# Off-topic content. Click to see POLL: Should Romney give up 12 years of tax returns?



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

<div class="widgetContainer">http://widgets.sodahead.com/images/flash/poll.swf<div class="widgetFooter">Public OpinionPoll Results</div></div>


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

YES … I'm a registered Republican and he should make it public. If he doesn't he will NEVER GET MY VOTE


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

*If *Obama would 
... answer a host of questions that he has refused to answer… 
... and UNSEAL all of the subject matter that he has SEALED from us to know… 
... and ALSO disclose his 12 years of tax forms…

*YES!*

*Let's be fair about it!*

Oh… Obama is also a Christian… he said so…


----------



## pashley (Mar 22, 2008)

Amen, Joe!

And while we're at it, why can't we even see Obama's college records? What could possibly be hiding in there?

I really don't care about Romney's money - he earned it. I want successful people to be in government, that have the country's best interests at heart. This president has not been able to revive this economy; he's scared businesses into not expanding, not knowing what is coming down the pike from the government.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

Romney scares me. Has from the beginning. VULTURE. Reminds me of a mortician. Human MEAT FACTORY. Slaver … worker bee mentality.


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

*pashley: Here you go...*










*17.* Why do you have a Soc.Sec.# issued from Conneticut? Ever live / work there?

*18. * Why have you spent so much money to keep this information SECRET?

Dan, If Romney scares you, what does Obama do to you? *Petrify? * LOL


----------



## woodemt (Feb 24, 2011)

All I know is we need Obama out of office! He simply tells us what we want to hear! There are no flags on Airforce One (I saw pictures of his plane when he went to Iraq taken by a soldier). The only reason there is an American flag behind him on his speeches I believe is because Americans threw a fit. When he first got president, it was simply a gold cloth. Does anyone else remember this? He simply wants a democracy! He is disrespectful to our soldiers! I'm getting upset, I will leave it at that though there is so much more! That isn't even covering the Obama plan that when you get past a certain age with a terminal disease,you are to be kept comfortable, not cured! WOW! OK… I'm done for now…


----------



## OldMarine (Mar 6, 2012)

Just another troll thread.


----------



## chrisstef (Mar 3, 2010)

just wait til the election OldMarine ….


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

Twelve years … that's the standard set by Romney in Michigan


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

No, he shouldn't. I've never understood this nonsense of laying bare your persoal and private financial life. This kind of stuff probably keeps some well qualified people out of politics. Not because they have broke any laws, but they then have to waste time explaining and justifying what were perfectly legal actions.

Both of these clowns need to focus on what they want to do and how and why they want to do it. This other crap is just distracting.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## PineChopper (May 21, 2012)

How much did Hillary make off of Cattle Gate?
I forgot.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

POLITICS NEWS
Share Blog Subscribe Print Email Bookmark
Obama allies tell Romney to "quit whining" about Bain attacks

By Andy SullivanPosted 2012/07/15 at 1:45 pm EDT

WASHINGTON, July 15, 2012 (Reuters) - Mitt Romney should "stop whining" about attacks on his business record that have knocked the Republican presidential candidate on his heels over the past week, aides and allies of President Barack Obama said on Sunday.
Obama officials said they would not apologize for suggesting that Romney may have broken the law by misrepresenting his position at private-equity firm Bain Capital, part of a relentless assault on the former executive's business career and personal wealth that appears to have hurt him in the polls.

"Stop whining," Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's former chief of staff, said on ABC's "This Week" program. "If you want to claim Bain Capital as your calling card to the White House, then defend what happened at Bain Capital."

Romney allies said the attacks were an attempt to distract voters' attention from the fact that Obama has failed to counter high unemployment and sluggish economic growth during his three and a half years in the White House.

"The president can talk all he want about this, but it's the economy and jobs that are going to address this election," Republican Senator Kelly Ayotte, seen as a possible vice presidential running mate for Romney, said on ABC's "This Week" program.

Obama said he understood why Romney was trying to make the November 6 election a referendum on the incumbent's economic record.

"You don't hear me complaining about him making that argument, because if I was in his shoes I'd be making the same argument," Obama said on "CBS This Morning."

The Romney campaign released a new television ad relying on footage of journalists talking about how Obama's negative tactics this year contrasted sharply with the message of hope and change he campaigned on four years ago.

"This is not the candidate of hope and change, this is a candidate who is hoping to change the subject," Republican Representative Paul Ryan, another possible vice presidential candidate, said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

BAIN A LIABILITY FOR ROMNEY?

Romney has argued that the economic expertise he developed as an investor, manager and consultant make him a better choice than Obama to kick-start an economy that has been slow to recover from the 2007-2009 financial crisis.

But Romney's record at Bain is also shaping up to be something of a liability. Democrats have highlighted companies that went bankrupt or shipped jobs overseas under Bain's ownership to argue that Romney is only concerned with helping his fellow millionaires, not working people.

Some polls found that Romney's negative ratings in battleground states rose in June, after Obama and Democratic groups launched their attacks on the former Massachusetts governor.

Romney's campaign has said he should not be held responsible for many of those decisions because they occurred after he left Bain in February 1999 to oversee the 2002 Olympic Winter Games in Salt Lake City.

But Romney continued to claim in regulatory filings that he was still in charge of Bain through 2002, according to documents that have surfaced over the past week. Bain and Romney officials say it took several years to sort out the terms of his departure but that he was not involved with the company's day-to-day operations during that time.

"He actually retired retroactively at that point. He ended up not going back to the firm after his time in Salt Lake City," Romney senior adviser Ed Gillespie said on NBC's "Meet the Press" program.

Obama spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter suggested last week that Romney could have committed a felony if he signed forms saying he was in charge of Bain when he was not-which prompted Romney to demand an apology.

"He's not going to get an apology," Cutter said on "Face the Nation."

Cutter and other Democrats have also criticized Romney for setting up bank accounts in offshore tax havens and refusing to release more information about a personal fortune that is worth as much as $250 million.

"Instead of whining about what the Obama campaign is saying, why don't you just put the facts out there and let people decide rather than trying to hide them?" Cutter said.


----------



## schloemoe (May 10, 2010)

I really don't think it will make a lot differance ether way the left is still going to try to crucify Romney. So if he releases his tax records for the last 12 years there all going to scream about what he did before that he's hideing. My point is there is nothing Romney can do at this point that is right and there is nothing Obama can that is wrong. ...............Schloemoe


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

It would certainly answer some questions if Romney released his financial information. For example he has an IRA worth $102 million. That's something! Given that one can only contribute $4,000 per year to an IRA. I suppose he's been working for 25,000 years? No wait, it would have to be a lot longer than that because the contribution was only recently raised to $4,000 from $2,000 per year. Maybe he's just getting really, really good interest from that Swiss bank?? How on Earth does he do that?? Since the average IRA that was invested lost about 40% of its value in the deregulation crash of 2008, I wonder how much it was worth?


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

*OldMarine: I agree! LOL*

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*Why doesn't anyone have the guts to ask Obama the BIG questions that have been waiting to be answered for 3+ years?!*


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

Well Joe, the cat's out of the bag-Obama is black. Damn, I hadn't noticed. Other than that, your "BIG questions" have been answered and answered often.

Here's on link that has most of it:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact-checking-and-debunking/the-debunkers-guide-to-obama-conspiracy-theories/


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

lwllms either your purposely throwing out a half truth or you don't know entirely what your talking about. Romney amased this money in what is called an SEP IRA, the difference is it is all employer contributions and the maximum contribution is $30k/year. The money was probably invested in what Bain itself invested in.

Also the exact amount of this IRA isnt known, everything ive found puts it's worth between $20 and $102 milliion, using the highest estimate is also trying to skew the truth.


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

Okay Pat. From its founding until ol' Willard retired from Bain was 15 years. Let's split the difference between $20 million and $102 million, that's $61 million. Divided by that 15 years, Romney's IRA increased by $4, 066,666 per year. A damn fine return on a thirty thousand dollar investment in anyone's book. Even at that, your idea of how Romney's IRA was funded is pure speculation. There are a lot of questions here, those tax returns and financial records need to be public.


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

IIRC, a *SEP IRA* is funded from one's OWN Business… from no other sources.
... it's for self-employed people… I have a SEP IRA… not putting anymore IN… but, it was a nice place to put funds, like an IRA, and get deferred tax rates, and the limit was higher than a normal IRA.

Why are we trying to divert thinking from the MORE IMPORTANT stuff?

*DAN… if Romney Scares you… are you really happier with Obama?!*


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

Twelve years … that's the standard set by Romney in Michigan


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

lwllms, what exactly do you think that will accompolish, do you think you will notice something the IRS missed?

Its really nothing more than a ploy to say "Look at how much money he has, there is no way he can lead us that rich 1%er." Remember that exact thing was done with John McCain last election.

It really serves no more purpose than calling for Obama to release his medical records, why hasn't he?

Spreading half truths is all people seem to want to do, but I understand because so many people believe them. How many people believed that Sara Palin actually said "I can see Alaska from my house", a whole lot thats how many. If you ever seen the Howard Stern street interviews half the people thought she was Obamas running mate also.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

JOE - Romney is a hypocrite … read the definitions below BUDsky. Romney is a slippery character.

...
1. hypocrite 1405 up, 508 down

(1) A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for.

(2) A person who professes certain ideals, but fails to live up to them.

(3) A person who holds other people to higher standards than he holds himself.
The only reliable product of an organized religion is a flock of hypocrites who feel that only *their* hypocrisy is divinely sanctioned.

2. hypocrite 789 up, 305 down

someone who complains about something but finds themselves doing exactly the same thing
A: "i hate people that complain about other people, they're SO annoying!" 
B: "shut up, hypocrite!"

3. Hypocrite 245 up, 97 down

Someone who hates it when people do certain things or talk ******************** about other people but they do it themselves.
Claudia: Omg, I hate it when people talk about others behind their backs.

Tracey: Right?... Oh Look here comes Connie.

Connie: Hey guys! *walks toward Claudia & Tracey*

Claudia & Tracey: Hey Connie!

Connie: I gotta run. Sorry I can't stay and chat, it was nice seeing you. *walks away*

Claudia: Bye.

Tracey: See you around.

Claudia: *turns to Tracey* Omg, did you see the dress that she's wearing? It makes her look like a whore!

Tracey: *looks back at Claudia with a blank stare* You're a ********************en hypocrite. *walks away*

4. hypocrite 491 up, 256 down

1: A person who fails to practice what they preach
2: Something that we all can't help but be every once and awhile, I mean were only human, not Smokey though he's a robot.
Man: You kid! Stop pickin' your nose!
Kid: but your pic…
Man: Don't make me tell you twice!

5. hypocrite 100 up, 50 down

Person who enjoys contradicting ones self.
Son: Mom this pasta taste like ********************.

Mom: DON'T YOU FxxxKING CURSE *bitch smacks son across face*

Dad: fxxxking hypocrite bitch.

6. hypocrite 52 up, 25 down

A person given to hypocrisy. It comes from the Middle English ipocrite, derived from Old French, passed down from late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hupocrits, actor, from hupokrnesthai, to play a part, pretend; So all Actors in Hollywood are literally hypocrites, especially the most famous ones. Anyone who pretends to be, do or have something they are not, do not or have not, or who acts like they aren't what they are, don't do what they do, or have what they have, are literal hypocrites.

Hypocracy is the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. It is also an act or instance of such falseness.

Hypocrisy is an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction as in paying someone with
lip service dissembling, feigning, pretense, pretence - pretending with intention to deceive, a sort of fraud
crocodile tears - a hypocritical display of sorrow; false or insincere weeping; "the secretaries wept crocodile tears over the manager's dilemma"; "politicians shed crocodile tears over the plight of dead soldiers" 
hypocrisy is insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have as in
insincerity, falseness - the quality of not being open or truthful; deceitful or hypocritical
sanctimoniousness, sanctimony…
..


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

My previous post was supposed to say I can see Russia from my house, LOL.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

Romney and Palin belong together.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

Obama is a BIGGER Blatant hypocrite… and Liar… proven to be unqualified for the job.

This is really a SICK thread… "see you around"...


----------



## tomd (Jan 29, 2008)

I wish I could have retired retroactely, I could have retired before I started and avoided all that trouble.


----------



## thedude50 (Aug 13, 2011)

this is all just THE BUMMER o BUMMER TRYING TO SAY ROMNEY IS UN AMERICAN OR SOME ******************** THE REAL ISSUES FOR THOSE OF YOU STUPID ENOUGH TO BUY INTO THIS SMOKE SCREEN IS THE ECONOMY NASA BEING CLOSED DOWN THE BILLIONS OBAMA IN LAUNDERING IN IRAQ AND THEN PADDING HIS OWN POCKETS HELL NO ROMNEY SHOULD ONLY SHOW WHAT HE WANTS TO THE FACT IS OBUMMER HAS NO REASON TO EVEN BE CLOSE IN THIS ELECTION THE JOB LESS RATE IS WELL OVER 10 PERCENT IN MY TOWN IT IS OVER 24 PERCENT THIS GUY HAS PUT MY GRAND KIDS IN DEBT TO PAY FOR HIS VERSION OF HILLERY CARE WHAT A DISASTER. DON'T GET CAUGHT UP IN THE SMOKE Romney is the next Regan obama was the second coming of carter

as far as the million dollar ira you can put ass much in an ira as you want the limit is on tax free dollars not on contribution dollars

Obama has screwed the pootch for too long vote his Communist ass out


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

Whether or not Romney was actively involved in outsourcing US jobs is very relevant to the election. I agree with another poster who basically said we probably exclude some very qualified people because they can't pass the vetting process over trivial matters. For the most part I don't really care if a candidate smoked pot, had an affair, is an off-brand religion, but I do care if they are (were) a job exporter as that is one of this country's biggest problems.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

The thing about it is though at Bain capital Romneys job was to save the companies that came to him for help, not to save the country.

Take steel for example, American steel was under assault from foreigh steel. The 10 richest Americans together couldn't have done anything to save American steel. Steel is a dirty, smelly buisness that frankly nobody wants in their own backyard unless it provides them with a job. If you ever been to the south side of Pittsburgh in the 70's you know what it smelled like by the mills. I'm not saying its good we got rid of it, I'm just saying that there was probably no way to save it short of there being high tarrifs on foreign steel. Coke is something needed for steel production (I grew up near some coke producers) and most of them got shut down because it was a very polluting industry, foreign governments didn't care all they wanted was the buisness and they got it.

I live in Maryland so it doesnt matter who I vote for so I'm in a tossup between Romney and Gary Johnson but in Romney I see someone that has the talent to solve economic problems, he had a good record at Bain capital of doing the job he was hired to do, that to me is alot more important than successful organizing a community bake sale.


----------



## JoeLyddon (Apr 22, 2007)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

*ANY QUESTIONS?*

*How many of you have a job right now?

How many of you DO NOT have a job right now?

If you are Retired, do you feel that your income is being squeezed?*

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

Romney's a liberal (pro-abortion, pro- gay marriage, pro- public health care, opposed bush tax cuts, opposes flat tax, balanced MA budget, believes in climate change) Republican using conservative talking points to win an election. In many ways Romney is far more left and liberal than Obama and if he actually ran on his MA record and didn't constantly flip flop positions he would probably win support from Democrats frustrated with Obama's conservative pandering. But like McCain, the Republicans hate him and like McCain, I see him as a throw-away candidate in an election they hope to, but don't expect to, win.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-16-2012/democalypse-2012---bain-damage?xrs=share_copy

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-july-16-2012/democalypse-2012---bain-damage---romney-s-blind-trust?xrs=share_copy


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Should he release them… I suppose. Does it accomplish anything??? Probably not.

