Romney's tax returns:

1. 93

   habeeposted 12 years ago

   McCain released two years of tax returns. Reagan released one. Romney has released two. It wasn't a big deal with McCain and Reagan. Why is it now?
   
   http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romney-and … precedent/

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Two reasons.
      
      1) Romney is rich. There is a lot of anger towards the "1%"(Most people who are mad at the "1%" can't even define who that group is. But it is what it is, liberals like to insinuate/say/accuse rich people of only being wealthy because they cheated/were immoral/hurt other people.
      
      2) They don't have much ammo on him. His business career was, as Clinton said, "sterling". His record as governor was amazing. His selfless service at the olympics, his church, and as governor(all for no pay), speaks volumes about his character.

      replyreport
      1. 76

         Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/ … right-now/
         
         Not just liberals.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yep, but it's foolish for them to claim they know what is best for Romney when they don't know what is in the returns. I honestly think that if Romney paid no taxes due to capital gains losses, that it would cost him any chance at the election.

            replyreport
            1. 76

               Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               If he paid no taxes due to capital gains losses, does the Average Joe empathize, because it's due to the same economic downturn that cost them their job and their house?
               What are the chances that they also paid NO TAXES during this timeframe?
               Doubtful.
               They see it as a multi-millionaire dodging his share of taxes.
               You're right on this, Jaxson.
               It's a PERCEPTION issue.
               If Obama's smart, he'll keep hammering on it.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  And Romney's smart, he probably won't release them.
                  
                  Actually, the odds of someone paying no income taxes aren't that bad. The bottom 40% pay, on average, no federal income tax.
                  
                  It's exactly why he shouldn't release them, if that is the case. People will hear that he didn't pay taxes. They won't care that he lost millions of dollars, they'll only care that he's not 'paying his fair share'.
                  
                  It's insane.

                  replyreport
                  1. 76

                     Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Exactly.
                     People don't care about the percentage, really.
                     They will flip out if they hear Romney paid NO TAXES.
                     Even if they themselves paid NO TAXES they didn't make millions of dollars, they're struggling. But he made millions of dollars and it's not fair that he paid no taxes.
                     And in their minds, they will jump to "...and he's going to make deals so his millionaire friends pay no taxes, too."
                     And I maintain that on a subliminal level, there are Romney supporters who somehow believe he's going to make them rich like him.
                     There's bias in both directions.
                     
                     There is no logic to this.
                     There is no logic to the big arguments on either side, really.
                     It's all emotional manipulation.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I would say that, around 5% of voters are interested in the facts. Among independents and moderates, I would say that is closer to 10%.
                        
                        There is logic, it's just if you appeal to logic, you can take 1 step forward and 9 steps back...
                        
                        We have to convert everyone we can to the thinking group... it's too important of a game to just vote party lines or memes.
                        
                        You didn't write that post... someone else made it happen. Vote Romney!

                        replyreport
                     2. 0

                        HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        If Romney made millions - he will pay taxes. It's that simple. When you wrote "capital gains losses," instead of "capital losses," I realized you don't understand the tax system.
                        
                        The Obama's are taking capital deductions as well, and in the year when his book sales were the highest and they grossed over 6 million, the Obama's funneled income through their children to reduce their tax liability.
                        
                        A capital loss is subtracted from a capital gain - or other types of income. For example, if Romney made 3 million from a CEO job, but he lost 2 million in a capital loss - in reality, he's only realized a one million dollar increase for the year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds as if you want him to pay taxes on 3 million despite the fact only one million came in.
                        
                        What's happening here is that people are judging the Romneys on what they have - not on the policies Mitt brings to the table. That's wrong on all levels. If it's okay to judge a wealthy person by his money, it's also okay to judge a poor person because of his lack of money.
                        
                        All of this serves only to detract from what the candidates really offer.
                        
                        I don't care a lot for Romney, but Obama's record in the past 4 years has been dismal, at best.
                        
                        As long as the candidates have broken no laws concerning their taxes, and it's unlikely that either broke laws because both have paid tax accountants, no one has any right to judge them on what they have. That's childish.

                        replyreport
                        1. 73

                           Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           "What's happening here is that people are judging the Romneys on what they have - not on the policies Mitt brings to the table. That's wrong on all levels"
                           
                           Absolutely correct. A person's net worth is a terrible criterion to judge their character by.
                           
                           Much better to look at what the person says and, more importantly, what the person does.
                           
                           Romney argues that his experience as a businessman will make him better able to lead an economic recovery, but I'm not sure that this is true. His financial success at Bain was based on borrowing scads of money to buy vulnerable companies, and putting the debt on the purchased companies' books.
                           
                           The secret to making money the Mitt Romney way? Borrow a bunch of money, and fix it so that other people are on the hook to pay it back.

