income level, etc.)?

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Have those studies been adjusted for the vastly different demographics (age, race, income level, etc.)?

Studies I've read indicate the % of people who donate is similar regardless of politics and that conservatives may contribute more per person on average.

A big factor could be church contributions (I'm assuming more conservatives go to church) which may not really all be charitable if the primary intent is to fund the church you attend. And yes, I'm aware churches do other good things for the community.

Another problem could be how the data is really analyzed. The Brooks report that's widely cited looked at taxes by voting at the state level. There's a huge amount of potential variation here and if population concentrations aren't taken into consideration could be terribly flawed.

But Jim thinks it's settled science so I guess we should just move on.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Have those studies been adjusted for the vastly different demographics (age, race, income level, etc.)?

The data has not been "adjusted" for those things, but the definitive study on the subject (called "Who Really Cares") indicates that liberals give less, despite the fact thet liberals earn more. And that makes sense, if you consider that liberalism is huge on both coasts, and the conservative strongholds include middle America and some rural places.

Why would you adjust the data for race? Are you saying skin color is correlated with generosity? Boy, that'll go over well in liberal circles...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Studies I've read indicate the % of people who donate is similar regardless of politics.

A big factor could be church contributions (I'm assuming more conservatives go to church) which may not really all be charitable if the primary intent is to fund the church you attend. And yes, I'm aware churches do other good things for the community.

Another problem could be how the data is really analyzed. The Brooks report that's widely cited looked at taxes by voting at the state level. There's a huge amount of potential variation here and if population concentrations aren't taken into consideration could be terribly flawed.

-spence

"Studies I've read indicate the % of people who donate is similar regardless of politics."

(1) I'm sure that's true, given the liberal slant of your worldview, and your inability to accept that which makes conservatives look decent. When you get your data from The Daily Worker and The Huffington Post, you won't see articles suggesting that conservatives donate more...

(2) even if the same percentages donate, who donates more? Isn't that relevent?

(3) given that liberals are constantly suggesting that they care more about the poor than conservatives do, how is it that your studies do not show that a higher percentage of liberals donate to charity?

"A big factor could be church contributions...which may not really all be charitable"

Spence, I am shocked, yes shocked to hear you speculate (with no supporting data whatsoever) a theory which makes the conservatives look less generous.

"if population concentrations aren't taken into consideration could be terribly flawed."

Could be, could be, could be, could be...It "could be" that all conservatives are devil-worshipping cannibals. After all, I can't prove otherwise...

[spence]

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No, those rich bosses are taking advantage of you (unless you are in a union, that is). You're just too feeble-minded to realize that, which is precisely why we need Obama and the Democrats and labor unions, making sure those awful rich people treat you fairly. Because it's not like we have OSHA protecting workers, or minimum wage laws, or laws that dictate hours worked, overtime, family medical leave, etc...

Oh wait, we do already have all those things.

ILMAO

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

But Jim thinks it's settled science so I guess we should just move on.

-spence

Spence, I never said "let's move on". What I have said is this...given the available data, it is preposterous for liberals to claim they care more about poor people than conservatives do. Liberals only make such rhetorical, inflammatory statements, when they know thay cannot debate the merits of whatever conversation is taking place. It's a conversation-stopper, like accusing someone of racism...

COnservatives could just as easily (more easily, given the data) claim that liberals don't care about poor people. But that's not one of the pillars of conservatism, whereas you can't watch MSNBC for 3 minutes without some liberal jerk claiming that liberals have a monopoly on caring about the poor.

I'm sorry your side keeps behaving so horribly, but don't make up for it by putting stupid words in my mouth.

[RIROCKHOUND]

This is such a tangent to the original thread....

Jim:
So, you have NO problem with Romney not releasing his taxes at all? You don't care in the least bit?

If nothing else, I'm curious what it costs to maintain and train a Dressage horse....

[Fly Rod]

Harry Reid should come forward with his accusations....anyone of us cn make an accusation of anyone here....who should have to prove it... the attacker or attackee?

Reid is using basically the same tactic that got obama elected to the Illinois senate in 2004

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

If nothing else, I'm curious what it costs to maintain and train a Dressage horse....

Jim, your right, I shouldn't have included race.

RI - Good thing it wasn't Theresa Heinz w/the horse.

[The Dad Fisherman]

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.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, I never said "let's move on". What I have said is this...given the available data, it is preposterous for liberals to claim they care more about poor people than conservatives do. Liberals only make such rhetorical, inflammatory statements, when they know thay cannot debate the merits of whatever conversation is taking place. It's a conversation-stopper, like accusing someone of racism...

COnservatives could just as easily (more easily, given the data) claim that liberals don't care about poor people. But that's not one of the pillars of conservatism, whereas you can't watch MSNBC for 3 minutes without some liberal jerk claiming that liberals have a monopoly on caring about the poor.

I'm sorry your side keeps behaving so horribly, but don't make up for it by putting stupid words in my mouth.

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

[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

[mosholu]

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

This is such a tangent to the original thread....