I am willing to be that whether you ask for 4 or 14 years of returns - they will show Romney has been Rich every year, and that he donated a lot to charity every year.

There is no requirement to disclose your 1040 at all.
Sorry Dan there is not a 12 year standard started by George Romney.
Yes George released 12 years of returns, but even Obama only released 8 years in 2008 during the campaign. As had Clinton, Bush and Cheney. He just wants now 12 years from Romney to lay returns side by side. But history is pretty bumpy on disclosure.
From: http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns/


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

*edit*
I can't wait to listen to all the whining when Obama gets re elected…HAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

I cant wait to listen to all the whining and "he stole the election" if he doesn't.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

You might have a shot if your candidate wasn't such an unlikable, smarmy, rich, condescending slug that has no idea how most of this country lives, and is the #1 job creator for foreign country's..


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

*"Stop whining," 
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel, Obama's former chief of staff, said*....


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

If you don't think Obama isn't smarmy and condescending you are blind, I will give you that he is more likeable, but I aint planning on hanging out and drinking beer with either of them so I dont care about that.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

*I agree, Obama is a horse's ass !*


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

In the famous words of the late Rodney King, *"Can't we just all get along?"*

I'm Democrat and you're a Republican *"I hug your elephant if you kiss my ass"*


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)




----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)




----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

wormil - 
Since you're so down on those "job exporters", do you know or associate with anyone who shops at Target, Wal-Mart or K-Mart? Those stores sell imported goods because we (the customer) are willing to stand in line just to get inside. Do they (we) carry any responsibility?


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*Joe,*

You said "Obama is a BIGGER Blatant hypocrite… and Liar… proven to be unqualified for the job."

*No man is qualified to be the president unless he has been president before!*
I guess we know who that is!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*Sawkerf,*
To take you question to wormil on my self!
To some extent we do share some of the responsibility but it is like the which came first the chicken or the egg? For example a simple hardware item like screws; first they were made in the U.S., then in Japan, then Taiwan, and now China. Did we pay attention to where they were being made? Probably not. Did the price change? Probably not. Did the company increase profits … probably … and get a tax break too!

So is it to blame? The blame can be placed on our outsourcing and the policies that give companies tax breaks (thanks John McCain) for outsourcing. And, our companies short sightedness for short term goals and satisfy the stockholders not the U.S. as a whole!


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

Do they (we) carry any responsibility?

It's the inevitable result of worshiping at the Wall St. church. You know, I could go along and say, 'sure we bear some responsibility.' But it isn't in our nature to expend the most the get the least, survival doesn't work that way and there are millions of Americans just trying to get by. If they are offered a way to save money then they will do it, so no, as consumers we do not bear responsibility for job exportation.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Wormil I believe we do.

So what about the privately owned companies that outsource to survive, privately owned companies have nothing to do with Wall Street.

Blaming "the rich" or "Wall Street" is nothing more than a talking point, a buzz phrase if you will.

Its been a very long time since Americans "just tried to get buy" Now "poor people" have two cars air conditioning etc. Just getting by is forraging for food, eating dandilion salad and pigeon for dinner, when you can get it.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

So from a WW point of view - - who has looked at the Delta Unisaw made in Tennesee and said "3 Grand!!!" then got a Grizzly for 1200 bucks.

Yet will still talk about evil outsourcing.. If you shopped on price and have Grizzly and harbor Freight… then you have to look in the mirror at why jobs are outsourced.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Blaming the poor while you support legislation that gives tax breaks to the richest Americans, is a really doushey thing to do..if you will…

Nobody's blaming the rich..but how about they pay their fair share like every other American instead of being allowed to hide it overseas, or play games with it on paper to avoid taxes..conservatives like to point out that there's nothing illegal about sheltering income overseas to avoid taxes..it's just taking advantage of the system..well isn't that what the poor people and the people on welfare are doing also? Just Taking advantage of the system?

I love the audacity of some people to infer that unemployed people should be eating squirrel and making soup out of weeds, while oil companies can make 4.7 billion dollars a day and not have to pay taxes..That someone on welfare shouldn't be allowed to have basic cable, but you would support the party that the most important thing to them is tax breaks for the rich people..Like rich people need tax breaks..oh ya I forgot..they create the jobs..ya right..


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Course - Barack Obama made his money suing Citibank for not granting bad loans.

Michelle made her money as administrator of Chicago lakeshore hospital, but reworking contracts to have all of the local poor folks that get sick - to have the ambulances send them to the crummy inner city hospitals.

So Barry enabled the banking crash demanding loans for folks that couldn't afford it, and Michelle made her money denying care for poor folks. And somehow they are our saviours and supposedly give a rats behind about middle class America?

No they care about date nite - Dinner with George Clooney, and taking Air Force 1 for vacations in Spain, India, Southafrica, summering on Martha's Vinyard and Hawaii…...but when Romney goes boating on lake Winnepesauke - - - - Barry talks about his poor vacations when he was 11 on greyhound staying at the HoJo…THAT is some fine campaignBS.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Such a narrow view..and I'm sure not one Republican sitting president ever campaigned for re election…or had dinner with any celebrity's..shesh..he took a few dumps too…why not slam him for that too..At least he's isnt squirreling his money away in offshore accounts, and then slamming other people for not paying their fair share, like a big smarmy, greasy hypocrite.

I never said they are our saviors..I just think he is the better of the evils…definitely better than that piece of S*** Romney….his magic underwear is on too tight.

You want bull******************** buzz words, and talking points?....Socialist, communist, birth certificate, take our guns away, he's a Muslim


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

The BS I look at is the FACT - - the Obamas have been taking opulent vacations…I think a bit too opulent but vacations that make "jet skiing on lake Winnipesaukee" pretty blue collar by comparison.

SOOO the Campaing puts up a nice big poster of Romney on a Jet Ski, while barry talks about childhood vacations 30 years ago on greyhound against a Romney backdrop for 2012 jet skiing.

Who is really out of touch? Doesn't everybody load all cousins onto a chartered 757 and visit Nelson Mandela in South Africa?
I could live with myself having an off shore account better than *developing programs to ensure that the poor are denied care in my hospital.* All while talking about evil insurance companies and fairness.

The New York Times - not Fox -
The Obamas paid $453,770 in federal taxes, for an effective tax rate of just over 26 percent; the top individual tax rate is 35 percent.

So the Obamas made sure they had a smarmy accountant get all the deductions and tax breaks they are entitled to by law….but still say "They should pay more" They don't *have* to take every deduction then bray they don't pay enough.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Brad you are hearing what you want to hear. I never said the poor should be making soup out of weeds, I said that is what people that really scrap by do. I brought the pigeon and dandilion salad up because my dad did that when he was a kid.

Have you ever seen me use any of those words to describe the President? Do a search. The fact is you are hearing what you want to hear.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Just getting by is forraging for food, eating dandilion salad and pigeon for dinner, when you can get it.

Ya…I'm delusional..

I never said you used any of those words..I just was pointing out buzzwords..like you did..who has the focus problem?


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Using an accountant to file your taxes and take deductions is a far cry from socking billions away in off shore accounts so you can tax dodge..please…
Maybe he should tie you to his roof and drive to Canada…Oh, thats right I forgot..that wasn't a bad thing to do either.."The dog was quoted as saying he enjoyed the fresh air"..If I was that dog I think I'd rather ride on the roof..


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

No your being a crybaby that can't make any valid points so you throw out words like racist.

I'd rather be tied to the roof of a car than eaten.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

The tax dodge is a complete myth… even the dems know it but it makes good press.

These Cayman accounts are still reported on, and the taxes paid on money earned from the accounts is in his tax filings. As are the account balances.

So Tax Dodge - - - is just bunk.
The hypocracy is not the use of an accountant. It is that you cannot *honestly *stand out and say how you feel your taxes are too low…. yet at the same time hire someone to find every possible deduction.
I bet you or I couldn't even afford a consultation with Obama's accounting firm… nevermind have them actual prepare our returns.

The tax rate ballyhoo is all a ruse

As far as the other coments… TODAYS poor in america are FAR from struggling to just survive. Many of the elderly though - that is another story.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

DrDirt,

*You vacation perspective is way off base!*
But spent much more, in fact he was not frugal at all.
Vacation myth


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Wow Novice… talk about missing the point.
For the past few years…. the Obamas have been spending MILLIONS on vacations.'
Most to locales around the world that 99% of americans will NEVER see in their lifetimes(india and Southafrica)!
The trips over the past years were far more expensive than going jet skiing in New Hampshire.

Yet Barry would like everone to just listen to his "I'm just a poor kid" we take our vacations on Greyhound and stay at the Howard Johnsons…..Um yeah… 30 years ago. All to say "I don't take lavish trips like Mitt does" Um… even a total lib has to choke on that idea a bit!

Bush is not part of this - it is Obama and Romney.. just like we aren't debating if Calvin Coolidge wore womens clothing… it is the 2012 election being discussed.
Care to wager that Barry spent more money on vacation than Mitt for the past 3 years??


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Now maybe if it was *********************************** waterskiing instead of a greyhound…. we could talk


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

I'm being a crybaby? Typical Tea Bagger..thinks all his points are valid when all he's doing is parroting the myths his bat ******************** crazy party tell him too..my points are just as valid as yours..because you don't believe mine probably makes them right..
I'd rather be tied to the roof of a car than eaten I sure hope somebody takes you up on that..

Ya I guess it's all just made up crap, Dirt…..Romneys finances are all above board..it's just a few peoples delusional ideas..but you got it all straight..your a genius..


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)




----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

Pat writes, "...Blaming "the rich" or "Wall Street" is nothing more than a talking point, a buzz phrase if you will…"

What? Is your memory that short? Other than Bush's unnecessary wars and tax cuts that primarily benefited the wealthy it was the corruption on Wall Street that trashed the economy. Here's the Cliff's Notes version for those that can't remember Wall Street's racketeering:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/watch.html


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

So Brad if the Cayman stuff is all "Hidden" and "ooooh bogeyman what is he hiding?"

Why do we all know he had 3 million in the account? and that the interest is included on his taxes.

If you have an "ING" account (the orange dot with the Lion) that is a *dutch bank *(Headquarterd in Amsterdam) operating in the caribbean…. so yeah lots of people have "Foreign" accounts that pay more than that 0.22% interest at the local S&L.
I know lots of folks that went for "online Banking" for better interest rates - they would probably be surprised to know they really have their money in a "Foreign" bank.

The Cayman banks report the interest of their depositors to the IRS (1099 forms). Which is why it is disclosed and the taxes were paid on it.

I just sort the fact away from the Spin, that a foreign bank = nefariious character.
Though if it does it makes sense that the DNC head Wasserman-Shultz and Nancy Pelosi also have foreign accounts too.. Nez pas

If they are able to come back and show that he didn't pay the tax on X million dollars in foreign investments… I would be …cough cough…. agreeing with you.
But the fact that he has a foreign account…yeah … people with 250 Milllion bucks don't bank at the university credit Union.


----------



## AKSteve (Feb 4, 2012)

I can't wait for the revolution to start !


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*DrDirt,*

*You apparently are missing the point or can't read!*

Did you read that Obama has spent *less on all of his vacations* than GWB spent just flying to the "ranch" in Texas. Read the article and you will see!

*Just click HERE on Vacation myth!*
Vacation myth


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Don't worry Novice..I'm sure someone will post some some irrefutable data that your article is all bull********************..Don't you know that no other President in history has abused the office of the President more than Obama? I hear he's a Socialist/communist…and I also hear something about him not having been born in this country..he also knows if the aliens did crash in Roswell, and he has met a Yettie..

Dirt that's almost as bull******************** of an explanation as that Romney retroactively retired..hahahaha


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Old Novice - - did you hear that the 2012 race is between Obama and Romney?

Why would I give a flying monkeys ass about whether Bush's trips to texas were expensive when talking about the 2012 presidential race. Try reading the Original Post - and including something in your response about Romney…?

We have Barry talking about how he travels by greyhound…. I say Air Force 1 to SouthAfrica is more expensive than a greyhound bus trip.

You cannot hold up Romney 2012 vacation in New Hamshire on the screen behind the podium…( OBAMA) and say that BY COMPARISON - you only travel Greyhound to the Howard Johnsons.

If you see a discussion of Bush spending there - it isn't me that cant read.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

Brad,

*Yes, It's like fighting an up hill battle of roller skates.*

Some people *don't read* the facts!

I have one of those pictures with him as a Yettie and believe me he doesn't look like one of them!


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

OK novice - here is YOUR article….









Says there in the first paragraph that Obozo's Christmas trip (1 trip) was* 4 million dollars*.

Says there in the third paragraph that *EACH of Bush's trips was 259K *for Airforce one, and that the *TOTAL for 77 trips *over 2 terms was 20 million bucks.

So lets see…... the headline of your hard hitting report ( from Media Matters…snort) is that Bush spent 5 times as much money.

But the details in the actual story explain that he spent 5 times as much for 77 trips than Obama did for 1.

WOW!!!! stop the press… stop the press!!

If by your math Obama is somehow Mr. Frugality…...that is some pretty fuzzy math. Or maybe some people don't even read sources they cite, other than the headline.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

DrDirt,

*Than was just his trips to Texas!*


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

It's not our fault that Obama has class and went on a nice vacation and Bush is an ignorant ******************** kicker who just wanted to trim brush in huckleberry, Texas


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Nice try backpeddling but NO

You keep posting *the vacation myth*.... that concluded that yes Virgina 77 trips to texas over 8 years on AirForce 1 was more expensive than 1 trip to Hawaii.
ooooohhhhhh

I could write a ridiculous diatribe stating that I spent more money as a TOTAL in the last 8 years at a restaurant than you did going out 1 time.…that proves?


> ?


?


> ?


Somehow that PROVES that you spend less than I do? - - insert derisive snort!

YOU posted: #75
----------------------------------
DrDirt,

You apparently are missing the point or can't read!

Did you read that *Obama has spent less on all of his vacations than GWB spent just flying to the "ranch" *in Texas. Read the article and you will see!

Just click HERE on Vacation myth!
Vacation myth
----------------------------------
WHile your supposed PROOF ACTUALLY SAYS obama spent less on *1 single trip *than all of bush's trips…. those are two VERY VERY different results. One is what the Article REALLY SAYS…. the other is BULL******************** from old Novice that he CLAIMS the artical said.

But the point that some people cannot read is indeed accurate


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

By the way the only trips he took were to texas..

During 2 terms as President, Bush spent all or of part of 477 days at Camp David, on retreats and made 77 trips to his Crawford Ranch, in Texas, where he spent all or part of 490 days, on his Ranch. 
The total number of days of vacation or retreat President Bush took, while in office over a period of 8 years was 967 days, or 32% of his total time in office, was spent on vacations or retreats.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_vacation_trips_did_george_w_bush_take_while_president#ixzz210ZM2umj

8 years X 52 weeks/yearX 2 weekend days is 832 days. So 967 days is not a lot, especially it includes partial days, so if he flies to camp David Friday and comes back Monday morning it is still part of the day - so 4 days vacation at Camp David.

