Liberals and Romney's taxes

[Jim in CT]

I just want to make sure I understand this correctly, make sure I haven't missed anything, so if I'm wrong, I want the liberals here to correct me.

Liberals are upset about Romney's low effective tax rate for the 2 years' of returns he released. And they are really upset about what his tax rate may have been in prior years, because the thought it that if he won't release those records, he must therefore be hiding something, correct?

OK...

So, when did liberals establish this conviction over taxes? I don't remember liberals being this concerned when Obama nominated Tim Geithner to be Treasury Secretary. The guy who now runs the Treasury, didn't want to pay "his fair share", and wouldn't pay "his fair share" until he was forced to do so by the IRS. I never heard liberals express any concern over this.

So, from where do liberals get the nerve to hold Romney's feet to the fire? Is the IRS saying they had tax disputes with Romney, like they did with Geithner? Is there one shred of evidence to suggest that Romney broke any laws?

This is what liberals do. Instead of debating the merits of Romney's ideas (which liberals will do almost anything to avoid), they must demonize him. Instead of trying to convice us why we shouldn't be concerned that every liberal state in the nation is on the verge of bankruptcy, liberals are more concerned that Romney is "out of touch" because his wife wears a $900 shirt. (Yet, for some reason, those same liberals don't care that Michelle Obama wore a $6800 jacket recently.)

Once again, liberals show that they have zero shame, and that their hypocrisy knows no bounds...

[spence]

Not sure what the liberals think but I sure don't have any issue with a $900 shirt. In fact I might even own one

The current to-do is over why Romney won't release his most current returns, which some suspect may show a zero tax burden due to a combination of offshore tax shelters and heavy claimed losses during the recession.

-spence

[PaulS]

You should stay off those radical cons. sites b/c the issue hasn't been with the low % of taxes (which is no differant from Buffets), it is what is in the tax returns he refuses to release.

Hypocrisy is complaining about the Dems walking out of a vote while refusing to admit that the Repubs. have done the same thing.

Once again you have demonstrated that your hypocrisy no bounds.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Well they very well couldn't make it about his birth certificate now, could they?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure what the liberals think but I sure don't have any issue with a $900 shirt. In fact I might even own one

The current to-do is over why Romney won't release his most current returns, which some suspect may show a zero tax burden due to a combination of offshore tax shelters and heavy claimed losses during the recession.

-spence

Inuendo- some,suspect and may.
Maybe he doesn't want to show up Biden with Joe's paltry $350 charity deduction.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Well they very well couldn't make it about his birth certificate now, could they?

Romney's father is Mexican. Rumor has it Mitt (aka Mittcarlos) was carried across the border after a gun fight in a Tijuana brothel.

No seriously, I really read that.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Well they very well couldn't make it about his birth certificate now, could they?

That's a good point. If I may respond...

The "birthers" were constantly insulted and denigrated by liberals (not without reason, IMHO). So how is this (assuming Romney is hiding something) any different?

For a while, Obama refused to release his long-form birth certificate. That led some (not me) to believe that he was hiding something. Those who thought he was hiding something, were attacked non-stop as being conspiracy kooks, and liars.

I dobn't see how the Romney tax thing is any different. Do you, Dad?

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Inuendo- some,suspect and may.
Maybe he doesn't want to show up Biden with Joe's paltry $350 charity deduction.

Given he's loaded and a Mormon I'm sure his charitable deduction is massive if he's allowed to report his giving to his church.

But showing a zero liability for even a year would be incredibly embarrassing and fit the Dems message perfectly...that the rich get to play by a different set of rules.

-spence

[PaulS]

At least his horrible overseas trip overshadowed the tax issue for a while and we didn't have to hear about them.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't see how the Romney tax thing is any different. Do you, Dad?

No, I don't....hence my comment.

Just the sad state of Politics as usual....

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Given he's loaded and a Mormon I'm sure his charitable deduction is massive if he's allowed to report his giving to his church.