Jim:
So, you have NO problem with Romney not releasing his taxes at all? You don't care in the least bit?

It hadn't occured to me till I was told by Obama's team that I should care. Since there has been no claim by IRS that he owes money that hasn't been paid, there was no reason for me to be curious. I, generally, don't find tax returns to be entertaining or even interesting, unless they reveal skullduggery. That's between Romney and the IRS. If the IRS has no problem with his returns, I have no interest in them. I understand that Romney is rich. I don't need to pore through boring tax returns to find that out. I don't mind that he is rich. He has returned and given more to our society in so many ways including taxes and charities than I, or the vast majority of Americans. He has earned his wealth, he didn't inherit it, not that inheriting it would be a bad thing. For whatever reason, I don't get worked up over what rich people pay in taxes. I realize, as Fitzgerald said, the rich are different than you or I. Just doesn't bother me. I get pissed at what the government takes from me, and even more pissed at how it spends, or redistributes it.

If nothing else, I'm curious what it costs to maintain and train a Dressage horse....

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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by mosholu

The issue with Mitt is that people would like to know what tax advantages, especially off shore tax havens, he took advantage of.

Why is that an issue and who's making it an issue? Mitt isn't making it an issue. He's filed his returns, and the IRS has accepted them, with, apparently, no accusations of wrongdoing. That "people would like to know" (really, which people and how did they come to be interested?) is no reason for him, or you, or I to disclose our returns in order to satisfy their curiosity. Oh, because he's running for President? OK, somehow, you think that finding out what tax advantages he's taken advantage of will impact how he will fulfill his responsibilities as President. My opinion, if he is adept at following IRS rules, that might be some small indication that he would be adept as President, especially with tax issues. Maybe that will enable him to relate to the rest of us not liking to be overburdened with taxes. I would be more suspicious of someone who sees no problem with high tax rates to sustain an irresponsible, and profligate government which spends more that it gets and won't even pass a budget.

If he is legit it is not a problem being wealthy
Ike Kerry.

Apparently, the IRS has not questioned his legitimacy.

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

This isn't rocket science.

Yes, rocket science has to operate under certain laws and certainties established over time and through testing and experience, and their effect on the natural world. Politics as practiced today, especially progressive politics, is quite different. Established laws based on human nature as observed, tested, and experienced over time are discarded for untried theories, wishes, and whims.

Democrats typically place more value on the ability of government to bring strength of the collective.

Yes, given the record of time and experience, history is replete with examples of the collective strength backed by government as an oppressive power against individual freedom, and a sapping of individual strength

This may be as simple as belief in Federal college loans and grants to help educate our children to build a strong economy.

History and experience has shown that Federal college loans have fueled the rise in their price. And that collectivism over individualism eventually tends to create stagnating economies with bloated governments that weaken economies rather than building vibrant ones.

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

Whatever.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Probably less than the cost to treat Anne Romney's MS for which the horse is used to help with the disease.

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

Originally Posted by detbuch

He has earned his wealth, he didn't inherit it, not that inheriting it would be a bad thing. For whatever reason, I don't get worked up over what rich people pay in taxes. I realize, as Fitzgerald said, the rich are different than you or I. Just doesn't bother me. I get pissed at what the government takes from me, and even more pissed at how it spends, or redistributes it.

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...."

[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

[RIROCKHOUND]

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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.

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

This is such a tangent to the original thread....

Jim:
So, you have NO problem with Romney not releasing his taxes at all? You don't care in the least bit?

If nothing else, I'm curious what it costs to maintain and train a Dressage horse....

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".

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

[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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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

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?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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


Are you saying that it doesn't help Mrs. Romney with her MS? Rich folks can afford more costly treatments for their ailments than the rest of us. Isn't that one of the reasons to be rich? Is your solution to this supposed "problem" that we should by government fiat remove the advantages of being rich? What overall effect do you think that would have on our society? Rather than being jealous of and punitive against the rich, I prefer to focus on my own well being and what I can do to improve it, if necessary.

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'?

That's correct. I like the idea of loopholes to evade taxes. I wish I had more myself. Kudos to those who take advantage of them. I admire what Romney has done with his life. There are those who come from better circumstances that waste what was given to them, and those who come from lesser circumstances that have climbed to better. I admire the character not the wealth or poverty. It is that character, in my opinion, not taxes, that make a nation, or society, "great." I understand that government needs money to operate. But it should operate with the consent of the governed, not in opposition to it. It should govern within the pasrameters prescribed, in our case, of the Constitution, not in any which way it chooses. And it should function with the minimum amount of taxation required to do so, not by taking the lion's share of the nation's wealth.

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.....

I didn't say that he didn't inherit something. I said he didn't inherit his wealth. He was already wealthy before his father died. And what he was given as an advantage of birth was not the great wealth that he earned, but what was given he took advantage of, as do all of us who start with whatever our family gives us, to become who he is and acquire what wealth he has. He didn't waste whatever advantages he had from birth, he used them to productive ends that have been a plus to our economy, and his character are a plus to the moral fiber, as it is, of our society.

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...."

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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 you 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...