So Bush and the rest of the family didn't go on opulent vacations around the globe. Just Camp David by helicopter or home to the ranch in Texas…. which I guarantee was less than booking Marthas Vinyard, Costa del Sol and Safari's in Africa.

Easy to take Classy vacations when others are paying…. Class is taking MODEST trips, and not flying to Spain while telling everyone else to tighten their belts, stay home, DONT go to Las Vegas.. etc.

The typical Do as I say not as I do Liberals


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Don't make it sound like he made some conscious decision to save the American people money..we all know that's not the case..the truth is he is a country simpleton that didn't spend the money because he's a bumpkin and his idea of a vacation was putting his cowboy boots on and playing rancher..Typical republican bull******************** spin.."Class is taking modest trips"...spare me…


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Brad, actually cry baby wasn't right. The term I was looking for was childish postings that resorting to calling people names and slinging insults and of course the old liberal stand by of yelling racist when you have nothing else to debate with.

As far as calling me a teabagger you ASSume way too much. I think the tea parties got started with the right idea of showing the elected officials that we did not want our tax money going to bail out buisnesses that made bad decisions it quickly morphed into a political movement dedicated to getting certian people unelected.

I went back and dug up an old post of mine where someone challenged Obama Haters to come up with why they dont want him reelected and here is my post. I thought I didnt resort to any name calling but I have to admit I called Tim Geithner a "general dirtbag"

"*I'm not so much a hater as very dissappointed in him.*
*
1) During the campaign of 2008 he kept uttering the phrase the Bush-McCain economic policies, after he gets elected he pretty much continues the exact same policies

In October 2008 Bush had no idea what to do about the financial collapse so along came TARP and bailouts (bad), Bush basically punted the football on 4th down. Obama vowing not to make the same mistakes doubles down and expands these same programs (punts on 3rd down)

Obama is making the same economic mistakes that Bush made, he is assuming if Wall Street is fine then main street is fine, that may have been the case in the past but in the global economy of today it simply isnt true.

2) A huge missed opportunity, being the first black president (really he is as white as he is black) he had the opportunity move the US past its petty differences regarding race, he could have inspired people the way Martin Luther King did. That ship has sailed with the whole situation of his buddy at Harvard getting arrested and Obama opening his big mouth by saying the "police acted stupidly" when he did not have all the facts. Turned out that the officer did absolutely every thing correct and was actually the last person in the world that should have been accused of being "a racist cop". Upon realizing this instead of apologizing admitting he was wrong he called the "beer summit" for a "teachable moment"

3) Flying off to Europe to try to secure the Olympics for Chicago while there were much more important things to do.

4) Hiring tax cheat and general dirt bag Tim Geithner

5) Not firing Jobs Czar Jeffery Immelt publically after he announced that he was sending G.E.'s X-Ray division to China

6) The stimulus creating jobs…..in other countries

Die hard democrats refuse to see it, so do die hard republicans but Obama is not much different than George Bush. He basically has a better personality and thats it.

7) While a Senator railed against the patriot act, as president renewed it* "

If you would like to have an adult discussion I challenge you to debate any or all of my points.


----------



## JollyGreen67 (Nov 1, 2010)

lwllms - You can't request the truth from the gops, they don't know how to spell.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

True brad - - but still the idea that is being put forth is how FRUGAL OBAMA is… what a load.

The trips to Spain, Marthas Vineyard (twice), India, SouthAfrica are all going to be simliar in cost to the Christmas trip which is "PRoven by Media Matters" to be 4 million bucks.

Bush spent 20 million in 2 terms. so if all these 6 trips were 4 mil each then Barry spent more in his first term on vacation than Bush did in 2 terms flying to texas.

So the argument that BUSH spent 5 times more than Obama on vacation is NOT TRUE. That Bush spent 5 times what Obama did on ONE trip is. but what is that proving???

We are talking spending - it is irrelevant if someone goes the bumpkin route or the posh Marie Antoinette route… if the argument is WHO SPENT MORE?. Going to the Crawford Ranch for 260K is ALWAYS going to be cheaper than going halfway round the world no matter how frugal one wants to be.

Regardless of this quasi amusing drivel - - - the race as the OP points out is about Romney not Bush


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Dirt..I never said he was frugal…spending 4 mil on a vacation isn't frugal by any stretch..

Patcollins
Those are nothing but opinions based on facts you gleaned from right leaning sources. I can sit here and type my response to every one of those, but then you will just disagree with me and dismiss my facts as "talking points" or "Buzzphrases" whatever the f that means..
As far as childish postings….so I say my opinion and it's childish, but yours is based in hard facts..I see..as far as name calling..I call a spade a spade, spade..


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

lwllms Wall Street did play a part in the crash but so did I, infact anyone that bought a house at an over inflated price, anyone that foolishly took out an adjustable rate mortgage when rates were at historic lows (read no where to go but up), any realtor that helped drive prices up, any appraiser that appraised a house at a certian amount just so the buyer could get a loan, any seller that tried to ring out as much as they possibly could, the list goes on and on. I include myself because I knew better than to buy a house at an overinflated price but I still did it because I made the decision emotional and not financial.

My point is the problems we have now were not cause by a simple chain of events, i doubt anyone, could have predicted that the pieces would have fallen in the exact way that they did.

Blaming the rich or wallstreet really accompolishes nothing other than gives people an unsympathetic target to aim their frustration at. The financial collapse of 2008 was hardly the first time the rich were blamed for anything. Politicians using the rich and wall street to rally supporters to their cause really only are offering lip service, do you really expect any politician to do anything substantial to a group of people that gives mass donations to their campaign?


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Brad just because you lack the ability to debate the points doesn't make them opinions. Everything I posted in bold actually happened and there is no opinion to it.

My right leaning source is CNN.com.

A buzzphrase or talking point is what people such as Chris Matthews and Sara Palin that can't actually think for themselves spew out. (noticed I included both a right and left talking head)


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Brad I know that YOU didn't say that but you seemed to be backing * Old novice *who indeed WAS trying to claim that Bush outspent Obama.

I simply took issue with Barry showing photos of ROMNEY over the 4th of July on vacation in New Hampshire…. while going for all this Greyhound/Howard Johnsons with grandma Schtick…

When for the last few years… his vacations have been far more luxurious than sharing a bathroom with 60 people on a bus in Iowa.

Somehow Novice wants to talk about Bush….and I fell into that rabbit hole.
Sorry to have tarred you with the same brush - - I know you are brighter than that but like me enjoy jerking folks chains and exposing hypocracy….I bet for 95% of the LJ's there is a pretty small degree of separation on issues. But 5 % is a lot of folks when you look at the total number of jocks.


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

Blaming "the rich" or "Wall Street" is nothing more than a talking point, a buzz phrase if you will.

I strongly disagree. There seems to be some disconnect where people turn a blind eye to the enormous benefits the wealthy get from government and society in general. Do you believe all those tax loopholes that reduce a 36% tax rate to 15-20% are an accident? Or that the capital gains tax is 15% even though it is the primary income for wealthy people? Are you unfamiliar with all the state legislation that gets passed to benefit one company. I believe it was Illinois that took $4million from the school budget and gave it to a company so they wouldn't close their HQ, the company then turned around a month later and laid off 4000 workers. Wall St does not create jobs, it does not benefit from long term growth, it benefits from short term stock movement which is created by short sighted strategic decisions like job outsourcing, cutting benefits, laying off, and automation. The effect of these decisions is that is reduces the customer base of the company forcing more cost saving maneuvers until eventually they have to buy out their competition, expand into foreign markets, and sometimes cook the books hoping for a miracle, just to survive. Which is more important… the long term economic and strategic health of the country or that Daddy Warbucks can afford a new yacht? A country's economic system MUST benefit ALL the people otherwise you get increasing violence, crime, dissatisfaction and unrest.

Its been a very long time since Americans "just tried to get buy" Now "poor people" have two cars air conditioning etc. Just getting by is forraging for food, eating dandilion salad and pigeon for dinner, when you can get it.

Sorry this is just utterly ridiculous. We don't live in a hunter/scavenger world. You may have an argument that our society overly relies on consumption but who created our vision of modern society? The average new home price is 2010 was $273k; the median was $222k. In my town you can't buy a home for less than $150k unless you want to live in a literal crime ridden ghetto.

To relate this back to the OP, Romney was head of a company known for outsourcing jobs. Romney's statements on the issue have a credibility problem, this is NOT just a Dem smear campaign. Watch the videos I posted early showing Romney contradicting himself and the nonsense about retroactive retiring. He might be in the clear or may have had a change of heart since those days, a clear, honest, statement about the whole thing would go a long way. Unfortunately politicians these days are taught to deny, deny, deny (both parties alike). You know what, if the guy came out and said, 'yeah my company outsourced jobs but I now realize that hurts the country;' it would earn him mad respect, from me at least, maybe even my vote.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

..
..
*sound familiar?*


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

Cartoons can offer succinct political commentary but spamming them defeats the purpose.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Wormil - I agree on the first half and only partly on the second.
Other than a handful of homeless - - there has not been true poverty in america since the start of WWII.

So I have to agree that when you look to any kind of global metric - the botom 10% live quite well versus the bottom 50% in Mexico. The commercials claiming 20% of the children in the US are malnourished - may be true becaue they are eating McDonalds every day, but it is a FAR Cry from a Unicef commercial here asking for 30 cents a day.
WE are a country of pussies where there are very few people alive that have EVER known real suffering or death from starvation. yet that is the protrayal from the left of.

Finally can you tell me a company (say with more than 50 employees) that doesn't outsource?
It was mentioned many times - - is Immelt from GE - - our head of job creation, creating jobs in the US himself? When you pull up the numbers, GE exported more jobs than ALL of Bains companies.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

wormil I want you to know that I enjoy my debates with you, although I don't always agree you do bring up good points.

Illinios made a big mistake there, I don't think governments should give companies any money unless its for a product or service.

People like my mother also rely on capital gains, she is widowed, hasnt worked since I was born in the 70's, and is definately not rich. After my father died I researched the best ways for her to keep her money and get a decent return on it. I hope one day to also be able to live off capital gains. I don't beieve in free trade with countries that do not reciprocate, China should NOT have most favored nation trade status, so we somewhat agree on this.

I know places where you can get a decent house for under $100k, where I live is not one of those places however.

Bain capital did not outsource any of its jobs, it only sent jobs away after those companies came to it for help. Those companies that came to it for help knew they were "making a deal with the devil" but Bain had a pretty good record for helping companies survive. These companies may have otherwise died and completely went away, is that better than sending their jobs elsewhere? That is too complicated of a question for me to decide, my opinion on that is maybe, maybe not. So many people think of Bain capital as corporate raiders, you know that hostile takeovers you hear so much about, Bain only went where they were invited and did what they were asked to do. I'm not sure why Romney doesn't explain this, actually I do its probably cause most people wouldnt care or bother to try to understand.

I've said it before he is probably not a good canidate but in my opion he obviously is talented at leadership and better than what we got now.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Question for everyone here, In 2008 Barak Obama released 8 years of tax returns. Would you be happy if Mitt Romney released 8 years of tax returns?


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

Eight years is a good start …


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Bain capital did not outsource any of its jobs, it only sent jobs away after those companies came to it for help. Those companies that came to it for help knew they were "making a deal with the devil" but Bain had a pretty good record for helping companies survive. These companies may have otherwise died and completely went away, is that better than sending their jobs elsewhere? That is too complicated of a question for me to decide, my opinion on that is maybe, maybe not. So many people think of Bain capital as corporate raiders, you know that hostile takeovers you hear so much about, Bain only went where they were invited and did what they were asked to do. I'm not sure why Romney doesn't explain this, actually I do its probably cause most people wouldn't care or bother to try to understand.

This is the most naive statement I have ever read in my life. Clearly you have NO IDEA what a venture capitol company like Bain does…

Once upon a time there was a company called Bain , that was in the business of helping poor companies get back on their feet again. It was run by a wonderful man Named Mitt, who hugged everyone and made it all better. Then everyone got a puppy..The End..

And heres my side of the debate..What Wormil said..I second it wholeheartedly..


----------



## DS (Oct 10, 2011)

Outsourcing is so being abused in this debate. The Romney camp tried to make the distinction between outsourcing and offshoring, but to no avail.

As a small businessman, outsourcing is FANTASTIC! It expands your reach, gives access to capital equipment that a business might not otherwise afford, it stimulates the LOCAL economy, allows for faster growth, etc.

Outsourcing may, or may not, have anything to do with buying from outside the USA.

Of course, the Bain companies outsource! Nearly EVERY company in the world outsources! For example, I don't print my own business cards - I outsource that to the printer who has the equipment to print them effectively. 
I outsource my drawer boxes to a local company because they have equipment to make them nicer and more cost effective than I do. It saves me money and allows me to provide a nicer product to my customers.

Offshoring is another thing altogether and I seriously doubt that Bain supported this under Romney.

(Did I just post in a political thread? How did that happen?)


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

So Brad

Which company did Bain capital swoop in on uninvited, get rid of all the jobs and take all their money?


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Venture capitol companies like Bain are the bottom feeders of the business world. They buy up failing companies, strip them down to the bone, fire most of the non union employees and the poor suckers that are left have to do three peoples jobs for less benefits and the same pay. If there's a union they will either break it or just contractually lay off as many people as they can as fast as they can. Strip the company to the bone and then outsource all the jobs overseas, if they are able to..like if it's a call center, or manufacturing. Then they try to sell it off once they cook the books enough to make it look profitable. If they can't sell it off they operate it as cost effectively as they can..all the while ignoring the employees that have been loyal to the company and helped build it into what it once used to be..only to be discarded and usually raped of any union benefits along the way like severance and retirement. They look for companies that they can make a profit on..especially almost bankrupt companies. Sure, some of them come to Bain looking for help, but they soon find out that help isn't what they get. If you want to know where my source comes from..it's me..I lost my job of 11 years to a venture capitol buy out of my company, so I know first hand how it works..


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

*They buy up failing companies*

Would it have been any better if the company had failed on its own?


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Maybe..maybe not..My company wasn't failing..they were a victim of a technological evolution, that downsized the market. It was a telecom company that specialized in large phone switches. Once VOIP started catching on, they couldn't morph fast enough and we started loosing customers. The guy that bought us loved tech companies..at the time he purchased us he owned 17 different corporations…Instead of investing in the company which is what he said he was going to do when he bought us, and make us current and viable, he stripped us down, bashed the union apart and whittled the company down to nothing, because he couldn't sell it. He fired all the sales people and customer reps, so the customers started complaining they weren't getting the personal service they were used to so they started leaving..not renewing service contracts.would it have been better if we just went out of business? I don't think so..but it would have been better if he just did what he said he was going to do, instead of treating people like objects and numbers on a spread sheet..