But showing a zero liability for even a year would be incredibly embarrassing and fit the Dems message perfectly...that the rich get to play by a different set of rules.

-spence

Church is a legitmate deduction open to everyone including Joe.

Joe is a typical Lib, spend other perople's money on the poor and
get his hand stuck in his pocket when it comes to his cash.

It has been shown over and over that conservatives are more charitable
in giving $ than the Libs.

[PaulS]

It is differnt b/c he claims he didn't work for Bain for a # of years yet his name was on forms filed w/the SEC. Did he earn and/or report income for those years?

This issue is going to be around until the election or until he releases the returns. He prob. thought about running for pres. say 4 -6 years ago, he should have fixed any potential issues then and could have released returns for those years.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not sure what the liberals think but I sure don't have any issue with a $900 shirt. In fact I might even own one

The current to-do is over why Romney won't release his most current returns, which some suspect may show a zero tax burden due to a combination of offshore tax shelters and heavy claimed losses during the recession.

-spence

"Not sure what the liberals think..."

I bet you're "not sure", because you always claim ignorance about situations where liberals put their feet in their mouths...so since you are not sure, allow me to enlighten you...the media (especially MSNBC) made a big deal over Ann Romney's $900 shirt, suggesting it was evidence that the Romneys have nothing in common with the middle class.

I recall that Palin was similarly criticized. So it's OK, I guess, for liberal women to wear expensive clothes, but conservative women, I guess, should shop where they belong, at Goodwill.

"The current to-do is over why Romney won't release his most current returns, which some suspect may show a zero tax burden "

OK. There was a previous to-do which was similar. I'll use your words, and change them to reflect the previous to-do...

"The current previous to-do is over why Romney Obama won't release his most current returns, long form birth certificate which some suspect may show a zero tax burden that he wasn't born here. "

Spence, how was the birthers' suspicion of Obama, any less valid than Harry Reid's suspicion of Romney?

Romney is flatly denying the charge. So there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that he paid zero taxes.

And if he did pay zero taxes, it was obviously within the law, since the IRS isn't after him. If liberals don';t like those laws that provide tax shelters, why the hell didn't they change those laws when they controlled the executive and legislative branches for two years? What was stopping them from changing those laws? Nothing. SO the only conclusion is that Democrats don't want those laws changed, which means they have no right to attack those who abide by those laws.

Game. Set. Match.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Church is a legitmate deduction open to everyone including Joe.

It has been shown over and over that conservatives are more charitable
in giving $ than the Libs.

He certainly should have given more (esp. being a politician).

I wonder if you took the self serving $ out if the statement would be true? I know a large % of my annual donations are given to my church.

My church just built a new hall and is building a new gym. Why should I be allowed to deduct my $ for a donation that I'm going to benefit from and which no one other than church members are going to use? I might drop my gym membership to go there to work out.


Edit - I'm not refering to all church donations since churches and various religious groups obviously give many $ to various organizations.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

But showing a zero liability for even a year would be incredibly embarrassing and fit the Dems message perfectly...that the rich get to play by a different set of rules.

-spence

But why is that the Democrat message? Don't rich Democrats play by those same rules? How come it's OK for rich liberals to take advantage of those rules, but it's sinister when rich conservatives do it?

Romney is rich, so he must be out of touch? John Kerry is worth 10 times what Romney is worth, and I don't remember his wealth being a liability for him when he ran?

It's just like the issue of gay marriage. According to you Spence, blacks aren't guilty of hate when they oppose gay marriage. But whites who oppose gay marriage, are a bunch of bigoted hatemongers. That's what you said, and it's indefensible, unbelievably stupid.

I saw Nancy Pelosi recently, criticizing WI governor Scott Brown for busting unions and therefore, hurting the middle class. Mrs Pelosi owns a bunch of hotels, and refuses to allow her employees to unionize. So it's OK for her to recognize that her business is better off without unions, but the people of WI are not allowed to come to the same conclusion? But no one calls her out on it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He certainly should have given more (esp. being a politician).