                           replyreport
   2. 76

      Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It says it right here:
      
      In more than three decades, no other nominees for either party have released fewer than five years’ worth of returns. Romney’s own father released a dozen years’ worth when he ran for the GOP nomination in 1968.
      
      It is a big deal now because the Romneys are very wealthy and a big focus of this campaign is on tax rates for the rich vs. the middle class.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         That's a good point... tax rates are a big issue, even though most people put forward incorrect numbers for what the wealthy pay, what the middle class pay, and usually for their own tax rate as well...

         replyreport
         1. 76

            Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Can you recite off the top of your head what tax rate you pay?
            I can't!
            But if you're trying to build a "fair is fair" case and you're talking about someone who makes $30,000 and pays 28% taxes, $8,400 is a big deal. That's a lot of groceries, gas, rent, etc.
            If they see someone making $25,000,000 and paying 15% they assume, and probably rightly so, that paying $3,750,000 is barely making a dent in the person's cash flow.
            And even an uneducated person can further guess that if you're making $25 million you are NOT paying 15% on the whole thing.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               Miss Belgraviaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I had taxable income of $19,000 last year, and had to pay in over $6,000. Does that make any sense?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  How did you manage that?
                  
                  The tax on 19,000 ranges between 2,000 and 2,400, according to IRS tax tables.

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     Miss Belgraviaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I'm self-employed, so I have to also cover SS taxes, etc.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Oh, gotcha.
                        
                        Yeah, self-employed taxes suck so bad. We tax the small-business job creators far and away more than anyone else.
                        
                        Do you connect with wealthy business owners who claim their tax burden is actually quite high, after paying corporate, and then personal rates?
                        
                        With the focus Romney is now starting to give self-employed individuals, I hope he takes a position on the double taxation sole proprietors pay.

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           Miss Belgraviaposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           No, I do not connect with wealthy business owners! Romney isn't going to do anything for self-employed people. No one is. We're below the radar, and I don't expect that to change, no matter who becomes our next president.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              You don't connect with them having to pay taxes on both sides, like you do?
                              
                              Romney has already outlined some plans that will help, namely the reduction in tax rates for businesses. He has also mentioned in his plan 'certain' reductions in payroll.
                              
                              You should send an email to his campaign. Tell him you're tired of politicians ignoring the tax burden on small businesses. They actually listen sometimes.

                              replyreport
            2. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Not exactly, but I can get very close. People often claim they pay 25%, when in actuality, they pay 2%, or pay a negative rate.
               
               I don't really care if Romney only pays 15%. That's still a higher percentage than 98% of Americans, and it's, in dollars, hundreds of times more, if not thousands, than the average American.
               
               There is no way to look at the tax rates of the wealthy and say they aren't paying their fair share. They pay a higher rate, and pay more into dollars.
               
               I posted on another forum, the average person in the 1% pays a percentage 13 times higher than a person in the bottom 50%, and 900 times more in dollars... without even counting refundable tax credits, which would skew the results probably some tenfold in favor of the wealthy.

               replyreport
      2. 93

         habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         MM, the same link says this:
         
         "It’s true that in the 2008 election, Republican nominee McCain released just two years of tax returns. But you have to go back more than 30 years — to President Ronald Reagan, who released one year’s return in 1980 — to get to a major party nominee who released less than five years of tax returns."

         replyreport
   3. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It's not a big deal. Romney's released all the documentation he's required to release.
      
      The opposition wants to paint Romney as an out-of-touch millionaire (not difficult to do), so they're harping on his tax situation.
      
      What I don't like (and what nobody should like) is when someone says that since Romney won't show us his taxes, that must mean he did something illegal.
      
      No, no, NO! That's not how it works.
      
      He won't show his records, and that's okay. Harp on the fact that he won't show his records all you like, that's okay too. You can even say that you think he won't show his taxes because they'll probably prove he's a rich guy who pays a lower tax rate than most working people. No harm, no foul.
      
      But you don't get to assume that he won't show the records because they contain evidence of wrongdoing. Would you let me go through your tax records just to see what's in there? Why not? 'Cos it's none of my darn business? Darn right it's none of my business. Same thing.
      
      Now, if you've got compelling evidence that Romney (or anyone else, for that matter) has done something wrong, swear out a warrant before a judge and then take a look at his taxes. But you might find yourself having to explain how exactly you got that evidence.....

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Did Obama's reluctance to release his birth certificate prove he is a Kenyan?
         
         Lol, it's the same thing... many members of both parties have blinders and a double standard.

         replyreport
   4. 67

      Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Romney's Bain Capital and other private equity firms are under investigation by NY attorney general for abusing the hedge fund "carried interest" tax loophole. This article helps explain how Romney amassed his huge fortune by avoiding taxes while he was at Bain and since.
      
