I'm concerned about Mitt Romney

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You didn't really mean that his statement is 100% true, did you. You couldn't have meant that. His statement confirms he is a bleeping fool. Hopefully, it will seal the deal in Ohio and Nevada and this thing is over.
Where to start? If he meant the 47% to be people who don't pay income tax, well then he is a moron because a large percentage of those are the elderly who vote republican, poor southern white men, veterans.
If he meant 47% of Americans, in general, will vote for Obama because they are victims, but not specifically reffering to the income tax group, that is also patently false. More educated people, professionals, and specifically educated women back Obama. So just eliminate those people and what is the percent that actually fall into his assinine categorization?

8% of Americans pay no income or payroll taxes. Most of that 8% are people who work, but make less than 20,000 a year working at places like McDonalds and DD. There are students and vets in that group, as well.There are freeloading bums out there, but they are a small percent. It is getting fun watching this guy flush it down the drain.

Oh yeah, 162,000 people in the top 10% tax bracket paid no income tax. He might have been one of them a couple years ago.

You and the media are distorting his comments. Hs is not saying that 47% of the people are deadbeats. he is saying that 47% of the population will vote for Obama no matter what. Thats his base. And no matter whay Romney does, these people (including you) BELIEVE that they need govt help, healthcare, housing, etc. Its a fact. 47% or more believe that. thats what Obama has done and thats what Obama supporters vote for. Read his quote again. I stand by that its 100% true.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't stay up at night perseverating over what Government is doing, or may be about to do to me.

Financial decisions over the next year aren't likely to impact me in a meaningful way. It's an ongoing process that's important.


In the big picture it's insignificant, this stuff comes and goes.


Most of this is being driven by demographics. That's not to say there in a financial challenge, but in context of Romney's 47% comment -- which you whole heartily endorse -- it has little to do with ideology.


Statements like this only reaffirm my believe that many people don't have a clue what a real Liberal is...

-spence

I cant even respond. I guess you watched the riots in greece and the blow up in Europe and said "Nope, that will never happen here"
Ignorance.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Statements like this only reaffirm my believe that many people don't have a clue what a real Liberal is...

-spence

Spence seriously, I would really like to hear your take on what a Real Liberal is.
Inquiring minds want to know, seriously, you keep me learnin.

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

You and the media are distorting his comments. Hs is not saying that 47% of the people are deadbeats. he is saying that 47% of the population will vote for Obama no matter what. Thats his base. And no matter whay Romney does, these people (including you) BELIEVE that they need govt help, healthcare, housing, etc. Its a fact. 47% or more believe that. thats what Obama has done and thats what Obama supporters vote for. Read his quote again. I stand by that its 100% true.

Pretty much nothing in his statement is true.

Romney very inarticulately tried to draw a parallel between Obama supporters and those who rely on government...the problem is anyway you want to slice it up it's wrong.

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I cant even respond. I guess you watched the riots in greece and the blow up in Europe and said "Nope, that will never happen here"
Ignorance.

Apples and oranges. Greece has no cash flow.

I'm still worried about Romney by the way.

So after pledging he'd never pay less than 13% in taxes over the past decade and that he'd be unfit for office if he ever paid more than was required.......................................... ....................Romney actually overpays his taxes to keep his average above 13%.

Worse, it looks like the campaign issues this bad news primarily to distract from all the fall out over his 47% remarks.

Jim should be all over this as he loves honesty and facts.

Soon you're going to see his campaign chief resign...just wait.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by spence

So after pledging he'd never pay less than 13% in taxes over the past decade and that he'd be unfit for office if he ever paid more than was required.......................................... ....................Romney actually overpays his taxes to keep his average above 13%.

-spence

b/c if he took all his deductions he would have paid 9%... my guess is this is why the other years haven't been released. nothing illegal, fyi... I'm not implying he is a tax cheat....

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

b/c if he took all his deductions he would have paid 9%... my guess is this is why the other years haven't been released. nothing illegal, fyi... I'm not implying he is a tax cheat....

It's a nice move...manipulate your taxes so they align with your talking points.

And President Obama had the gall to claim the elite played by a different set of rules

-spence

[justplugit]

Politics boys, Politics.
Maybe the same reason why Joe only took $300 in charitable deductions.

[rphud]

I am amazed how infrequently the "redistribution of wealth" issue and quote is brought up. Probably the single most socialistic statement any politician has dared to make publicly.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

It's a nice move...manipulate your taxes so they align with your talking points.

And President Obama had the gall to claim the elite played by a different set of rules

-spence

Spence, do you expect Romney to pay more than what he owes? we are all supposed to pay what we owe.

Unless you are Tim Geithner. Spence, if you are OK with Tim Geithner's approach to taxes, by what logic can you quarrel with Mitt Romney?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, do you expect Romney to pay more than what he owes? we are all supposed to pay what we owe.