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

Way to go Wormil trying to divert a downward spiraling S#*t fest with decent reasoning,

Dr. Dirt, you really have no idea what it means to be poor and I hope you never learn. The stats that always gets bandied about include those people able to be on the statistics because they have an actual address. Not those who occupy the streets and abandoned subways of the cities. Or those that the system forgot about out in the country who's houses should have been condemned years ago and who actually don't have electricity. My church tried to deliver a thanksgiving basket to a house and was asked to keep the turkey because they didn't have a pot big enough to cook it in because they cooked on top of the woodstove and didn't have an oven. They also knew that too much of it would be wasted because they didn't have a fridge to put the leftovers in since they also lacked the electric to run the fridge. I've dealt heavily with such people. This nation isn't full ofpussys, it's that too many people can't see the real need because we've become too fixated on our own small problems.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Brad

I am sorry you lost your job. In the 80's when I was a kid my dads glass factory shut down after it was bought out by another one that decided that they had to close atleast one of the factories. In the 80's glass packaging lost most of its market to plastic containers. I bet every company in existance will go out of buisnes at some time, no matter how hard it is to imagine. There are companies that venture capital companies helped to create or save.

I am a big believe in keeping emotions out of buisness and even my own personal investments. If Romney did nothing illegal I have no problem with it, I see him as smart, talented, and someone who understands markets. I don't think the economy can be fixed on emotions or empty gestures that make people feel better. I feel that other than Bush and Obama sticking their fingers into the holes in the dam in 08/09 that is all that has been going on and it just isnt working.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

..
*this one is awesome* BRAD !


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*There are venture capitalist and vulture capatalist.*

One funds for more growth and the other grows for more funds!


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Huffington Post this morning..

Some tax experts are alarmed by Mitt Romney's apparent admission that Bain Capital set up offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands to help wealthy investors avoid paying U.S. taxes.

During an interview with the National Review's Robert Costa, Romney said that offshore sub-companies in the Cayman Islands help foreign investors avoid paying taxes on investments in the United States. Bain Capital currently has 138 such sub-companies headquartered in the Cayman Islands.

"The so-called offshore account in the Cayman Islands, for instance, is an account established by a U.S. firm to allow foreign investors to invest in U.S. enterprises and not be subject to taxes outside of their own jurisdiction," Romney said. "So in many instances, the investments in something of that nature are brought back into the United States. The world of finance is not as simple as some would have you believe. Sometimes a foreign entity is formed to allow foreign investors to invest in the United States, which may well be the case with the entities that Democrats are describing as foreign accounts."

By taxes "outside of their own jurisdiction," Romney is referring to taxes imposed by the U.S. government.

"He's basically admitting here that the Bain funds are set up in the Cayman Islands to help people avoid tax," said Rebecca Wilkins, senior counsel for federal tax policy at Citizens for Tax Justice, a nonprofit tax reform group. "If you want to cheat on your taxes, boy, they're making it really easy."

Since the Cayman Islands do not report information on their investors' accounts to other nations, however, such sub-companies don't merely help foreign investors avoid U.S. taxes, they help investors avoid paying taxes in other nations, as well. The ploy can even help American taxpayers invest in U.S. companies without accruing a tax bill with the IRS. By establishing personal offshore entities, Americans can pose as foreign investors and avoid paying U.S. taxes on investments in American firms.

"Even a U.S. investor pretending to be a foreign investor, by using a Bermuda or Cayman Islands shell entity, can avoid U.S. tax this way," Wilkins told HuffPost. "And we know that's going on. We know that U.S. investors are evading taxes by pretending to be foreigners."

Offshore entities have other, perfectly legal, tax benefits for wealthy Americans.

"There are rules in the internal revenue code on deductions, where you don't incur them, your Caymans entity does, and you can reduce your tax bill," said New York University School of Law professor Daniel Shaviro.

One IRS rule, for instance, prevents taxpayers from taking "miscellaneous" deductions, which can include a host of fees paid to financial advisers, at any amount below 2 percent of their total income. But the tax savings from these deductions can only be recognized when the total fees amount to at least 2 percent of a taxpayer's total income-and even then, only the amount over 2 percent can be deducted. If 2 percent of a taxpayer's income is $10,000, for instance, at least $10,000 in advisory fees must be accrued in order to be written off, and even then, only the amount over $10,000 can be written off.

But by establishing a Cayman Islands corporation, an individual can charge all of his financial advisory fees to his offshore company, effectively deducting them entirely from his individual tax bill. The Cayman Islands company's money eventually shows up on the individual's tax return-but only its total profit. Since the financial advisory fees are a cost that reduces the Cayman company's total profit, deductions that would be impermissible for an individual become legal with offshore complexity.

Shaviro agreed that Romney seemed to be implying that Bain had set up offshore accounts to help foreign investors avoid U.S. taxes. Shaviro also noted that more sophisticated financial engineering, including the use of complex derivatives securities, could be used by Cayman entities to further game the U.S. tax code, but noted there is no evidence that Romney has used those.

The Romney campaign was not immediately available for comment.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

Good post Brad!

*I do not mind people using ALL ethically legal means to take deductions but to avoid paying your dues to a country that has given you so much is irresponsible!*

The average citizen cannot do this so why should the wealthy or the overtly wealthy?


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Romney should release a few years of tax returns. I think it is important to know how a candidate for public office makes their money. Unless they show something illegal, Romney's returns, once released, are a non-issue to me. Whatever legal strategies he used to minimize his tax liability is OK in my book.

What I would find most interesting about Romney's tax returns is that they are examples of how the very, very wealthy manage to pay such a low effective tax rate. Investment income and capital gains income should be treated as regular income. Why should income "earned" by not working have a tax preference over income earned by hard work?

It seems pretty clear that Romney's tax policy preferences are much farther from mine than are Obama's.

It is also a non-issue to me if Romney was materially involved, through Bain or otherwise, in decisions of companies to offshore work. In my view, offshoring is a symptom; if it appears to be a problem, then the real problem is something deeper.

The lesson of offshoring is that, in the absence of barriers, the value of the work is going to determine the pay rate of the job. A country can maintain or improve its standard of living by offshoring low-value work and generating high value domestic jobs. A person is an expensive, high-value resource that should not be wasted on some low-value job. I don't think either candidate has much of a clue on this one.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Greg I generally agree - but:
Why should income "earned" by not working have a tax preference over income earned by hard work?
It is because of the risk involved - - not so different than betting in vegas.
Where your EARNED income from wages and Salaries can be counted on…. if I work for 1 week I get X dollars in exchange for my labor. If instead it was a case where if you work 1 week you could actually OWE your employer money or just break even that is quite different.
Second - the Investment income is from AFTER TAX dollars. So if you are willing to take part of your TAKE HOME pay from the EARNED income, and chose to risk it in the stock market - - the money it earns (if your lucky) will be taxed at a lower rate than wages.

For Oursourcing - people do it for cost reasons. Sometimes that is also Offshored. We purchase wire, it comes from India..so both outsourced and offshored.
As consumers we face the same choices - we look at finished goods and people shop on price - they say I can get the same thing at Walmart or Ikea for 1/2 that cost.

Employers look at the same decisions, when the consumers will only pay the Wal Mart price….they have to have production costs that meet the market.
Only the FIRST companies that offshored really made any money…. the ones that have followed did so to survive being competitive with their offshored compeition at all. Powermatic is made in taiwan to help compete with Grizzly, and the others, not because they could suddenly make a buttload of cash by just moving production.

If consumers will only pay chinese prices…. we will either have Chinese Wages here, or everything will come from China. The fact that people have moved production instead of just watching the company die here, is not really so much a discussion of executive greed, as it is the consumers desire for "low price guarantees"

How do you make products in the USA to sell at China prices on the store shelves?


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Dr. Dirt -

I don't think we have a disagreement on offshoring or outsourcing. It is going to happen unless some protectionist barriers prevent it. It is just capitalism on an international scope. I buy stuff at Harbor Freight. The effective response is to become more competitive. That could mean accepting 3rd world wages, or it could mean achieving higher productivity per man-hour. It could also mean moving into work that requires higher skills. Individually and collectively we should face up to the reality of global markets, suck it up, and make ourselves more competitive. I also buy stuff from Woodpecker's (US) and Proxxon (Germany).

But I don't buy your arguments for tax preferences on investment. The return on an investment is the reward for risk taken. Tax preferences - essentially loopholes - are usually justified (rightly or wrongly, sincerely or cynically) by claiming that they encourage behavior that provides some social benefit. If the economy was limited by an inadequate supply of capital, then maybe that would make sense. But given the current disparity in the economic distribution in the US - so a large fraction of the wealth is owned by such a small fraction of the people - that makes no sense to me. That money is going to be invested so long as there is a profit to be made because that will still be the option that maximizes income. The only thing that will change is that the profit margin will be a bit smaller.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

Greg D,

I agree, off shore accounts are loopholes that will not be closed by our legislators as they have too much to lose!

A complete redistribution off wealth is not desireable but a level playing field certainly is!


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

Loopholes or not, one thing that's being missed is the 2009 amnesty on Swiss accounts. We know Romney has a Swiss account but was it legal or did he take the amnesty and come forward in 2009? Why the stonewall on taxes before 2010?

It's speculation but easy to prove if everything was kosher with that account all along:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/07/17/romney_s_tax_returns_is_the_2009_swiss_bank_account_amnesty_what_he_doesn_t_want_us_to_see_.html


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

It's not even about legality it's about hippocracy. How can you stand there and scream about people paying their fare share, which is one of the major complaints of most conservatives….and the guy you want to elect president is a legendary tax dodger…world class tax evader. You guys are all sick of supporting all the people on welfare and you think the unemployed should be eating dandelion tea and squirrel soup, but one of the richest men in the country can hide billions so HE can avoid paying his fare share..but that's OK…It's ridiculous and a perfect example of how the Republican party doesn't give a rats ass about real people in this county, they just want to pander to the rich..


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

oldnovice - I wasn't commenting on offshore accounts, I was talking about offshoring jobs. And the one "loophole" I most want to see changed is the 15% tax rate for capital gains income. Capital gains and investment income should be treated as ordinary income, IMHO.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

I have a Swiss bank account. Not ashamed about it one bit. 
.
Edit: This quote is for the Dems here. I'm GOP, but embarrassing is embarrassing.
.
"Rush Limbaugh said godless liberals had something to do with the fact that the evil villain in the new Batman movie is named Bane - you know, like Mitt Romney's company, Bain Capital - even though the Bane character was invented by a comic book artist 20 years ago. " 
.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-clowns-20120719,0,6516965.story
.
Oh boy.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Brad -
You should really be more precise in your terminology. A tax "dodger" (i.e. avoider) is obeying tax law while taking advantage of provisions within the law to reduce his/her tax liability. A long-ago Supreme Court decision upheld the legality of tax avoidance.

A tax evader is breaking one or more provisions of the tax law and can be charged, indicted, tried, sentenced, and punished for that. (Al Capone comes to mind). If you have some proof that Romney is EVADING taxes, contact the IRS - they would love to hear from you.

There's no doubt that our tax code needs a lot of reform, but don't be too quick to condemn all of those "loopholes". A conversation with your tax preparer might show you that you also realize benefits from some of them. Don't throw out the bathwater until you're sure that the baby is safe. - lol

The "fair share" argument is a tough one, too. Is "fair" determined by the number of dollars paid, or by the percentage of income used to calculate those dollars? Personally, I'm somewhat bothered by the fact that something like 40% of the population pays no income taxes. Is this really "fair" - or as "fair" as it should be?


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

*something like 40% of the population pays no income taxes*
.
It's OK, Sawkerf, they've got you to make up the difference, right? I'm more than somewhat bothered by it.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

OK I see what your saying, so with that thought, couldn't you make an argument that people on welfare are utilizing the legal premise of "work Avoidance"? Maybe there's no supreme court decision to hold it up against, but aren't they are operating within the current law to avoid working, just as a guy like Romney is working within the current tax laws to avoid paying taxes on the bulk of his income? As long as they don't break any laws..they are work avoiders..not work evaders..Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? It does to me….

and I am just as pissed about the 40% that don't pay as anyone else..I have filed my taxes since I had my first job at 16…Clearly we need strong tax law reforms in this country..but what pisses me off more than that are 15% capitol gains tax, and the fact that companies like Exxon/Mobil make billions of dollars and pay zero taxes…


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Of course those using the work avoidance - have now been blessed by HHS secretary Sebelius - who took OUT the work requirement from the welfare reforms that Clinton put in.

It is all about buying votes. And playing Santa Claus with other peoples money.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Do the bottom 40% really have anything to tax? According to this, as of 2007 the bottom 80% of the US population control only 7% of the wealth. If there is any similarity between income and wealth it would seem that taxing the bottom 40% is not going to help the deficit much.

Personally I've noticed that the higher my tax bill the more money I seem to have available to spend on new tools. I guess if I were a glass half empty type of guy I suppose I might get grumpy that I could spend even more on tools if my taxes were lower. But that wouldn't make me happier.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

My point is just because its legal doesn't make it right. People living the culture of welfare makes me as angry as rich assholes looking poor on paper. Those tax laws were written by guys that wanted to utilize them. Like lawyers it's a self propagating system. You shouldn't be able to shelter income from taxes..in any way legal or otherwise. No deductions, no exemptions, and no tax sheltering or hiding money in offshore accounts.

Dr. Dirt for President folks..he's certainly got all the answers..


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Brad-
You certainly can make arguments about the whole welfare system, as well as virtually everything else about how our government relates to its citizens. But this discussion is about taxes. That's difficult enough without introducing anything else. - lol

Like it, or not, the 15% capital gains tax and the way mega-corporations avoid paying taxes are the law of the land. When/If enough of us get fed up, the laws will change. But don't kid yourself that we'll get a utopian system that's "fair" to everyone. Smart people can change (and hopefully improve) any system, but equally smart people will dissect those changes and find ways to exploit them. Have you ever played Whack-A-Mole?

In #129 you call for a system with no deductions, no exemptions, no shelters, and no offshore accounts. You know, of course, that you're free to implement your system whenever you wish. Close down any shelters you have and close your offshore accounts. Next April, file your taxes claiming no deductions and exemptions. Ta-Da, you're golden.

Greg -
Now, you're playing the percentage side of the game. You're correct about the percentage of wealth control, but don't the poorest also get the highest percentage of government services? (I use the phrase "government services" with my tongue planted firmly in my cheek. - lol) I have no problem with a "progressive" tax system, but shouldn't everyone have some skin in the game?


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^and if the moles get too hard to whack, there's always old school straight-up money laundering.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Thanks Brad… can I count on you for a campaign donation?? ;-)

Good to see you are a supporter of the Ryan plan that gets rid of the deductions and shelters for a simple "Pay X % of you earnings"


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

I don't itemize, I don't take any deductions but the standards for myself and my family members..but I would gladly give those up if it meant equality across the board..but your right..I guess it's just a fantasy to hope things could be brought up to a level playing field..the ones making the laws always have the advantage to swing things the way they need them to be…And conveniently enough for them it's usually the people who need the tax shelters and holes in the systems that make and pass the laws..that works out great for them..

Dirt, I agree to that 100%..throw out all the tax laws…you pay x%..period…no matter what your level of income..It's simple and fair….

"Dr.Dirt for President 2012…Because he's right and your wrong…'nuff said" ;-)


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Greg -
Ok, how about if our utopian tax code says that total government expenditures (including debt service) for FY2013 will be $X. We have a population of Y people. Everyone must send in X/Y dollars.

Could that be more level? Can't you already hear the screams of outrage? - lol

Your turn


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Not going through all of these but here are a couple interesting tidbits.

Obama - in the last two years, Obama has created jobs for almost 70,000 unemployed Americans-in Canada (according to the Canadian government).