      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/02/busin … ms.html?hp

      replyreport
      1. 93

         habeeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         If Romney was responsible for something illegal, I want to know. I read this in your link, Ralph:
         
         The campaign issued a statement saying that Mr. Romney did not, however, benefit from the practice. “Investing fee income is a common, accepted and totally legal practice,” said R. Bradford Malt, a lawyer for Mr. Romney who manages his family’s investments and trusts. “However, Governor Romney’s retirement agreement did not give the blind trust or him the right to do this, and I can confirm that neither he nor the trust has ever done this, whether before or after he retired from Bain Capital.”
         
         Well, of course, they're going to say this. I guess we'll have to wait and see what's discovered.

         replyreport
         1. 67

            Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Well, it's apparently not clear whether the practice is legal or illegal. It's a gray area. Romney could clear up some of our doubt if he'd release his tax returns as his daddy did.

            replyreport
   5. 0

      Onusonusposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Whatever takes the focus off of Obama's sealed up College transcripts, lousy track record, etc...

      replyreport
   6. 87

      Pamela Kinnaird Wposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Great question, habee.  Sure enjoying these answers and conversations.

      replyreport
2. 69

   Teddletonmrposted 12 years ago

   Someone please explain the difference between capital gains tax, vs. income taxes and why the need for separation of the two in U.S tax law.
   
   The fair share argument is a huge waste of time, no one has an answer as to what someone's fair share is as long as one person has earned more than another.
   Peace be with you all:)

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The difference is nothing more than how income is earned, by working, or by investing.
      
      The reason we have different rates for them are two(that I know of).
      
      1) Investing is helpful to the economy, and we want to encourage investment. Raising taxes lowers investment. Some increase might increase revenue, but all increase will decrease investment.
      
      2) Investing requires putting your current wealth at risk, so the parameters are completely different from labor. When you go to work, there is no chance that, at the end of the day, your boss will tell you that he went to your bank while you were working and took 10% of your savings. We make allowance for investors to help with the risk that they are taking. This also ties into reason 1, we don't want to discourage an already risky endeavor.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Maybe I'm just ignorant, but more often I think I must be stupid as well.  I've never understood that argument that investing helps the economy.
         
         We I buy some GM stock (invest in GM) it is very seldom that I pay GM.  Far more likely is that I pay some other investor for his stock; as far as I can see that helps GM only in that should they decide to make a stock offering it might increase what they get for it some small amount.  It thus seems to me that lower tax rates are not designed to help the economy of business, but to help those that already have the stock that I purchase.
         
         Investment requires risk.  So does work; I risk my health every time I pick up a hammer or touch a wire on a construction site.  I'm not risking only money (although my employer may go broke and not pay me what he owes) but my health and, in some cases, my very life.  In addition, investors have the option to work instead, so why should we "pay" them for risk to mere money?  If it isn't worth the risk, don't do it.  Again, seems to me that we are merely "paying" them (through lower rates) because that's the majority of income for those making tax code and lower taxes are self-serving for them.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You're right, not all investment goes directly toward a company, but all investment does go indirectly toward a company.
            
            When you buy stock, you might be buying it from the company, especially smaller companies. They sometimes sell stock for capital.
            
            If you buy it from a person, you are paying that person(as well as the brokers). Everyone that buys stock is paying the 'wages' for everyone else, all the way back to the IPO for the company. It's really more about flow of money than anything, without the investment, you would end up with people who were holding worthless assets. If people thought their investments wouldn't be easy to sell, they wouldn't invest. The whole cycle has to stay healthy for everyone, investors and companies, to profit.
            
            Also, when you buy stock from someone else, you are increasing the value of the stock by purchasing it. That in turn increases the net worth of the company, which is included in decisions about more investment, borrowing money, expansion, etc.
            
            Think of it this way. If you go to a fast-food place late at night, and you buy a large meal, all of your money might technically be going to paying the wages for the staff for that slow hour... but doesn't that still help the company?
            
            Second point. Only wealthy wage earners pay a rate near the capital gains rate(15%/25%). If someone who invests is paying a higher rate than you, can you really say you are 'paying' them?
            
            I think the rich pay too much, to be honest. The average 1%er pays a rate 1300% higher than the average 50%er, and pays 85000% more in dollars... they are paying way more than their fair share, no matter how you look at it. Yes, they can afford to, but that doesn't detract from the fact that they pay far and away more than the average American.

            replyreport
            1. 67

               Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I don't think that's true. When Social Security, sales taxes, property taxes, and other state and local taxes are considered our tax burden is regressive.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Not at all.
                  
                  The wealthy still pay more into social security, sales tax, propterty tax, and other taxes. Much, much more.
                  
                  Trying to mix consumption taxes as a percentage of income with income taxes as a percentage of income is just completely bass ackward anyway.
                  