I wonder if you took the self serving $ out if the statement would be true? I know a large % of my annual donations are given to my church.

My church just built a new hall and is building a new gym. Why should I be allowed to deduct my $ for a donation that I'm going to benefit from and which no one other than church members are going to use? I might drop my gym membership to go there to work out.

"I wonder if you took the self serving $ out if the statement would be true? "

Your edit (that not all churches are self-serving) nulifies the entire point of your post. I have never seen any data to suggest that even though conservatives give more $ to charity, a lasrge percentage of that money benefits only the people that made the donations. You are graspiong at straws...

'Why should I be allowed to deduct my $ for a donation that I'm going to benefit from and which no one other than church members are going to use? "

Then don't deduct that donation from your taxable income. You're not forced to do that...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Church is a legitmate deduction open to everyone including Joe.

Joe is a typical Lib, spend other perople's money on the poor and
get his hand stuck in his pocket when it comes to his cash.

.

Darn right. I just saw a fundraising speech where Biden claimed that Democrats care about helping the poor, and that Republicans only care about helping the rich.

This, coming from a guy who makes $300k, and gives less than 1% to charity? He gets to wag his finger at me, and instead of getting pelted with tomatoes like he deserves, he gets a standing ovation? If everyone acted like Biden, how much worse off would poor people be?

I don't get it, maybe PaulS an Spence can explain it.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I wonder if you took the self serving $ out if the statement would be true? "

Your edit (that not all churches are self-serving) that is not what I said. I said that there are aspects of church charity I support - just not my being allowed to take a tax deduction for our gym that you wouldn't be able use.nulifies the entire point of your post. I have never seen any data to suggest that even though conservatives give more $ to charity, a lasrge percentage of that money benefits only the people that made the donations. You are graspiong at straws...Nope, my example proves it.

'Why should I be allowed to deduct my $ for a donation that I'm going to benefit from and which no one other than church members are going to use? "

Then don't deduct that donation from your taxable income. You're not forced to do that..Is that how the country should be run now? What if someone doesn't want to support the war? That is why Romney's % of taxes paid isn't the issue. He should take everything he is allowed to take on his returns..

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Darn right. I just saw a fundraising speech where Biden claimed that Democrats care about helping the poor, and that Republicans only care about helping the rich.

This, coming from a guy who makes $300k, and gives less than 1% to charity? He gets to wag his finger at me, and instead of getting pelted with tomatoesYour a violent person! Remember when I mentioned throwing bricks as someone and you accussed me of some silly thing like promoting violence - isn't your saying throwing tom. showing hypocrisy? like he deserves, he gets a standing ovation? If everyone acted like Biden, how much worse off would poor people be?

I don't get it, maybe PaulS an Spence can explain it.

I already said he should have donated more. What more do you want?

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

Given he's loaded and a Mormon
-spence

why not pick on Harry Reid....he is a Mormon

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

why not pick on Harry Reid....he is a Mormon

Because it's OK to be Mormon, or fabulously rich, or opposed to gay marriage, or a tax cheat, or to treat women barbarically, as long as you are a Democrat.

Democrats who fall into those categories are no threat to anyone. Republicans who fall into those categories are the enemy...that's why Chick fil-A isn't welcome in Boston, but businesses owned by blacks who oppose gay marriage, are welcome. Because as Spence said, blacks who oppose gay marriage are simply exercising their rights to free speech. But whites who oppose gay marriage are to be feared and shunned from the public square.

[Fly Rod]

Since Reid believes in transparency for Mitt... he and Polosi feel that they R excluded from the same...Pelosi n Reid both have been asked to disclose their finances and they both have refused...it is known that they in congress do not have to...but what R they hiding

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by PaulS

He certainly should have given more (esp. being a politician).

I wonder if you took the self serving $ out if the statement would be true? I know a large % of my annual donations are given to my church.