Not sure if this is considered exporting or outsourcing jobs or just one big failure.

Oh, thats right - for those of you the have businesses - you are not successfull and didn't build that company, other people did ( Obama last week ).

Let's face it-- we all know who we are going to vote for, let's make sure our delegates know who to vote for - they are the ones that vote in the electoral college.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Oh, that's right - for those of you the have businesses - you are not successful and didn't build that company, other people did ( Obama last week ).

That's a real nice Fox News spin your putting on that, but he was trying to make the point that successful businesses are more than just the person that runs them, or started them..they usually have a team of workers that contributed to the businesses success..It's not a solo effort..and maybe the people who helped the business owner get rich and successful, could share in a little of that…


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

The thing that gets me the most about all this is that America was built on the premise that Americans can wil overcome any and all obstacles. His model is for the "people" do what he wants them to do and enjoy it - why, because he said so. THis works for many people because they don't have to get off their lazy backside and what is right, and what is good, and what needs to be done. They want everything handed to them on a platter. For me, this is good for about a week, after that - not so much.

When I was a kid, I was fortunate to meet and speak with someone that escaped from the other side of the iron curtain. I was bitching about something, I can't remember what, and this person sat me down and told me this -

Where they came from you were given an education, it was determined at a young age what that education was going to be, you were trained to do the job they wanted you to have, they sent you where your job was going to be, they gave you a place to live - a little bigger than what we call a closet, you were given that job and you worked at the pay they said you would have. They gave you medical and your money bought you the food that they thought you should eat - all was "good" until they determined that you could not work anymore - then all went away - food, housing, job, and soon after - life. There were no hopes, no challenge, if you didn't like what they offered - tough - you had no choice except prison which was doing the same thing only the days were longer and harder! BUT - the government provided all that was required.

Here is the difference:
We have to make choices in order to succeed and do well. We work hard and as a result, we have choices - in this country, if we choose poorly, we can fix it, if we don't like the direction we are going, we can change it, if we want a better health plan, we work harder and get it. If you don't want to work - you sit and get nothing, this gives you incentive to do something. The current folks are changing this to the model above - where the government giveth and taketh away - they are the rule. I would rather walk into a cage of pissed off tigers than go in the direction that we are headed - at least I would have a fighting chance.

Too many people don't want to do anything anymore, they think the government is going to give them everything - for free. What they don't realize is they well get what they want, until the people in power get what they want - then you get nothing!!!

This is not a matter of who made how much, what color someone is or isn't-- this is a matter of how we live, what this country stands for, and what you as a person - an individual is all about. Yes it means that much.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Brad - The point here is that in this country, if you ask any person that works for a company, their individual attidtude is that they proudly made it and with all of them, they did. Obama meant, whether you believe this or not, was that without the government's help, you did not and cannot make anything. To him, the government IS everything - and businesses are evil - that is what he shows and tells us.

I first heard it on NBC!


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

I disagree with your interpretation..I think he meant exactly what I said in my post..


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

It is still the attitude that the owners of the company gets rich while the workers go hungry and are therefore evil is BS.

Lets look at the steel mills in Youngstown, Ohio. Here the unions got really good salaries and benefits and then when there was a down turn in the industry, nobody wanted a paycut. Now the mills are gone. Senior execs that make the money, bring in business and if things do poorly, they fall first. When all of the employees are making XX, the payroll cannot be sustained, the company closes.

In this country, if you don't like what you get paid or want better benefits, you go to your boss and request a raise, if you can justify it, you might get it - unless you have a union. If you have a union, this negotiation is gone. BUT - you can quit and move on. When the government runs everything, this will be gone as well - because they use the unions as their tool to control. When everything is unionized - all negotiations and movement will be lost.

Oh, and when the unions get you a pay raise and you live in a company town - ever notice that the prices go up shortly afterward and then your money goes a little less than before your cost of liviing raise? This is not by accident, this is economics 201.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

No, it's not..it's an attitude that maybe companies should respect and take care of their workers because without them they wouldn't be rich company owners. Blaming unions for everything that's wrong in business today is just Republican spin…Company owners hate unions because it forces them to treat their workers like people not objects..


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

I am of a mind that as people, unions should not be neccessary let alone required - we should have outgrown them many years ago. Then I started to work where I work now - in some cases, they are required and then I have a union with no teeth and doesn't do a thing for the people that pays their bill.

Company owners LOVE unions - they limit risk, they limit indivuals speaking out, they control their employees , benefits and wages. Don't you believe for a second the large companies hate unions - they love them. Unions take 90% of their labor issues away.


----------



## PineChopper (May 21, 2012)

How much money did Hillary make off of CATTLE GATE?


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Brad -
I think that companies can and do respect and care for their employees - with the constraints that it's cost beneficial to do so. No intelligent business person believes that corporate success can be achieved without good, reasonably content, employees. High turnover is incredibly expensive.

OTOH, any employer can pay high wages and provide great benefits…............. for a while, anyway. If they can't find ways to recover those costs however (by selling enough to pay them), their days are numbered.

The tragedy is that we've come to think of an employer as a caregiver. We assume that as long as we show up and do our jobs (mostly, anyway) we're entitled to our compensation. That's usually true, but we lose sight of the fact that our employers well being (and ability to pay us) is dependent on factors beyond our immediate concerns. IME, when an employer has to make cuts it's never about being greedy. I've been involved in those decisions and its never been "If we get rid of some people and/or their benefits, we can keep more".

dbray -
Some of that "love" of unions is simply recognition that negotiating with an "outside" party for a package of pay and benefits is much cheaper than having to maintain the in-house resources needed to do that on a case-by-case basis.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Actually I had a thought as to why Romney hasnt released tax returns before 2010. As has been previously established the Rich make a large portion of income on capital gains. Also 2008 and 2009 were blood baths for stocks, so its quite possible that the Romneys had a net capital loss for those years and had a tax bill of $0


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Sawkerf -

I make no pretense that I'm advocating for a "fair" or "Utopian" tax code. But in response to the considerable noise these past months at how terrible our deficit is, I'm suggesting that revenues could be increased, by a helpful amount I suspect, by eliminating a specific preference that I contend does not make much sense. On the issue of taxes I think the Republican party is disingenuous and self-serving (these days).

Independent of the question of fairness, the X/Y tax system you describe seems blatantly impractical; there is a portion of the US population that, for a variety of reasons, have no money.

Dealing with that portion of the population, independent of taxes, is another discussion. It seems to me that progressives often have a tough time being realistic in that discussion.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

When all the shouting is over, we'll probably see some form of additional taxation. The question has been, is, and will continue to be "Who'll pay them?"

Going after "the rich" is easy since they're a minority and are easily outvoted. What happens, though, when a few years have passed and the problem persists? Well, let's nail those rich SOB's again - it worked last time. But wait, they can't provide enough so we need to lower the bar defining rich. Ok, anyone making over $100k is a rich parasite who needs to pay their "fair share". And the wheel goes round and round.

I, for one, will only support more taxes if they're accompanied by substantial reductions in government spending. Eliminating even half of the ineffeciency, redundancy, flat out waste, and spending programs that don't provide widespread benefits would make a significant difference - and do much to convince me that they're ready to accept new definitions of "business as usual".

I knew my X/Y tax plan was unworkable and your response was just what I expected - a call for exceptions. And the wheel goes round and round. - lol


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

The definition of rich is much like the definition of old.

Old is 20 years older than you currently are.

Rich is someone who has enough more than you to make you jelous of them.

There are people out there that think people that make $60k/year are rich, then there are people that think $250k/year doesnt make you rich.

There is also the difference between being a high earner and being rich. A rich person could make nothing in a year and not get taxed at all but still have millions.


----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

Companies LOVING unions is a gross overstatement! They tolerate them.

I wonder how many high tech companies in Silicon Valley are unionized! I am willing to bet none! The reason being that they treat the employee much differently than the steel mill worker. They have too because the competition is too great which is totally different than steel mills. Typically one steel mill per town and nearly every one in town worked there.

In SV a person can change jobs without changing his commute. I also found this to be true in the Boston high tech area the Austin Texas high tech area, the Minneapolis Minnesota high tech area, and there are probably others I missed!

*So there must be a significant difference between high tech jobs and others?*


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

oldnovice -
I didn't get into it in my earlier post, but many employers dislike unions because they:

1. Limit the employers ability to compensate and promote the best employees. 
2. Limit the employers ability to get rid of bad employees. Only the most egregious acts can cause immediate termination, and it's not uncommon for the termination process to be very lengthy and expensive.
3. Limit their ability to retain the best employees during a business downturn.

Union work rules pretty much stop these cold.


----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

The lesson of offshoring is that, in the absence of barriers, the value of the work is going to determine the pay rate of the job.

I understand your point but you are wrong. Your statement implies there is a set wage that any job is worth and that is untrue. Wages vary by region because the cost of living varies by region (among other things). Jobs aren't outsourced because American wages are too high, they are outsourced to increase share value. When I was still slaving for an international company, that's all we talked about… every operational decision was made for short term stock gains. Our economy is gradually failing because it is increasingly driven by Wall St.

Oh, thats right - for those of you the have businesses - you are not successfull and didn't build that company, other people did ( Obama last week ).

That never happened.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

There are plenty of people who make over $250K and aren't rich. That's just a fact. How about a family doctor in Sacramento (if there are even any left). By the time he pays insurance, taxes and overhead, he's probably bringing home $50K net. A guy making $50K here in West Virginia is doing pretty good. You can buy a house for that here, lol. It's difficult to put a threshold on earnings.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

I think you have it somewhat wrong, wormil. I don't know how close you've ever been to some of that decision making, but IME it's never just about share value.  That is often a consideration, but only one of several things involved in the decision.

Wages (total compensation, actually) are a major component of the cost of doing business.
In a competitive marketplace, the cost of doing business strongly impacts earnings (profit margins)
Earnings make their stock more (or less) attractive to investors

Yes, Wall Street (and exchanges around the world) have too much effect on the perceived state of our economy. Very sophisticated computer models follow market conditions and have triggers to buy or sell as those conditions reach specific values. When one computer model triggers a sell order, another one (with different programming) makes a buy. People aren't really involved - it's computers talking to one another. Human involvement is limited to deciding the values to use to pull the triggers. Stock markets more closely resemble casinos than anything else.

I think tha it's wrong, but it's the way the game is played. Any company trying to buck the system does so at their peril.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Wormil not every company that sends jobs offshore is publicly owned, hence no share values to worry about.

Another big decision to send jobs to China or wherever is how easy they make it. Nobody in the US wants a factory in their back yard, towns, neighbors etc usually fight tooth and nail against anything industrial going in near them. The term is called NIMBY (Not in my back yard).


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

A big AMEN to that, pat. As a near 40 year resident of Silicon Valley, I've seen more than one manufacturer leave CA because of the nightmare they go thru trying to build plants here. Intel's plants in AZ, NM, and OR could have been here but for the NIMBY attitudes.

As an aside, I heard a business report the other day saying that Chinese wages in urban areas (where their manufacturing is) had risen 13% in the past year - and were expected to surpass Mexican wages fairly soon. Will we be complaining about Mexican products in the future? Will our prices go up because the illegal immigrants have left for better paying jobs in Mexican plants? Stay tuned. - lol


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Kerf, I lived across the street from the Rio Rancho, NM plant for about 1/2 a year. If CA missed out on that plant, they missed out on a lot. Impressive, to say the least.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

There is a neighborhood down the road from me that tried to get a slaughterhouse closed that has been there long before the neighborhood was built, go figure.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Bertha -
After my nuclear engineering career went in the tank, I got interviews with Intel in AZ and NM. Weirdest interviews I ever had! Didn't get any offers and was sorta glad when I heard more about the corporate culture there. - lol


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

patcollins..you really think that Romney doesn't want to release his tax returns because he had a tax bill of 0? Are you kidding me? If a guy that's worth what he is worth has a net tax bill of 0, then there is definitely something wrong with our tax system. I know why..he lost the information..oh, no..I bet aliens came down and took it from them so they could study him…no, I bet he accidentally shoved it in with one of those giant suitcases full of money he ships to the Caymans..I know..he wrote them all in invisible ink..and now you can't read them….oh wait, he used them to line the dogs crate…
You guys can sit here and split hairs and debate the semantics about class, and whos really rich…but it's painfully obvious to those of us that don't pander to the republican party that Romney is a smarmy, condescending, rich asshole, that thinks he's better than everyone else and feels he doesn't need to play by any rules…he's above all that…..like all the super rich they feel that money and power exempts them from laws and rules..those are for middle class chumps, and poor losers..
It's simple..mega rich elitism..His whole family are rich condescending assholes..I wonder if the dog is like this too..And this is why I don't want this jerk to be my president..when you are that rich, you run in rich circles, everyone around you…all the people you make contact with are as rich as you…YOU BECOME DISCONNECTED WITH REGULAR PEOPLE, AND WHAT THEY HAVE TO GO THOUGH IN LIFE TO SURVIVE…


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)




----------



## IrreverentJack (Aug 13, 2010)

I don't care if/why people think *he should show his returns*. I'm interested in *why he won't show his returns*. What could make Mitt think the information on his returns will hurt him more than not releasing them? -Jack


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Lesser of two evils? Obviously, there is something there he doesn't want the American people to see…


----------



## Fuzzy (Jun 25, 2007)

Romney's tax returns are audited just like everyone else's … if nothing fishy has ever turned up, what would be gained from releasing them all at this point ???

On the other hand … is obummer was willing to trade some school records … social security card numbers… and a REAL birth certificate … it might be worth considering.

obummer has spent more $$$$$ hiding what SHOULD be public knowledge than anyone in the history of this country … just WHAT might HE be hiding


> ?


? ???


----------



## knothead (Aug 4, 2007)

Why on earth is everyone so obsessed with how much money Romney has? Who cares? as long as he got it legally I could care less if his investments paid off or not, if he lives on 60,000 per year or 60,000,000 per year, it is HIS money. Truth be known he is probably a little embarrassed about his wealth, he shouldn't be but I bet he is. Not to mention that when it is all released it will cause the Leftists in this country to wet their collective pants over it.

Everyone has bought into the whole "Class Warfare" diatribe from O'Blameo and Axel rod et al and they lose sight of the fact that Axelrod is getting extremely wealthy from his association with Obamacare and O'Blameo himself has profited greatly on the Lies he wrote in his books (Not my words, he admitted them himself - called them "composites")

Nancee Peeloseee has foreign investments, Debby Was-A-Man Shultz has foreign investments. as do many others, wealth built on inside information that you and I don't have access to, and you all wet your pants over Romney?

I don't need nor want to know EVERYTHING about O'Blameo since his birth - even though he keeps HIS past a secret and I don't need nor want to know EVERYTHING About Romney since his birth. I just want a competent man/woman in the White House, right now we do not have that, and if Romney wins the election we will find out about his competence real soon. I just bet that the constitution will ACTUALLY survive a Romney Presidency whereas we KNOW it will not survive 4 more years of O'Blameo.

So why is it ok for the Left to accumulate wealth but not the right? Do you hate his wealth or just the fact that YOU don't have it?


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Brad I think its very possible he paid little to no taxes in 08 and 09 due to capital losses.

To shut up the birthers all Obama had to do was release his long for birth certificate back in 08 and he waited till 2011, why probably to prove a point. I just see this as Romney doing the same thing. If the IRS found something illegal we would have known about it by now. Romney detractors just want to use his tax returns as ammo to attack him.