                  Looking at anything as a percentage of income is bass ackward. In reality, Mitt Romney paid more in taxes last year than most people will pay in a lifetime. No matter the percentages, he contributed more to the federal budget than most Americans, so how can anyone claim he isn't paying his share?
                  
                  You see, a fair share is when you split a bill up. Everyone gets the same benefits(the poor actually get more), but for argument let's assume everyone gets the same benefits.
                  
                  So 5 people go to lunch. They all eat the same thing. The bill is $50.
                  
                  Person 1 doesn't pay anything. He actually takes a $5 bill from the pile of money during the process.
                  Person 2 doesn't pay anything, but he doesn't take any money either.
                  Person 3 pays $2.
                  Person 4 pays $8.
                  Person 5 pays $45, $5 of which goes directly into Person 1's pocket.
                  
                  Would you really say that Person 5 isn't paying his fair share?
                  
                  If he is more wealthy than the others, and covers the bill for them all, would you expect them to gripe about it, or to say 'Thanks, that's nice of you to pay for everything'?

                  replyreport
            2. 95

               wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I understand and agree with all you say, except that buying stock increases the value of the company.  It doesn't (unless purchased from the company for cash).  It only increases the perceived paper value, which has nothing to do with actual value.  Should the company go under, liquidating everything, the value of the stock will not affect what is paid for the assets one iota. 
               
               It has always seemed to me that a true investment in a business would be one in which dividends paid would equal, and more, the price of the investment over time.  Instead nearly all profit and income from investing comes from the hope that other investors will purchase your investment for an inflated price.  A paper (inflationary) profit that is not reflected anywhere else in the economy; no increase in productivity, no more goods produced.  Can you tell I'm no economist?
               
               The same arguments for increased value can be held for any transaction any business makes; should we not, then, cut sales taxes because it increases the value of the company as well as promoting sales (improving the economy)?
               
               I actually do agree with tax rates of higher earning people - they pay too much.  Unfortunately that is a necessity of civilization; the poor and middle class simply cannot afford to keep the country running.  Not fair at all, but necessary.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Any purchase of stock drives up the value of the stock.
                  
                  The total value of a company includes the value of their stock, which is in reality, just a representation of the value of the assets, goods, services, and future profits of a company. The value of a company is much more than just the assets(unless it is liquidated, of course).
                  
                  To say that 'paper value' isn't real, is to say that your money isn't real. All of our money is representative. If everyone buys stock of GM, the stock price will go up. Then people can sell their stock to more people, and the price continues to go up. Now those people have extra money, which came directly from the 'paper value' of the company.
                  
                  Almost all of our wealth and currency is based on such 'paper value'... that very value is extremely real.
                  
                  To your point about dividends vs hopeful gains in stock... dividends are the single most important aspect in the valuation of a stock. Investors expect to be able to make their money back, depending on the company and industry, over the course of 10-40 years through dividends. The increase in stock that people hope for is actually directly tied to the hope of increased dividends, either through increasing the actual value of dividends, or through stock split.
                  
                  As for sales tax, you're right. There is an argument that higher sales tax hurts companies. I would rather we trim government and lower all taxes, especially when we have 23 million people unemployed.

                  replyreport
                  1. 95

                     wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I can't see that the value of stock represents the value of the assets or goods that the company owns.  Nor the future profits; profits will be determined to a great deal by the assets the company has - one factory will produce just so many cars. 
                     
                     "Paper value" is misleading, yes, and a poor term to use.  Absolutely the value of the stock in a company goes up; that just doesn't truly affect the value of a company unless it is sold as a whole. 
                     
                     Dividends; but absolutely no one ever buys stock with the expectation of holding it for 40 years to gain back their investment.  There are exceptions of course (my retired mother gets much of her income from payouts from utility companies she holds stock in), but the vast majority of stock purchases are made solely because of the hope of increased stock "value"; ie the ability to sell it for a profit.  Any dividends or other income from it is minor.

                     replyreport
                     1. 67

                        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        In today's world of rampant insider and high speed stock trading, short term outlook, cooked books, greedy CEOs, and crooked Wall Street banksters, anyone who tries to pick individual stocks is playing a loser's game.

                        replyreport
3. 61

   MamaTschetposted 12 years ago

   I just think if there is nothing to hide then why withhold anything?  On both sides.

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Teddletonmrposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Then why wear clothes? For protection from things that mean to do you harm maybe?

      replyreport
   2. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Because candidates could spend all their time releasing information, and defending accusations against them in relation to them.
      
      It's a distraction from the issues.
      
      Obama was accused of not being a natural citizen. He finally released his certificate, and what happened? People made accusations about his certificate.
      