Romney said if he paid more than he owed he'd be unfit to be president...then promptly over paid to get his average above 13% so he wouldn't flip flop on another promise.

This is exactly the stuff you live for, I'm astounded you're not all over it

-spence

[spence]

Originally Posted by rphud

I am amazed how infrequently the "redistribution of wealth" issue and quote is brought up. Probably the single most socialistic statement any politician has dared to make publicly.

Probably because it's taken out of context and hence isn't very newsworthy.

Listen to the full statement.

-spence

[justplugit]

WSJ reports Romney paid an effective tax rate of 14.1% for 2011 and
an annual effective rate of 20.2% for the 20 year span from 1990 to 2009.
Prolly about right for a guy who pays most of his taxes based on IRS capital
gains income law.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Prolly about right for a guy who pays most of his taxes based on IRS capital gains law.

Why do you think bankers give so much to Congress? To give them tax loopholes to defer their income with.

-spence

[rphud]

I was just very surprised to hear the words. Especially since everything seems to get taken out of context.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by justplugit

WSJ reports Romney paid an effective tax rate of 14.1% for 2011 and
an annual effective rate of 20.2% for the 20 year span from 1990 to 2009.
Prolly about right for a guy who pays most of his taxes based on IRS capital
gains income law.

Probably about right for a guy that gives away 30% of his income. All those that top that,feel free to tell us what a cheat Romney is !!

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

Why do you think bankers give so much to Congress? To give them tax loopholes to defer their income with.

-spence

Of course, everyone gives to a candidate or party because they want something.

However, the purpose of a lower long term capital gains tax is to keep the
money invested in a company for long term use so it helps to capitalize,
grow the company, and hire more employees. Nothing wrong with that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Of course, everyone gives to a candidate or party because they want something.

Any why Romney's tax plan will fall apart, every deduction has a constituency and he's not going to name names before the election.

However, the purpose of a lower long term capital gains tax is to keep the money invested in a company for long term use so it helps to capitalize, grow the company, and hire more employees. Nothing wrong with that.

No, those are the tax rules that you and I follow.

A fund manager get's to set the initial value of profit they're entitled as part of their contract at zero if they want and be listed as a partner...even if they know the value should be higher...

It's even more crazy when you look at Romney's retirement account. He can then take these "worthless" profit shares and sell them into his 401K, where they grow like mushrooms tax free and circumvent contribution limits.

Worse, Romney then cut a deal where he gets his profit share for 10 years after employment...even though he's not working? These aren't priced options that any top exec would get...they're special.

I'm still curious to understand if he's really used Cayman firms so his IRA can invest back in Bain and avoid the tax hit.

Bottom line...there's a lot of tax talking points out there...but we're talking about someone who doesn't even reflect the 1%.

This is like fingers on one hand kind of stuff.

-spence

[spence]

Brutal...

When These 6 People Think You Blew It, You Know Your Campaign Is In Trouble

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Brutal...

When These 6 People Think You Blew It, You Know Your Campaign Is In Trouble

-spence

you are kidding, right???

desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel for anything....

that may be your "Magnum Dope-us"

Brooks(still impressed with Obamas pant crease) and Scarborough....who cares what they think?

Lowry and Foster hardly think he "blew it" or his campaign is in trouble...historically he's in awfully good shape

Linda McMahon? suddenly her opinion matters to you?...or anyone on the left....haaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!

Bill Kristol....a portion of his comment was conveniently left out...this should infuriate Paul S

"It remains important for the country that Romney wins in November (unless he chooses to step down and we get the Ryan-Rubio ticket we deserve!). But that shouldn’t blind us to the fact that Romney’s comments, like those of Obama four years ago, are arrogant and stupid."



there is and should be far more concern at the Obama campaign at this point, but you/they will never admit it

[scottw]

pretty funny....

By Deroy Murdock
September 24, 2012 4:00 A.M. No good deed goes undemagogued.

Republican nominee Mitt Romney on Friday released his 2011 tax return. Democrats instantly hammered him for doing exactly what they have demanded of the rich throughout their dirty class war.
Romney is mean, cold-hearted, uncaring, and incapable of connecting with his fellow man — or so Democrats insist. And yet Romney and his wife earned $13,696,951 in 2011, paid $1,935,708 in taxes, and donated $4,020,772 to charity. The Romneys’ donations equaled 208 percent of what they paid in taxes. The Romneys gave away 29.4 percent of what they made last year. This goes beyond tithing, the Biblical appeal to render onto others one tenth of what one reaps. This tops a 25 percent gratuity — considered a genuine example of generosity. The Romneys handed out nearly one third of their winnings in 2011.

How does this compare with Romney’s opponents for the White House?