If this is all Obamas campaign has then they are in trouble.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

The last three posts are classic example of what you called talking points and buzz phrases..
As usual, the parrots completely miss the friggin point..it's not about him being rich (except for the smarmy, condescending entitled part)..It's about him LYING about his Bain involvement, HIDING his money in offshore accounts and then CRITICIZING people in this country about not paying their fair share…You guys HATE Obama so much that your willing to vote for that troll, then go ahead…We'll see what happens in November..

You birthers really have to get a grip and come back down to reality..really, it's f***ing embarrassing..


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

I guess I've never really understood why tax returns have become so much a part of the political process. If laws were broken, the players would almost certainly have been brought to task - and wouldn't even be in the running. As far as I can tell, it's mostly about opportunities to embarrass opponents. Then, instead of talking about what' important, they're explaining their past (and almost certainly legal) actions.

What I want from all of them are their theories of governance, their perception of the problems we're facing, and their plans to address those problems. If I like what I hear, they'll get my vote. If I don't like it, I'll vote for the other guy (or leave that box blank). The rest of it is just noise.

Don't insult us with "I'll DO this, or that". You're running for President - not monarch and won't be able to take the oath of office and start issuing orders


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Thats a good point sawkerf..I don't really know why its so important..I think people are more interested in why he wont share than whats in there..but then, if he doesn't want to share then whats in there might be interesting…


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Brad I dont hate Obama at all. I just think he cares more about going to basketball games, date nights, and being thought of as inspirational more than actually working to fix the economy. And you really think Obama isnt smarmy and condecending then you are blind.


----------



## AKSteve (Feb 4, 2012)

"What I want from all of them are their theories of governance, their perception of the problems we're facing, and their plans to address those problems. If I like what I hear, they'll get my vote. If I don't like it, I'll vote for the other guy (or leave that box blank). The rest of it is just noise."

can I get a big AMEN on that !! thanks Sawkerf.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Here's your candidate, boys…I just get all warm and fuzzy with everything he says..










What a F*ing Ahole…Couldn't POSSIBLY be any more disconnected from the people in this country if he tried..


----------



## devann (Jan 11, 2011)

No.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Here's one for the birther nut bags..








Sounds suspiciously like a couple posts above this one..


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Brad -
It may be "interesting", but you gotta ask why, and to whom, is it interesting? How can prior acts which were almost certainly legal shed any light on the candidates? Some say that past actions can somehow predict future behavior - and perhaps it can to some extent. I'm far more interested in why I should vote for them at all. I'm not expecting a saint, and won't vote for a sinner. Just tell me how you see the job and how you plan to do it during the next four years. I'll take it from there.


----------



## IrreverentJack (Aug 13, 2010)

Sawkerf, In 2009 the IRS had an amnesty program for taxpayers with undeclared income in offshore bank accounts. I'm guessing we will never see his 2009 return. In the returns he did release some of the offshore bank account information is missing. How can a candidate not want to shed light on prior acts/past actions that where *almost certainly legal*? Would you vote for someone that hid undeclared income in offshore accounts? -Jack


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Jack -
You lost me after you said "I'm guessing.."

If he *evaded* taxes by hiding undeclared income offshore (or anywhere else), he broke the law and I seriously doubt that he did that. His run for President would never have begun for fear that it would be revealed. But no, I wouldn't vote for him.

If, however, he *avoided* taxes by legally sheltering income, ti's none of my business - nor anyone elses. If he gets the opportunity to tell me why he's the best guy for the job, and convinces me, he'll probably get my vote.

Same for Obama. I've seen him in action for almost four years and have reservations about letting him keep the job. I don't care about his birth certificate, medical records, or tax returns. If he gets…......(see above).


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

Fuzzy says "...obummer has spent more $$$$$ hiding what SHOULD be public knowledge than anyone in the history of this country … just WHAT might HE be hiding ? ? ???"

Do you care to try to document that? My Internet searches say it's BS. Step up here and back up your charges.


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

More of birther Fuzzy's claims: "...Romney's tax returns are audited just like everyone else's … if nothing fishy has ever turned up, what would be gained from releasing them all at this point ???"

Actually Fuzzy, if Romney had been evading taxes through the use of his Swiss bank account he was eligible for amnesty if he came forward voluntarily according to the terms the Government negotiated with Swiss banks to get access to secret account information. He would have had to pay taxes owed plus penalties but could have avoided prison time and it would have passed IRS examination. Here's an old article about the first of those agreements:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32386100/ns/business-world_business/t/us-swiss-nail-deal-secret-bank-accounts/

My best guess is this is why Romney won't release those returns. If this is the case he still committed a felony and avoided prison by coming forward when he had little choice about doing so.

A lot of money is hidden in those tax evading accounts to this day. Here's a current article:

http://www.theage.com.au/business/worlds-super-rich-said-to-be-hiding-20-trillion-in-offshore-tax-havens-20120722-22i8y.html


----------



## IrreverentJack (Aug 13, 2010)

Sawkerf, I'm sorry if I was unclear. Lwllms's post does a better job explaining the issue. Neither side can afford to lose votes, yet Romney has been allowing this issue to bleed his campaign for months. Hiding something like this is the only logical explanation I can think off for his behavior. -Jack.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Or could he believe (as I do) that this type of thing is just a diversion from what's important - and that the whole tax return thing is more about finding opportunities to embarrass. Could he just want the chance to sell himself as the best man for the job?

Has he "allowed" this bleeding, or been unable to put it to rest because the jackels want mud to sling - even if there's no real mud?

One side is screaming about tax returns while the other side tries to raise questions about birth certificates and medical records. Both sides are talking about why the other guy is a jerk instead of why their guy is the best man for the job.

At this rate, we'll go to our voting booths in November and make a guess instead of a decision based on real information. Maybe that works for you, but I really hate it.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

Statement from IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman on Offshore Income

March 26, 2009

My goal has always been clear - to get those taxpayers hiding assets offshore back into the system. We recently provided guidance to our examination personnel who are addressing voluntary disclosure requests involving unreported offshore income. We believe the guidance represents a firm but fair resolution of these cases and will provide consistent treatment for taxpayers. The goal is to have a predictable set of outcomes to encourage people to come forward and take advantage of our voluntary disclosure practice while they still can.

In the guidance to our people, we draw a clear line between those individual taxpayers with offshore accounts who voluntarily come forward to get right with the government and those who continue to fail to meet their tax obligations. People who come in voluntarily will get a fair settlement. We set up a penalty framework that makes sense for them - they need to pay back-taxes and interest for six years, and pay either an accuracy or delinquency penalty on all six years. They will also pay a penalty of 20 percent of the amount in the foreign bank accounts in the year with the highest aggregate account or asset value. Just to be clear, this is 20 percent of the highest asset value of an account anytime in the past six years. This gives taxpayers - and tax practitioners - certainty and consistency in how their case will be handled.

We have instructed our agents to resolve these taxpayers' cases in a uniform, consistent manner. Those who truly come in voluntarily will pay back taxes, interest and a significant penalty, but can avoid criminal prosecution.

At the same time, we have also provided guidance to our agents who have cases of unreported offshore income when the taxpayer did not come in through our voluntary disclosure practice. In these cases, we are instructing our agents to fully develop these cases, pursuing both civil and criminal avenues, and consider all available penalties including the maximum penalty for the willful failure to file the FBAR report and the fraud penalty.

We believe this is a firm, but fair resolution of these cases. It will make sure that those who hid money offshore pay a significant price, but also allow them to avoid criminal prosecution if they come in voluntarily. As we continue to step up our international enforcement efforts, this is a chance for people to come clean on their own. Our guidance to the field is for the next six months only, after which we will re-evaluate our options.

For taxpayers who continue to hide their head in the sand, the situation will only become more dire. They should come forward now under our voluntary disclosure practice and get right with the government.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Interesting read Troll, but it's old news. Yes, the IRS established an amnesty program which allows tax evaders to "rejoin the fold" without the stigma of a conviction - and possibly jail time. Are you suggesting that Romney has utilized this amnesty?

I really doubt that he has. Being identified as a tax evader would kill anyone's presidential ambitions before they got off the ground. It would probably kill anyone's chance for any elected, or appointed, position. Whether the issue was settled by an amnesty or trial and conviction doesn't change the fact that taxes were evaded. I just can't believe that anyone would launch a campaign knowing that this might someday be revealed.


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

As long as IRS records are covered by the privacy act, there's no access to them. Criminal prosecutions are different but resolving an issue with the IRS is confidential as long as no legal charges have been filed. The only way to know is for Romney to make his returns public. As George Will said, "There's obviously something there that will do more damage than not releasing his tax returns." The reality is that Romney's tax returns are as secret as his Swiss bank account was before the Government reached agreement with Swiss banks. Romney is the only one who can clear this up.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Ahhh, he's guilty until he proves he's innocent. Dare I add "to your satisfaction"?

Now there's a legal theory that woulld get you laughed out of any court in the land - and possibly drive the Supreme Court to hysterics.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## oldnovice (Mar 7, 2009)

*The reason he hasn't released his returns is because he has been short changing the Mormon church and they will find out how much he should have given them!*


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

Saawkerf,

You seem confused. We're basically talking about a job application here not a criminal case. He avoided criminal prosecution when he took amnesty for tax evasion. The rules are very different when applying for a job.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Sawkerf, I was in Albuquerque for a year pursuing some training. I planned to live in a hotel across from Intel but the drive from Rio Rancho to the city drove me out. The extended stay hotel I lived in was host to mostly Asian engineers/programmers. I said "Asian"; I must be racist, lol. They were a strange group of guys and they'd all be pecking at their laptops during their regular bbq's at the hotel. I kind of got the vibe that they were inordinately stressed for some reason. Probably best that you skipped that one.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Quick also: is there anything dirty about accepting an amnesty agreement? After offering amnesty, can you hold someone in contempt that accepts? I once benefitted from a cable television amnesty program, lol.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

He avoided criminal prosecution when he took amnesty for tax evasion.

And you can prove that, right? There's a lot of speculation, but only you can prove it. Put it out there, I'd love to see it.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Al…you bad boy..you owned a hot converter..shame..;-)


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

I love you Brad, my friend Chicks dig a bad boy. I haven't shot the $ with you in a while. I see that you're still keeping these scumbag Republicans like myself in check, lol. Like I've maintained all along, I think that's healthy. I hope all is well in the Nailor household. Take care, al.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

I have a question for all of you that feel or are sure the Romney has broken the tax laws -

Obama is President of the United States of America and as such took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. How can you support a person, holding this position that on many occasions, has done everything he can to circumvent the constitution - even to the point of violating laws, as passed by congress????

This president has established that if there is a law that he doesn't agree with, he creates waivers or just tells the Dept of Justice to not enforce it. He also tells Homeland what borders to keep secure and what states that they can support and work with.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

I would bet that if there was a law that I didn't agree with, and just disregarded it - I would still go to jail. Some of these laws, like imigration, have very serious consequences - long and short term.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

dbray-
Your post is just as pointless as the cries for more of Romney's tax returns.

Yes, Obama has exercised presidential power in ways that may well border on illegal. Don't you think, however, that if he had clearly crossed the line, we would be embroiled in the impeachment process?

No legal system can clearly and unambiguously cover all possible situations with a Yes or No clarity. Whether it's filing tax returns or exercising presidential powers, all actions can be questioned. Without clear proof of illegal actions, however, it can't go further.

Your post also follows one of the most aggravating (but all too common) thought processes around. You're supporting your guy by pointing out deficiencies in the other guy. Why not support him by telling us why he's the best choice?

This year, I'll vote in my 11th presidential election. It would be wonderful if I were able to vote FOR one guy instead of AGAINST the other one which is too often the result of all the negative campaigning.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

We will see.

When you order the closing most of the Border Patrol offices along the Mexican border, tell ICE that they cannot share data with AZ officials and the like, give wavers to states that nullifies the welfare reform that was passed be congress - it may not be directly impeachable or prosecutable but it sends a clear message that he cares nothing for the people and their laws of those he is sworn to uphold.

Should Romney give up his income statements - I really don't care. If he doesn't have to, then why should he? If he does have to do this, he will - even though they are already a matter of federal record at the IRS. Being a republican, had he filed incorrectly, falsely, or illegally - the IRS would have shut him down long ago.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

I think that we've already seen. If Obama's actions could be clearly shown to be a misuse of presidential powers, this presidential race would be an "oh by the way" in news stories about an impeachment. Since it hasn't happened, I'm forced to conclude that the people with the power to make that call (and you and I aren't on that list) don't feel that they could win. IOW, Yeah, he may have bent the hell out of the law, but he didn't break it.

As for Romney's tax returns, I suspect that he made maximum use of the tax laws to minimize his tax bills. He probably went as close to the edge of the cliff as he could without stepping over. Making that public knowledge would divert his campaign resources (time and money) to explaining why it was legal instead of talking about why he should be elected.

There's no doubt that many of those loopholes need to be closed or at least changed. Until the law changes, however, it's wrong to beat up a candidate for following the laws that existed at that time.


----------



## PineChopper (May 21, 2012)

I forgot. How much did Hillary make off of Cattle Gate?

~Never Under Estimate the Stupidity of the General Public~


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

*if he had clearly crossed the line, we would be embroiled in the impeachment process*
.
'kerf, I'm not entirely sure that's true. I think we're operating on celebrity rules when it comes to the Presidency, something I never thought I'd say. Boy though, I couldn't agree more with your 2nd paragraph above; outside of tech, I don't think you get rich being stupid (no offense to tech people). I bet he milked it to the edge, just like I do. Make no mistake, I don't like the guy. I've got a pretty good gut and my gut clenches up on this guy. I'm not exactly known for my optimism, but I've got a bad feeling about all of it, all of it. However, I don't have to go to Snopes to know that I don't like the other guy either. We're all doomed.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Another comment from the dbray school, PineChopper? Where's the validity in justifying one set of actions by pointing out shortcomings of someone else?


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Ok, let me get this straight - If Romney took advantage of the laws (current at the time) and as a result paid the minimum taxes that he legally had to pay - was a BAD thing-- while Obama (being polite here) stretches the laws in any way he so desires, puts countless people in harms way, millions unemployed, backrupts Social Security (his tax credit is the monies paid to Social Security and not a tax credit anyplace), puts the sovereignty of a nation in question (to be a sovereign nation you MUST have borders) - GETS A FREE PASS.

This conversation is done - This is like speaking with Warren Buffet who stated that he felt that he wouldn't mind paying more taxes - WHILE HE OWES MILLIONS IN TAXES BUT HASN't PAID THEM..

The logic escapes me -

The loopholes in the tax code were put there on purpose and for a good reason - to entice people to invest their own money, to start businesses, for those businesses to invest in growth and the hiring of people and as a result improve the gross domestic product - without which there would be no government, no jobs, no revenue -

So the state, local, and federal governments have been eliminating the loopholes - OH WAIT - do you see a trend here?? More taxes, less loopholes-- now we have less employment, companies going out of business or moving them out, now there is less tax revenue than before - Wonder what this could mean?????

Regardless of what Obama says - it IS our money and we DID build that and without US (as in the people of the United States) there are no jobs, nothing built, and no government. The idea that this could not have been done without the government's help is delusional at best.