      If Romney released his returns for 2009 and they showed he lost money and didn't pay taxes, do you think people would say 'Ok, great' or 'ROMNEY DIDN'T PAY TAXES!'

      replyreport
      1. 61

         MamaTschetposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Personally, I would say, "Okay, thanks! I will take them for what they are."

         replyreport
         1. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Right, but you're not the only voter in America.
            
            Come on, we have intelligent people on this board who repeat(ed) the lie that Romney 'likes to fire people'... You know that no taxes would be used against Romney.

            replyreport
4. 67

   innersmiffposted 12 years ago

   I find the whole thing extremely boring. You guys are arguing about whether one crazy golf player is playing by the rules and I'm sitting here asking why you're even playing crazy golf in the first place.

   replyreport
5. 82

   WillStarrposted 12 years ago

   It's a diversion.
   
   Obama has utterly failed to do what he said he would do...turn the economy around in three years. That did not happen, and it can certainly be argued that Obama's policies made it even worse. More people are out of work today that when he took office, and we also wasted a trillion dollars on a failed stimulus that we will now have to pay off.
   
   So, since he cannot run on fixing the economy, he has to divert the conversation to something totally unimportant, like Romney's tax returns.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Except he hasn't failed.
      
      The economy is recovering. Slowly, to be sure, but it's recovering. And it's doing so in spite of GOP obstructionism.
      
      So no, that theory doesn't hold water.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Not really. We are heading for 9% unemployment(in reality 16%) by the end of the year.
         
         We are heading for another recession under current law starting next year.

         replyreport
      2. 67

         innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Subscribe to Peter Schiff on Youtube. He will explain how this 'recovery' is a phony recovery that delays the inevitable catastrophic economic collapse. His analogy describes it perfectly:
         
         Obama stimulus is akin to giving heroin to the addict. The apparent improvement in the addict's health is due to the fact he's not having withdrawals. Preventing him from having heroin would make him sick, yes, but it is necessary pain so that the toxins leave his body. If you keep giving him heroin he's going to overdose at some point. The withdrawal period will be much worse than it is now but in order to have real, lasting health (real lasting economic growth), that period is necessary. The economic overdose in this case would most likely include hyper-inflation and massive unemployment. The stagnant unemployment and rising food prices demonstrate this.

         replyreport
6. 82

   WillStarrposted 12 years ago

   "Not really. We are heading for 9% unemployment(in reality 16%) by the end of the year.
   
   We are heading for another recession under current law starting next year."
   
   
   I agree. We are teetering on the edge, and almost anything can bring it down.
   
   What has Obama done to bolster the economy?
   
   Shut down oil drilling on government land?
   
   Shut down a big pipeline project?
   
   Increase EPA regulations?
   
   Created Obamacare and all its costs?
   
   Almost killed coal and energy?
   
   What has he actually done to better the economy? Tell business owners that they didn't really build that and insinuate that they don't really own it either?
   
   Yeah, that helped!

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "What has he actually done to better the economy? Tell business owners that they didn't really build that"
      No, he told them that they didn't build the internet, the roads, and other infrastructure and technology that was created on the government's dime, and which they use to build their businesses. And you bloody well know it*.
      
      GM is still in business, which is huge here in Michigan.
      Obamacare is brilliant, and will reduce costs over the long haul.
      The stimulus worked. It'd have worked better if it'd been bigger, but alas, Congress is full of tea party morons.
      Shutting down that pipeline probably saved the Ogalala Aquifer from a disaster like the one that recently screwed up the Kalamazoo river (and still isn't completely cleaned up).
      
      
      So, if you prefer GM out of business (and all of its workers on unemployment), health care costs continuing to go up instead of going down, crumbling infrastructure, more recession instead of slow sustainable recovery, and a petrochemical disaster ruining midwestern farmland, go ahead and vote for the new guy.
      
      I prefer the guy who believes that hurricanes are caused by warm oceans at the end of Summer rather than gay marriage.
      
      *I suppose that it's possible that you're genuinely unaware of the context of the 'you didn't build that' sound bite, but if you are, nothing you have to say on the subject of US politics can possibly have any value.

      replyreport
7. 82

   WillStarrposted 12 years ago

   ""What has he actually done to better the economy? Tell business owners that they didn't really build that"
   
   "No, he told them that they didn't build the internet, the roads, and other infrastructure and technology that was created on the government's dime, and which they use to build their businesses. And you bloody well know it*."
   
   1) The government doesn't have a 'dime'. The government produces nothing and earns nothing. All government projects are funded by taxpayers and built by private businesses and contractors, including the internet, roads, and bridges.
   
   2) If Obama had meant roads, bridges, etc, he would that said 'you didn't build "those" '.
   
   The exact quote:
   
   "If you've got a business, that's...you didn't build that! Somebody else made that happen!"
   
   So what was he about to say with:
   
   "If you've got a business, that's..."?
   