The President and Mrs. Barack Obama made $789,674 last year, placing them deep within the dreaded “1 percent” — as luck would have it. (That notorious threshold applies to tax returns that report at least $343,927.) They gave $172,130 to charity, or 21.8 percent of their income.

And what about Vice President Joe “Back in Chains” Biden? He and his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, scored $379,035 in 2011. These 1 percenters gave away $5,540 — a whopping 1.5 percent of their income. As parsimonious as this seems, this actually is an improvement for the bleeding-heart Bidens. As Politico’s Josh Gerstein noted Friday, “When the Obama campaign released past tax returns for Biden in 2008, it was revealed that the Bidens donated just $3,690 to charity over 10 years — an average of $369 a year.”

So, confronted with this evidence that Romney’s heart might not be made of dry ice after all, Democrats paused and heartily applauded his philanthropy.


And then I woke up.

?Heads, I Win; Tails, You Lose? - National Review Online

what I find hilariousl is that the people who cackle the most about Romney and his taxes are the same people that have long overstayed their usefulness in the House and Senate, how long has Harry Reid been there???, what has he really accomplished??? these are the same people that have crafted much of the tax policy over the countless years and many other policies that they either bitch about or try to prop up depending on the advantage that they feel it provides them.....Romney has never been shown to have done anything wrong regarding his taxes or anything else, they just "imply" the he must be doing something wrong in much the same way that Spence is now implying racism out of desperation, frustation and who knows...maybe intoxication ...

"racist, tax-dodging babies"

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

A fund manager get's to set the initial value of profit they're entitled as part of their contract at zero if they want and be listed as a partner...even if they know the value should be higher...

It's even more crazy when you look at Romney's retirement account. He can then take these "worthless" profit shares and sell them into his 401K, where they grow like mushrooms tax free and circumvent contribution limits.

Worse, Romney then cut a deal where he gets his profit share for 10 years after employment...even though he's not working? These aren't priced options that any top exec would get...they're special.

I'm still curious to understand if he's really used Cayman firms so his IRA can invest back in Bain and avoid the tax hit.

Bottom line...there's a lot of tax talking points out there...but we're talking about someone who doesn't even reflect the 1%.

This is like fingers on one hand kind of stuff.

-spence

You'll have to complain to the IRS,or better yet have them change the rules.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Brutal...

When These 6 People Think You Blew It, You Know Your Campaign Is In Trouble

-spence

OK, so now Spence thinks that Linda McMahon's opinions are significant.

Spence, since you obviously give great credibility to Linda McMahon's opinions...what do you suppose she thinks of Obama?

Amazingly, she is in a neck-and-neck campaign with liberal empty suit Chris Murphy. Incredible to me that she has a shot here in the People's Republic Of Konnecticut-stan.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by scottw

And what about Vice President Joe “Back in Chains” Biden?

Oh man,now that is funnie.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

You'll have to complain to the IRS,or better yet have them change the rules.

The money guys get to make the rules, that's the entire point.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The money guys get to make the rules, that's the entire point.

-spence

For all of 2009, Obama and the Democratic Congress made the rules. If they had issues with the tax code, they could have changed it. They chose not to. So why, then, is it fair to attack Romney for playing by the rules that the Democrats indirectly endorsed, by opting not to change them when they had the opportunity to change them?

[zimmy]

Filibuster proof majority from September 24, 2009 to February 10, 2010. The two years and "all of 2009" statements are incorrect.

There were more than 100 Republican filibusters in 2009.
How Filibusters Are Strangling the Senate - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Filibuster proof majority from September 24, 2009 to February 10, 2010. The two years and "all of 2009" statements are incorrect.

There were more than 100 Republican filibusters in 2009.
How Filibusters Are Strangling the Senate - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

(1) What happens while the MN Senate seat wwas contested? Who voted for that seat? No one?

(2) Regardless of how long there was a fillibuster-proof majority...unless the GOP defeated a proposed immigration bill by fillibuster, Obama cannot blame the GOP for killing immigration reform. He just can't. There has been no immigration reform because the Democrats didn't propose any such bill, not because of the GOP.

[The Dad Fisherman]

This is pretty friggin funny....

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

(1) What happens while the MN Senate seat wwas contested? Who voted for that seat? No one?

No one. It was empty until July 7, 2009.

(2) Regardless of how long there was a fillibuster-proof majority...unless the GOP defeated a proposed immigration bill by fillibuster, Obama cannot blame the GOP for killing immigration reform. He just can't. There has been no immigration reform because the Democrats didn't propose any such bill, not because of the GOP.

People should stop throwing around that democrats had the white house and majority in congress for two years or one year or 13 months. It isn't true. The dream act doesn't count as a proposed bill? The house passed a version of it in 2010. Reid proposed a version of it in 2011

dfas