If you ever had a viable company, you might know of what I speak. I have and I do know - first hand. What Romney paid in taxes is none of my business or yours - it is entirely between him and the taxing authorities to which he is filing - no one else.

Have a great day!


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

The Dbray school? Enroll me.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Uh..no dbray…if he is trying to get a job as the leader of this country then YES his taxes, his business dealings, the fact that he bullied gay guys in school, lied about his Bain timeline, was a cutting edge American job outsourcer….all these things are relevant and need to be made public so we can make an accurate decision on which candidate to vote for..And again..it's not about if what he did was legal..it's about the morality of it and how he is scrambling to hide it, and is a huge hypocrite by criticizing people in this country for not paying their fair share when he is doing exactly that..

So the state, local, and federal governments have been eliminating the loopholes - OH WAIT - do you see a trend here?? More taxes, less loopholes-- now we have less employment, companies going out of business or moving them out, now there is less tax revenue than before - Wonder what this could mean?????

The tax loopholes were put there by rich assholes like Romney so they could shelter income and avoid paying taxes legally….contrary to your warm and fuzzy hug a rich guy explanation..So acording to you, the country is going down the tubes NOT because guys like Romney can make themselves look poor on paper and avoid paying their fair share but because average Americans who work hard for their money and don't have exotic loopholes to hide their money in are getting tired of all this pandering of rich people and waiting for the wealth to "trickle down" and lobbied to have the tax laws changed…so in short according to your f'd up logic THE PROBLEM WITH OUR ECONOMY IS RICH PEOPLE DON'T HAVE LOOPHOLES TO HIDE MONEY IN ANYMORE..Ya. your a frigging genius..

Al..right back at ya..;-) I know your a dog lover like me… Unfortunately..My poor puppy was diagnosed with Lymphatic Cancer a month ago..had a few tough weeks..but shes doing better now..


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

If you need it straighter, I'll give it another shot.

If Romney took maximum advantage of existing tax law to minimize his tax bill, it was NOT a bad thing. It was perfectly legal and he shouldn't be required to justify it any further. Unfortunately, far too many people want to use their subjective definition of "right" in place of the written definition of legal and demand that additional justification be provided. That diverts attention from the real issues and wastes everyone's time.

There's no question in my mind that all of those "loopholes" have (ot at least had) perfectly valid reasons for being incorporated into the tax code. No system of law is perfect, however, and it needs periodic review and change. Smart people wrote those loopholes and tried to do an honest job of it. Before the ink was dry, however, equally smart (and honest) people looked for and found ways to stretch things beyond the intent of the authors. That's called "unintended consequences". Those things need to be examined and possibly eliminated.

In my personal experience, I've had occasion to listen to someone thumping the table and insisting that all loopholes be eliminated because they aren't "fair". My response has been that they should have a talk with their tax preparer before they get their wish. It isn't uncommon for them to discover that they get some amount of personal benefit. That usually leads to a change in their definition of "fair". - lol


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

If YOU need it straighter I"LL give it a shot…

I wholeheartedly disagree with everything you just said..
There is no way I will ever agree that rich people hiding money in offshore accounts to minimize their "Tax Burden" though it may be legal.. is ethical or fair, and I think it is a major issue for a presidential candidate…and a few million people in this country seem to agree with ME..I also do not agree that any tax "loopholes" were implemented for any other reason than for the wealthy to shelter their income from tax burdens..


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Fortunately, in this country, we operate on legalities rather than a subjective feeling of what is "fair" or "ethical". Otherwise, we're no better than a lynch mob who strings the SOB up just because we don't like him and he must have done it.

Legal systems can only imperfectly reflect the consensus of a majority as to what is right and wrong. They'e only compromises which can never totally satisfy everyone. Since our ideas of right and wrong change, it's necessary to examine and change the legal system we use to address them with from time to time.

As much as you might want to, you can't hang Romney (or anyone else) for obeying the law even though you personally object to the law. If you really want to be constructive, work to change the law. Don't tell anyone, but I would probably support you more than you might think. - lol


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Brad - I disagree with your position and thoughts on this - I agree with you saying what you believe and what you think.

I believe that we agree on many things but this is one we probably won't walk away in agreement.

In this country, at this moment, we can both speak our minds. I pray this never changes!


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Jeepers, Brad, there are a lot of tax preferences (aka loopholes) that are not for the rich, at least not exclusively so - 401K contributions, mortgage interest deduction, employee-sponsored health insurance, standard deduction, child care credit, progressive tax brackets. On the other hand there are others that seem very well targeted for the rich - capital gains and investment income preferences and many more I'm sure.

I'm with Sawkerf - focus on fixing the law. I have more of a problem with those that push for legislation to serve their own self interests above everything else.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

Greg -
Capital gains "loopholes" help all of us when we sell a house.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

[email protected]!!!
Brad said
There is no way I will ever agree that rich people hiding money in offshore accounts to minimize their "Tax Burden" though it may be legal.. is ethical or fair, and I think it is a major issue for a presidential candidate…and a few million people in this country seem to agree with ME

I have to count myself in the group that *agrees with Brad. Much as that hurts*

Everyone will have to decide what 'weight' this issue has - - but it is certainly fair game, and does speak to character.

To me it is not as big a deal as expansion of the patriot act, the Defense appropriations act allowing unlimited detention of US citizens as enemy combatants, and erasing the requireent for search warrants and Mirandizing our citizenry when arrested in this country….For a president to be so vocally opposed to the passing of the patriot act as a senator, one might have though he would cut it back… not expand it greatly.
The cases of executive orders, the closing of ICE sites on the border, and amnesty are also valid campaign issues.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

DrDirt -
I not so sure that they''re "valid"campaign issues. Although some of them seemed pretty egregious, doesn't the lack of further legal action tell us that although the legal limits of presidential authority may have been tested, they weren't exceeded? As I said earlier, " If you dislike the law, work to change it."

This thread (and some others on LJ's) exemplify what I think is so wrong about campaigns for public office. Too many people try to support their candidate by throwing mud at the opposition. Telling me that your guy is right because the other guy is wrong is completely unpersuasive. I want to know why you feel that your guy is right.

As always, I'm pretty much on the fence right now, and searching for reasons to pick one guy over the other. I think it would be great if my choice could be based on more than "Well, he's less of a jerk then the other choice."


----------



## pcott (Jul 7, 2009)

I would be very interested in how everyone who is defending Romney felt about the witch hunt launched against Clinton for his indiscretions. Or is this somehow different? For the life of me, I cant imgine what would possess any one who is not rich to vote for Romney.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

*I have to count myself in the group that agrees with Brad. Much as that hurts*

C'mon man..who started the Dr. Dirt for President campaign..and even thought up a catchy slogan?


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

See that's everyone's misconception of me…I am not really that huge of an Obama supporter…for me it's lesser of two evils…I don't agree with everything he says and does..I'm not thrilled with how he has handled his first 4…I think he should have focused more on jobs and economy issues rather than the healthcare bill…and while I agree with a lot of your points that the health care act has flaws..at least it's a step forward in the direction we need to go. And it really pisses me off when ignorant people try to paint this mess as his..he inherited this mess….however you want to argue that it was created..and I don't think that if McCain and Sarah Pailhead were elected that it would be any better right now in this country..maybe for rich folk..but not for the rest of us walking on the ground..

Greg..your right about that..I have itemized and deducted when I owned my own business..but being allowed to deduct a portion of the money I spent to earn a living is a far cry from sheltering billions to look poor on paper..worlds apart..but you know..I will gladly give up my deductions for a fair flat tax that everyone..including rich people and billion dollar corporations have to abide by..no loopholes, no deductions..no hiding money…


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

Very well said Brad … right where I'm at right now … I WILL NOT VOTE ROMNEY
..

*Brad said..
I am not really that huge of an Obama supporter…for me it's lesser of two evils…I don't agree with everything he says and does..I'm not thrilled with how he has handled his first 4…I think he should have focused more on jobs and economy issues rather than the healthcare bill…and while I agree with a lot of your points that the health care act has flaws..at least it's a step forward in the direction we need to go. And it really pisses me off when ignorant people try to paint this mess as his..he inherited this mess….however you want to argue that it was created..and I don't think that if McCain and Sarah Pailhead were elected that it would be any better right now in this country..maybe for rich folk..but not for the rest of us walking on the ground..*


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

There were no loopholes allowing Romney to evade is taxes through his Swiss account. Well, other than the fact that the Swiss banking system was secretive and allowed people to dodge taxes even though they signed an agreement with Swiss banks that they wouldn't use the account to evade taxes. Those doing this were evading taxes and breaking the law. No one could prove what was going on because of the secrecy. That's why the Government wanted those records.

I'm not the only one saying Romney's Swiss bank account and his amnesty are problems. Read BOTH of these:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/mittigate_b_1666802.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/prediction-romney-will-no_b_1684234.html

Obama's work on health care was necessary. One of the major factors in future deficits is the sky-rocketing cost of health care. Control of the deficit requires fixing the health care system. A 2005 Harvard study showed that half of personal bankruptcies were related to medical costs and problems. Escalating medical costs are an ever growing problem in our economy. Fixing the economy requires fixing our failed medical system.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

What I would like to know is how you hide money in a foreign bank account that is made in the USA.

If the money was made in the USA be it from wages, stocks, bonds, gambling it is reported to the IRS. Is this secret money supposed to be made elsewhere? Does this elsewhere not tax money made? Just curious to the theories other than "he's rich therefore he must be a tax cheat".

I am not rich by any means but own stock in a Swiss company for which I pay some Swiss taxes each year from the dividends (its less than $100 a year). These foreign taxes paid are deductable from my US taxes


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Brad - I have to say this - In all my my dealings with accountants (when I had my own business), I found that most of them, when they did my taxes, purposefully did not take advantage of many tax credits and deductions that I was allowed and should have taken. There were a couple of deductions that they thought I should take, like depreciating my house, which I did not agree (but that was a "me" thing). The stock answer was that those deductions would lead to an audit and they didn't want to spend the time. I fired the accountants that said or did this. I ended up doing my own financials.

When you run your own business, every penny makes a tremendous difference. Every penny is "your" money at risk. Every employee gets paid before you do - it is the law. If you don't make sales, deliver the product you sell, on time and in the condition that a new product must be, you do not eat, your mortgage is not paid, your suppliers do not deliver, you cannot get people to work for you. As the owner of the business the risk is 100% yours. If the tax man knocks on your door, as the owner or principal of the company, it is you that is going to court and or jail - even if an employee is the problem (they represent you and your company by law).

Every tax break, every dollar saved is another dollar that can be used to grow. If you are one of the .05% of the businesses that actually make the billion dollar in revenue, it is my oppinion that as the principal or owner, you deserve every dime that you get paid. It is well deserved and every person that you hired and employ should be grateful that they have a job because this is not an easy task by any means. I know how hard it is to grow a company past the one million mark because I have done this without venture capital, it is a 20 hour a day job.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

For those of you that have been or are managers, being the owner or principal is a whole lot different. As a manger you are using other people's money, the company money. The CEO and owners of businesses are totally and wholly responsible for the stupidity of their employees. I had a freind that owned a successful computer company and after 5 years of working 7 days a week, 16 hours a day, he took a one week vacation. The person he left in charge, I guess he was trying to help, paid all of the bills the first day. When payroll time came around, there was no cash. When my freind came back from his trip, the doors were closed, and 5 of the employees had hired lawyers for lost wages.

Oh yes, my friends, if own a company, as the owner, you really do earn every bit of the pay you get because if the tills come up short, you have to pay. If the owner gets rich - it gives hope to all the people that lost everything and if you lose your company, there is no unemployment from the government - it's in the laws.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

Recent comments from Robert Reich on the subject of Romney and taxes.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

*wealth at the very top since the Gilded Age of the 19th century, with the richest 400 Americans owning as much as the bottom 150 million put together.*
.
Man, that's tough to wrap your head around.


----------



## lwllms (Jun 1, 2009)

Pat says, "What I would like to know is how you hide money in a foreign bank account that is made in the USA."

Ahh, the advantages of multinational corporations and offshoring. Unfortunately for taxpayers World-wide income reporting between countries isn't even close to being comprehensive. It's also the reason there's $20 trillion stashed in secret offshore tax havens. Governments around the World have lost a huge part of their tax base and their response is this Austrian school austerity and raising taxes on the poor and middle class. The greed on the part of the super rich is astonishing to me.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Great article Greg..
I read a stat recently that currently in this country everything we eat, purchase, touch, ride on, in, every service we purchase..EVERYTHING that touches us in our daily lives can be watered down to 25 corporations…that control all we come in contact with..that's scary..


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Listening to the left complain about Romney being 'RICH' is about as correct as the argument from the Left about Republicans being anti intellectual.
Romney is indeed Rich - - -he would *not* be the richest.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/would-mitt-romney-be-the-richest-president-ever/2012/01/25/gIQADv8fQQ_blog.html?wpisrc=nl_pmpolitics

George Washington (2012 dollars) was worth 500Million.
Thomas Jefferson was worth 212 Million (like EVERYBODY lived in a home like Monitcello right???)
JFK was to inherit from his father nearly 1 Billion- (but was shot before that happened)

As for major-party *nominees*, Romney also comes in behind 2004 Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), whose net worth in his 2004 personal financial disclosure report was estimated at between $237 million and $312 million. (And Kerry's wife, Theresa Heinz Kerry, is worth much more than that - as much as $1 billion.)

So unless Romney is at the very top of his estimated range and Kerry was at the very bottom of his, Kerry was wealthier at the time that he ran for president. And if you include Kerry's wife, it's not even close.

So are we really arguing about the Republicans being part of the "gilded age" - The democrats are not somehow just regular folks driving their Ford Focus, back and forth from the burbs that you or I live in. 
Who knows more about getting the economy back on track - the rich guy or the southside Chicago community organizer? We have a 4 year test of how Obama runs things….and it doesn't look like he really turned anything around with his policies..


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

For all I have said, I take real issue to those CEOs that screw the company over and stiff everyone and not be accountable. Chainsaw Al that was the CEO of Sunbeam - he screwed the company and the stockholder and then, after he was fired - he sued the company for 5 million in lost wages - and won.


----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)

Dirt please do me a favor and don't compare Romney to George Washington..in any sense..they shouldn't even be in the same sentence together..


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Interesting that Kennedy, Kerry and Romney - - all in a "dead heat" as richest people to seek or hold the whitehouse , and all from Mass.

Brad - I too hold Washington above all other presidents, because he took on the job as a calling. I don't know the original source, but someone wise pondered that the person you really want in the whitehouse, would have to be dragged there kicking and screaming…..that was George Washington.

I do laugh that we seem to have a discussion that Romney is TOO RICH to be president…


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

What does a rich guy know about the economy anyway


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

DrDirt -
I think that if you go down the list,you'll find that we've had few (if any) presidents that didn't have money. Presidential politics is and always has been a money game. Even Lincoln was a long way from that log cabin when he got elected. IIRC his wife came from a well to do family.