   "that's'... what? Not yours?
   
   Since Obama so obviously despises small business and the rugged individual, and is so enamored of big government, I'm betting that he was about to say:
   
   "If you've got a business, that's not yours...you didn't build that!"

   replyreport
   1. 76

      Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You're right. Obama hates business.
      He vehmently despises entrepreneurs and small business owners. Mid-sized companies are next on his list. He dislikes them intensely.
      He mildly tolerates large businesses.
      Really big and too-big-to-fail businesses are not specifically targeted by him, but in his heart he secretly hates them too.
      
      Obama firmly believes that everyone should work for the ginormous government.
      He will not rest until there is NO PRIVATE INDUSTRY in this country!

      replyreport
   2. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Willful ignorance in an otherwise intelligent person is especially tragic.

      replyreport
8. 82

   WillStarrposted 12 years ago

   Ridicule is a weapon the left employs when they know they're losing the argument.

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Ridicule is what happens to you when you say something ridiculous, mate.
      
      Stop saying ridiculous stuff, and nobody will ridicule you.

      replyreport
   2. 70

      rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The pathetic thing is that we are all losers when we are mired in the pettyness the two parties propogate and with which they wish us to remain.
      
      We are so wrapped up in the stupidity of partisan bickering we fail to see the big picture. A famous quote which said "Never let a good crisis go to waste" epitomizes the nature of my argument. The side show allows the politicians to continue unabated towards their goals of making more and more money. Money is the lifesblood, the motivation and power that they need to continue selling out the country to special interest and industry. We are only too happy to oblige and write the checks and vote for the candidate that we like based on these phony issues that never get settled and steer us away from the core issues which are right in front of us.
      
      The only way to get this straightened out is by publicly funded campaigns, lobbying reform and one issue voting on bills in congress.

      replyreport
      1. 95

         wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I think it goes clear down to the people, not just the parties.
         
         A good example might be the massive earmarks voted into the budget each year.  Alaska wants a worthless bridge to nowhere, KC wants a museum that only their residents will use - everyone wants something paid for by the rest of the country.  As long as their politicians can continue to bring home the bacon from the federal trough they will continue to be re-elected, gaining power and money for themselves and their friends.
         
         The greed of the people themselves has a great deal to do with what is wrong in DC.  The changes you suggest would help, but the biggest thing might be term limits for all politicians, not just the president.

         replyreport
         1. 70

            rhamsonposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            You make a good point and I do agree with term limits I just negated to mention it.
            
            This is clearly a hedonistic society that wants it all and now and has no taste in their mouth for patience and sacrifice for the countries sake with regards to financilal matters. But these earmarked spending bills are only about 1% to 2% of the budget worries. They give us these things to placate our interest in any further investigation of their (congress) affairs. Look at the stupid bribery with congressmen having $100,000 stashes of money in freezers and sweetheart real estate deals and insider trading deals that totally overshadow any small earmark to satisfy their constituency. They still have their jobs after being cleared by their slimebag buddies. It is a total negative contract with these guys and is at the bottom of the fleecing of this country.
            
            Our (electorate) greed feeds into the representatives greed and between the two no truth is allowed to surface that would change a thing. It is a broken system.
            
            "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
            
            Thomas Jefferson
            
            The problem is that the two parties are really one that is bought by the same people. Where does that leave us the constituency?

            replyreport
9. 82

   WillStarrposted 12 years ago

   "Romney argues that his experience as a businessman will make him better able to lead an economic recovery, but I'm not sure that this is true. His financial success at Bain was based on borrowing scads of money to buy vulnerable companies, and putting the debt on the purchased companies' books."
   
   
   The point is, Romney was a great success in business. Obama, on the other hand, is a business neophyte, and is even openly hostile towards business!
   
   Gee, which man would be better at creating an economic recovery?

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      "The point is, Romney was a great success in business."
      He was a great success at borrowing money and making someone else responsible for the debt.
      
      "Obama, on the other hand, is a business neophyte,"
      So? The government isn't a business; it doesn't operate to make a profit for a few, it operates to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare. Not much profit in that.
      
      " and is even openly hostile towards business!"
      Nonsense. If you believe this to be true, well, see my comment above about the value of anything you have to say about US politics.
      
      "which man would be better at creating an economic recovery?"
      Not the guy who got rich through creative accounting, that's for darn sure.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         All this talk about Romney's work at Bain is just rehashing left/media talking points and completely ignores reality.
         
         If you have a business that is failing, losing $10 million per year, and currently has to pay $1 million per year in interest, would you say you are better off, or worse off, if Bain came in and after 5 years you are earning $20 million per year, after paying $5 million per year in interest?
         
         Ironic that Romney gets criticized for utilizing debt to try and save companies, but Obama is praised for utilizing debt to try and save the country.
         