My church just built a new hall and is building a new gym. Why should I be allowed to deduct my $ for a donation that I'm going to benefit from and which no one other than church members are going to use? I might drop my gym membership to go there to work out.


Edit - I'm not refering to all church donations since churches and various religious groups obviously give many $ to various organizations.

Paul, you don't have to take the deduction if you feel it's not warranted.

I belong to a small suburban church that feeds over 1000 people in the
inner city/month through our food pantry, provides shelter with member over night chaparoning, a home cooked dinner and a lunch sandwich for the homeless.
In addition our members have a yearly donation walk for Habitat and work building the houses. No gym needed here and I feel those works alone along with the many other things we do is a legitamite deduction.
Having been involved in these programs, working in the inner city, and mentoring kids for over 20 years, I feel that not enough is being done for many and too much
for the freeloaders. I am sure the local church, synagog etc. do a lot more good than
Big G just throwing $$$ into the fan.

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by spence

the rich get to play by a different set of rules.

-spence

Define Rich.........

I agree Romney is rich but where is the rich/not rich line drawn?

[Fly Rod]

If it were not for the rich those of us poor people would not have a job.....

[PaulS]

Justplugit - those are all great acts of charity. My church also does some things I'm proud off to support the sick and less fortunate in my community.

My statement just refers to the fact that my donation to fufill my building fund pledge is treated no different that a donation I might make to the church to help fund our monthly meal at the local shelter. The only difference is that Lhea the church sec. applies the money to my building fund pledge - the IRS doesn't treat it differently. You and Jim aren't going to be able to use the gym or weight room while to some degree you helped build it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Justplugit - those are all great acts of charity. My church also does some things I'm proud off to support the sick and less fortunate in my community.

My statement just refers to the fact that my donation to fufill my building fund pledge is treated no different that a donation I might make to the church to help fund our monthly meal at the local shelter. The only difference is that Lhea the church sec. applies the money to my building fund pledge - the IRS doesn't treat it differently. You and Jim aren't going to be able to use the gym or weight room while to some degree you helped build it.

I hear you, and I don't disagree that there is a difference between donations used to feed the hungry, and donations used to build a sauna in your church's gym. But I don't think it's a huge deal, and I'd bet everything I have, that what yuo describe is not the reason consrevatives donate more than liberals. You implied that "self-serving" donations might be the reason that conservatives seem to give more, yet you offered no evidence other than to say that there is such a thing as a self-serving donation. That doesn't negate the studies that show that conservatives dobnate more.

It has also been shown that a larger percentage of charity dollars get to those that need it, rather than gubmint dollars. Governemnt programs are almost always inefficient, and often corrupt. That's a big reason why conservatives want to emphasize more charitable giving, and less government spending. For that, we get accused of not caring about poor people. It's ridiculous.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

If it were not for the rich those of us poor people would not have a job.....

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Just release the frigging things....
Seriously, it has to be more than 'he paid 14%'... if thats all it is, it will blow over.... As mentioned, it is not that he is rich. As far as my income, Obama is rich... it has to do with the system benefiting those that can afford to move money offshore and take 'losses' to avoid paying... is it illegal? Nope...

if he really did pay close to nothing b/c of shelters, losses and such, then it must be a calculated risk to take this heat vs what he would take....

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I bet you're "not sure", because you always claim ignorance about situations where liberals put their feet in their mouths...so since you are not sure, allow me to enlighten you...the media (especially MSNBC) made a big deal over Ann Romney's $900 shirt, suggesting it was evidence that the Romneys have nothing in common with the middle class.

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...

I recall that Palin was similarly criticized. So it's OK, I guess, for liberal women to wear expensive clothes, but conservative women, I guess, should shop where they belong, at Goodwill.

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

Spence, how was the birthers' suspicion of Obama, any less valid than Harry Reid's suspicion of Romney?

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

Game. Set. Match.

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

[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?