         Wait, ironic isn't the right term... double standard anyone?

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "If you have a business that is failing, losing $10 million per year, and currently has to pay $1 million per year in interest, would you say you are better off, or worse off, if Bain came in and after 5 years you are earning $20 million per year, after paying $5 million per year in interest?"
            
            Sure, if that happened, the business would be better off. Except that's not what usually happened.
            
            "Ironic that Romney gets criticized for utilizing debt to try and save companies,"
            Except he didn't usually save companies; usually they kept failing. But Bain made a pile of money regardless of whether the company succeeded or failed. They had no skin in the game.
            
            "but Obama is praised for utilizing debt to try and save the country."
            If it were possible to borrow a bunch of money, use it to buy, I wanna say Cuba, shift the debt onto Cuba's books, charge Cuba a trillion or so in management fees, and then cut Cuba loose while it's still responsible for paying back the loan that the US took out, then Romney would be the right guy.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I'm not going to argue with the Rolling Stones. Make your own arguments.
               
               I can show you companies that did better after Bain than before. I can show you businesses that did better for a while than before.
               
               Let's talk specifics. What companies did Bain hurt rather than help?

               replyreport
               1. 67

                  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  All right, Staples did better after being bought by Bain. It's a success story, but not a story of job creation because it put countless small stationery stores out of business which employed more people than were hired by Staples. I have no problem with what Bain did with Staples, but I do have a problem of Romney citing it as an example of his skill at job  creation. Bain was a money machine, not a job creation machine.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Countless? Can you back up that claim?
                     
                     Creating efficiency isn't a bad thing either, it's extremely good for a society.

                     replyreport
                     1. 67

                        Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        "Countless? Can you back up that claim?"
                        
                        Can you dispute it? A number of very nice independent stationery stores in the metropolitan Detroit area closed as a result of the expansion of Staples and Office Max. Moreover, I didn't think up the point. Several articles commenting on Romney and Bain have made the point.
                        
                        "Creating efficiency isn't a bad thing either, it's extremely good for a society."
                        
                        I basically agree, although efficient giants like Walmart and Staples have put a lot of small,
                        independent firms out of business bringing about a loss of jobs. For example, years ago K-Mart and similar stores put a lot of small independent fishing tackle and sporting goods stores out of business by creaming off sales of standard items. The independent fishing tackle stores weren't able to compete with the low prices offered by K-Mart. These were stores that carried spare parts for fishing reels; some even did repairs; and all of them offered advice on where the fish were biting and how to catch them. At K-Mart you would be waited on by somebody working for minimum wage who knew nothing about fishing, and these stores stocked no spare parts. When small owner-operated stores are put out of business there is a loss of service and a loss of jobs. As I said, my principal objection is not to more efficient purchasing, better inventory systems and more efficient retailing, but rather to Romney's claims that he created jobs. The process is one that eliminates, not creates jobs and one that creates jobs in China. Try to find something in a WalMart store that's not made in China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, etc.

                        replyreport
10. 82

    WillStarrposted 12 years ago

    "So? The government isn't a business"
    
    A straw man.
    
    We need a president who understands business and knows what needs to be done by government to allow business to thrive:
    
    1) Eliminate onerous regulations.
    
    2) Lower or eliminate capital gains taxes so US business can compete on the world market
    
    3) Open up oil and gas deposits to drilling!
    
    4) Repeal Obamacare, ASAP!

    replyreport
    1. 0

       HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       We absolutely DO NEED a president that understands business.

       replyreport
    2. 73

       Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       All of those points would make things worse not better. I hope we never get such a president; he'd wreck the economy worse than the last guy did.

       replyreport
11. 82

    WillStarrposted 12 years ago

    "All of those points would make things worse not better. I hope we never get such a president; he'd wreck the economy worse than the last guy did."
    
    Your opinion, based on nothing more than personal, pro-government biases.
    
    Those were some of the requests made by businesses when asked what they needed in order to start hiring again! But what would businesses know about business?
    
    No, let's depend on the 'community organizer' instead, and give him four more years of on-the-job training, since he failed so miserably in the first four!
    
    Sheesh!

    replyreport
    1. 73

       Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Will, you've already made it clear that you have nothing of value to say about US politics. You keep making it clearer. It's amusing, at least.

       replyreport
12. 58

    victor.hatleyposted 12 years ago

    Why would we want to vote for a man who won't PROVE he is stealing us blind through the tax loophole system, and on the other hane why would we waste a vote on a guy who will be cockblocked for another 4 years? The option: Johnson. Probrbly the closest thing there is to an honest politician in this race. Remember, choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing an evil.

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Great idea. Dig up LBJ.

       replyreport
13. 84

    kathleenkatposted 12 years ago

    Romney's donations to non-profits are tax deductable. So, he pays less taxes. His non-profit is Latter Day Saints. People don't like that sorta stuff. That is the (irrational) issue here.

    replyreport
14. 82

    WillStarrposted 12 years ago

    "Will, you've already made it clear that you have nothing of value to say about US politics."
    
    Translation: You don't agree with liberals
    
    "You keep making it clearer. It's amusing, at least."
    
    Translation:
    
    Whenever you point out the truth, we will respond with ridicule. It's what we do.
    
    
    Whenever liberals run out of arguments or the other side is obviously right, they go for the boring Ad Hom attack. Jeff can't address my points, so he ignores them and goes personal instead.
    
    The fatal flaw with all liberals is their belief that non-liberals are stupid. That's why they are so shocked and angry when they lose.

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Misguided and fact challenged, not stupid.

       replyreport
    2. 73

       Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       "Whenever liberals run out of arguments"
       I haven't run out of arguments by a long shot.
       
       "or the other side is obviously right,"
       BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
       
       "they go for the boring Ad Hom attack."
       I haven't said anything attacking you. Only your terrible ideas.
       
       "Jeff can't address my points,"
       Try making a valid one. Then we'll see what happens.
       
       "The fatal flaw with all liberals is their belief that non-liberals are stupid."
       The fatal flaw with some conservatives is their belief that all liberals are alike.
       
       "That's why they are so shocked and angry when they lose."
       This presupposes a loss.

       replyreport
15. 81

    Wayne Brownposted 12 years ago

    You know, I find it rather petty that we are immersed in a discussion of Romney's finances.  By his own admission, he is a wealthy man as is Warren Buffet yet Romney is a demon and Buffet is Obama's go to guy outside of Soros.  We have a president employed in our White House who has not even proven that he graduated from college yet claims it so.  Most employers will fire you for lying on that item so why are we not entitled to vet Mr. Obama.  How is Obama entitled to point a finger at anyone when he has hidden more with regard to himself than any one who ever held the office?  There is only one reason....distraction, distraction, distraction. There is no record to show the American people...just more opportunities to lie and distort on his part and promise those who kneel at his feet that Utopia is just of the hill and only he knows the way there.  Maybe Jimmy Carter should consider running again...it looks like the  field is right once more and Obama has prepared the ground well in the past four years.  What a shame. How dare Harry Reid stand in front of the convention and point fingers across the aisle when his party had four solid years of control in both chambers and accomplished nothing more than spending us into oblivion and passing a sham of a healthcare bill.  There was no significant opposition in that period yet the Republicans are to blame for all that has not happened?  Please.....~ WB

    replyreport
    1. 67

       Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       You shouldn't mention Buffett and Romney in the same breath. Buffett's business and personal finances and living style have no resemblance to Mitt and Ann Romney's business and life style. They more closely resemble David and Jackie Siegel in "The Queen of Versailles."

       replyreport
    2. 72

       Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       Hello Wayne. Nice to see ya!
       
       You made a statement in your post that caught my eye: “We have a president employed in our White House who has not even proven that he graduated from college yet claims it so. Most employers will fire you for lying on that item so why are we not entitled to vet Mr. Obama.” It makes me want to ask you, “just whom are you relying on to do the vetting?”
       
       I am probably not as bright as you are when it comes to politics, Wayne, but I know how to use Google.  Here is what I found in less than 5 minutes:
       
       A January 2005 Columbia College Today profile of Barack Obama as a Columbia alumnus. {1}
       
       A Columbia College press release from November 2008 identifying him as "the first College alumnus to be elected President of the United States." {2}
       
       Finally, for the closet "Obama didn't go to Columbia" enthusiasts, please read up on the requirements for attending Harvard Law School. President Obama would not have been admitted to Harvard in 1988 without proving he had an undergraduate degree. If he wasn't attending Columbia from 1981-83, he would have had to complete two full years of coursework at (and graduate from) some other accredited college. However, it should be noted, his time between the end of his Columbia days in 1983 and his entering Harvard Law in 1988 is accounted for (a) working at the Business International Corporation, (b) employed at the New York Public Interest Research Group, and (c) serving as director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago. Furthermore, no other school has ever identified him as an alumnus, nor does anyone purport to have encountered him as a classmate or student at any other college or university during that period. {3}
       
       So, Wayne, you can see why I recommend folks do a little research before they believe and repeat what other folks tell them. Many a time it has saved me from making a fool of myself. Feel free to check out my sources and pass them on to your friends.
       
       Thank you again, Wayne, for sharing your thoughts.
       
       {1} http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct_arc … /cover.php
       {2} http://www.college.columbia.edu/news/ba … presidency
       {3} http://www.law.harvard.edu/prospective/ … ligibility

       replyreport
       1. 67

          Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          "All we want are the facts, ma'am."

          replyreport