Don't forget the Roosevelts. Not from Mass, but were educated there.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Interesting that the list had 9 richest and 9 poorest - - - #2 on the poorest list was Lincoln!
Richest Countdown
Rank President Net Worth 
1 George Washington $525 million 
2 Thomas Jefferson $212 million 
3 Theodore Roosevelt $125 million 
4 Andrew Jackson $119 million 
5 James Madison $101 million 
6 Lyndon Johnson $98 million 
7 Herbert Hoover $75 million 
8 Franklin Roosevelt $60 million 
9 Bill Clinton $38 million 
10 John Kennedy $1 billion (whole family)

Poorest

1 Buchanon
2 Lincoln
3 Andrew Johnson
4 US Grant
5 Garfield
6 Chester Arthur
7 Woodrow Wilson
8 Calvin Coolidge
9 Harry Truman

sorry no #10 given


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Jefferson died a pauper - most of his estate was sold off to pay his bills - per Monticello. Took many many years to find a good potion of the Monticello furnishings, much of it was lost.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

dbray-
I've had similar discussions with my tax preparers and/or accountants. In my dealings, we weighed the amount that my taxes would go down against the probability of getting audited. In many cases, it would have been ok to take the deduction but not worth the aggravation and expense of being audited.

The complexity of the tax code makes it impossible to do everything in a clear, go/no go, manner. Sometimes giving up a few dollars now saves a lot of dollars later. Even if you win, you pay for the privilege.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Sk - For some reason, not sure why, the more you make - the more people want to take it away from you.

The funny thing, every now and then, I forget to take a deduction that I should take. Low and behold, I was audited by the IRS (they told me so) and they fixed my mistake and increased my refund check accordingly (this has happened to me 3-4 times). So, based upon that, the federal government is really fair about this and won't take "extra" back - just don't try to rip them off, they get really testy.

I don't see why anybody would want to see someone elses return - if the fed is good with it, all is good. If someone wants the name of the accountant, I'm sure Romney can disclose this. Now if its a gossip thing, I wouldn't know - can't tell you.


----------



## Sawkerf (Dec 31, 2009)

We just got an IRS check for a bit over $300 in addition to our earlier refund. Apparently we qualified for an Earned Income Credit (?) that we hadn't taken. We got a questionnaire, I filled it out and sent it back and a check showed up earlier this month.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Have to agree that the IRS is about the least partisan/corrupt part of the government. (remembering they don't write the code changes or establish the loopholes - - - just enforcement)

Now a challenge with a 70,000 page code is that nobody knows exactly what is in it - - so you get multiple answers to the same question when you call. As a result it is relatively easy to make a mistake.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

*"wealth at the very top since the Gilded Age of the 19th century, with the richest 400 Americans owning as much as the bottom 150 million put together.
.
Man, that's tough to wrap your head around."*

Think thats a tough thing to imagine, at one point John D Rockefeller was worth 1% of the entire GDP. Nobody has ever been that rich since, and from what I've read it is highly unlikely ever will be.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)




----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^lol, Brad


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## Brad_Nailor (Jul 26, 2007)




----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

Romney's tax returns are audited just like everyone else's

Over the last two years only 36 of the super wealthy have been audited; 24 of 36 were found to have underpaid their taxes by over $47,000,000.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

What do the Occupy movement and IRS have in common? They're both taking an interest in the one percent.

Tax audits for millionaires jumped in fiscal 2011 by roughly a third, with the Internal Revenue Service examining income tax returns for 12.48 percent of people who earn $1 million or more, according to Bloomberg. In other words, about one in every eight millionaires got an audit this year. By comparison, in fiscal 2010 the IRS only audited 8.36 percent of millionaires.

A comparison of the audit rates for millionaires and less wealthy taxpayers suggests the IRS is giving special care to the upper tax brackets. While the IRS audited one in eight millionaires in 2011, the same thing happened to just one in 100 people earning less than $200,000, according to the Associated Press.

By paying closer attention to the finances of the well-off, the IRS is putting itself in good company. Critics ranging from billionaire investor Warren Buffett to protesters in the coast-to-coast Occupy movement have said in recent months that U.S. tax law unfairly favors the rich.

At a time when millions of Americans are struggling to make ends meet-and when the federal government faces revenue shortfalls that could bring about a wave of layoffs next year-the country's high earners have drawn increasing scorn for paying what critics call comparatively low tax rates.

And such complaints have data backing them up. In 2009, more than 1,400 millionaires paid no federal income taxes at all, according to an August Tax Policy Center report cited by the Los Angeles Times. By 2010, that number had risen to about 4,000, and by 2011 it was up to about 7,000. Then there are the tens of thousands of millionaires who pay taxes at a rate lower than many middle-class households.

Whether increased audits will translate into more criminal investigations is not yet known. But in 2010, the IRS ramped up probes by 14 percent, according to Businessweek.

..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/05/irs-audit-millionaires_n_1187204.html?ref=occupy-wall-street


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

*Critics ranging from billionaire investor Warren Buffett to protesters in the coast-to-coast Occupy movement have said in recent months that U.S. tax law unfairly favors the rich.*

*Warren Buffet owes the IRS many millions in unpaid taxes - why doesn't he pay what he owes?*

When Bill Gates first became a millionaire, he did not have any tax breaks, and it seriously cost him - he paid the IRS something like $500,000 that year. Since then, he pays much less because he takes legal tax breaks. Now, do you think that if he didn't have those tax breaks, Microsoft would be the size it is and employ the thousands of people it does? Why - if there is no incentive to become wealthy - should anybody do this? Wealth has percs, and so it should. If you don't like it - get creative and work your backside off (legally), get some wealth and after you get a couple of decent raises and get a cut in take home pay, because you are in a higher tax bracket, see how you like it. Seriously, get yourself wealthy - see how you like everyone trying to tell you that all the time you worked and sweated, and took risks that others never would take (many of these folks loose everything several times before getting wealthy) you are "not being fair" because you are not paying enough.

Bill Gates - with his wealth, has created a number of serious scholarships as tax breaks. Should he shut these down so he can pay more taxes? Trust me, before he takes a reduction in pay, things like these go away first because - yes - he is wealthy and - yes - he has earned it - and - yes - he is going to stay that way.

It all comes down to one thing - unlike the government, people and companies cannot spend more than they have. You can only spend it once. If you give it all to the govt, you are not investing it in the company or other things. In 1986, George Bush signed into law (because Congress could overrule his veto) a tax change that disallowed companies in a good year to move some of its net income (and take this off their taxes) to a reserve account to buffer those "bad" years, to create other companies, or reseach. This was a "significant loophole" per congress that made it more than extremely difficult for all companies to buffer good years to create growth or keep going in poor years.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Right on, David. I was born a physician with a good salary. Never had to work for any of it and I don't pay hardly any taxes. I'm so ashamed of myself. Off to Occupy! See you later!


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Al - My sincerest opologies. I didn't bring the world of doctors into this. At one time, doctors made a decent income. With what insurance companies have done to the general practitioner (hope I spelled that right), they have reduced the regular MD to a nurse at best. A good doctor holds your health and life in their hands, as do dentists, and other practices. It is almost finacial suicde to hang a shingle out there any more unless you have 10 doctors and with what insurance pays, my Dr. has two jobs. His main practice - the insurance payments take care of 80-90%, his second job pays the rest and the balance is his income.

Talk about stress levels - and for what he makes - I don't know why he does it. Its not for the money.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Did I mention that every time a doctor sees a patient - its a potential lawsuit in the making. And you wonder why so many really good doctors leave their practice to do other things.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

I've agreed with every word you've posted in this thread, David. I think there's been a gradual "taking advantage" of physician altruism. Also, most doctors don't want to be businessmen and they've been railroaded as a result. Local organizations have lost their umphh and the AMA (lol) is calling the major shots. I haven't heard anyone clamour for tort reform in a while. It all feels really defeatist. 
.
But I'm still really easy to hate, for some odd reason.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Every doctor I have spoken with is adamant that the health care bill is really going to screw things up - far more than anybody realizes. One of the things that this does is not compensate for quality care. Most of the patient facing practitioners will NOT be doctors but glorified nurses (which do not, in spite of what some say, have diagnostic training) and in many cases - less than that. The reason is simple - the bill (insurance companies, being managed by the fed), do not plan to pay the doctors what they need to be paid, insurance companies have already done much of this price manipulation by what they pay to take their insurance holders. When you account for the $100,000+ in tuitions to become a doctor and the costs of maintaining and keeping up with the changes in the profession, the malpractice insurance (which can be upwards of $50-60,000 a year depending upon where you live, maybe more), a $50 or 60,000 salary doesn't cut it (nice raise for a nurse though). Many doctors, and I have spoken to more than a few, plan to leave their practice and do other things if this is not repealed.

I have nothing against nurses, I have a niece-inlaw that is becoming a nurse and she (after graduation) can't tell you the difference between a cold, flu, reaction, or asthma. I sure as hell would not want her managing my care. Under Obama Care, her future is extremely bright - and this REALLY scares me!

As it is, the insurance companies are pushing long term meds that treat symptoms, not the real problem because life long medications with side effects require more drugs to treat the side effects and so on - increasing the profitablility considerably. As a bonus, the practice keeps longevity shorter to help keep Social Security and Obama Care costs down - this is the government's position. This sounds like consperacy theory but start asking and start listening. I know more people than I want to that insurance companies have turned down the treatment and diagnostics to identify and treat a problem but gladly pay for the drugs to mask the symptoms. A lot like painting over the dry rot - great for show but aint gonna hold up over time. This has nothing to do with health care, this is business.

I have been offered high blood pressure, cholesterol, and other meds that I did not need. I was told that my cholesterol was too high - over this number. I was given a cholesterol medication, took it for 3 days and I really didn't feel good. I called my doctor and he asked me what wasn't right - and offered me meds to compensate for the ill feelings. I declined and stopped taking all of them including the cholesterol drug. Three months later, the drug the Dr. put me on was pulled off the market for killing people (he had 2 years of notices that this drug was a bad drug). When I got my cholestrol well under the number specified earlier, by changing my diet, the NEW number that I was given was 30 points lower than what I was. I don't play those games.

Then again what do I know? After all, wasn't it Pelosi that said, "Just pass the bill, we can read it later!" You wonder how much this was thought out.

Sorry this is so long but the more people know about this the better. The doctor that I have is good but them again, I don't pay him, my insurance company pays him.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

David, it all started going downhill when the doctor became a "healthcare delivery tool" and the patient became a "consumer". You market, of course, to consumers with directed advertising. Don't ask your doctor about it, ask your "healthcare provider" if you should take medicine x for your ulcerative colitis. And by the way, you have irritable bowel syndrome, we all do, lol. Ask an OB/GYN why he's now a GYN. Ask a mother who couldn't find an OB how hee midwife worked out. I feel the worst for the anesthesiologists. My friend makes ALOT of money; I'd tell you to ask him about it but I can't quite ever find him. He's either working, responding to a page for work, or in court defending his license against a nurse anesthetist's mistake. Like you, I've got nothing against nurses. I might even let one suture up a wound that a sawstop would have prevented, lol; but that's about it.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

The fees that Obama Care imposes is not for the poor, but also designed for the rich. There are many wealthy people that do not have health care because they realise that if they pay their doctor, they get really good care. The fees that the poor and unemployed will be charged - yes they will, were deemed insignificant, 2% of annual income of $20,000 is only $400 a year but on $1 million gross is $20,000 a year - this was their thought process when creating this llaw.

Oh, BTW - Congress, Senate. and pesidents are exempt for Obama Care, they get their own health care and do not pay a dime - for life!!!


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

I know this person that if looking at them, you would think they have Parkinson's disease they shake so much. It started with cholesterol meds, now they take over 10 different drugs to compensate for the first one - and probably has a dependancy on laxatives to boot because the meds scew them up so bad.


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

Al, your stance on nurses is about the only thing I have ever really felt the need to disagree with you on. Maybe the nurses in WV are just undereducated but here in NY they tend to be highly trained and skilled. At times it was the docs that scared me more. Due to their greater one on one with patients the nurses had a greater understandingof changes the paatient was going through and how to deal with their more immediate needs. Where as the desire of the docs to drag out care for a patient at all costs was a real eye opener for me. I had to get involved in a case where the patient was dying and the doc wanted to hook her up to machines to save her while the nurse wouldn't let him overstep the patients healthcare proxy which specifically stated no machines. Nurses in hospitals do a lot more then their position tells them they are supposed to while being underpayed and under appreciated.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^I don't think you're necessarily disagreeing with me, Reverend. Perhaps my language was a bit poorly chosen. Here in WV, the status quo is the LPN. The bar is held pretty low. However, at many hospitals where I've trained, the standard was the RN, CRNA, and CNP. I've met many that were stellar. I've met many physicians that aren't. 
.
I think David raises the fundamental difference that makes a comparison moot. Nurses are not trained to be diagnosticians. There are no pathology nurses. Nurses serve a valuable role but the danger lies in expanding that role. Nurses with doctoral degrees demanding to be referred to as "doctor" whilst wearing a white coat is entirely misleading to a patient. Expansion of prescription writing authority is a very bad idea.
.
I know these opinions might be unpopular, but I'm quite satisfied with them. I have a great deal of respect for your opinion, too, Russ.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Don't get me wrong either, I have known some nurses that have had many years on the firing line - so to speak - and the doctors take what they say extremely seriously as knowledgeable experts. BUT, with the way some of these schools are cranking out "nurses" with little more than a glorified associates degree, the dumbing down of the institution is going to be significant in the very near future.

There is almost no vetting like there is in medical school - they are positions to be filled and the vetting is done in the hospitals (on the patients).


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^David, I fear that the vetting is slowly decreasing in allopathic medical programs. What I'm noticing most is the decline of general professionalism and respect that likely just parallels that of the younger generation. If I was slouching, shirt wasn't ironed, playing with my phone, etc. I'd have been smacked (at a minimum). Now, it's more like "whatever, dude". I'm worried that this is ultimately going to cost all of us a great deal.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

Al - now that we have totally hyjacked this thread to what really matters ;-)

I don't want to go down that road- Hear no-- See no-Speak no … In your position, you see what is going on and can speak to it because you have been there, I can't, I haven't, and it is something that really scares me - just from what I have observed.

Sorry about the hyjack-have a great day and a better weekend!


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)




----------



## wormil (Nov 19, 2011)

nm


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

But a good direction to take it, more useful then the original. David, funny you mention dumbing it down, here in NY they're looking to require a bachelor's degree for nursing and most of the hospitals are trying to move away from LPNs which is why my sister had to go back to school for her RN. Although I think it will become necessary as everything becomes more technical I can't see how with the current shortage they will manage to do that and still have enough nurses. Especially considering the extra cost vs. current pay. 
Speaking of scary nurses Al, there are some poor schmucks that every day get stuck with my sister as a nurse, now that is frightening.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

lol, Russ. I'd put her up against mine.


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

It is not something we are going to fix but when you go and get a simple blood test and the like and they stick you four or five times in different viens - makes you look like an additct in 3 minutes or less, makes you shake your head in disbelief.


----------



## derosa (Aug 21, 2010)

And do you know they really hate it if after the 4th time you tell them "if you don't get it this time I'll give it a try myself, after all I can't do any worse then you have". In reality she was only a nurse in title, her job was to make sure all the incoming staff had their shots and to draw one blood example in reality she was really one of the admissions staff.

That almost got me a look as nasty as the one I received from a doc, he had given me staples in the head and had done such a terrible job with the Novocaine needle that I told him not to give me the last shot and just the staples and swore at him when he did the last shot anyways and it felt like he was drilling it into my head. What really got the look though was when I came back to get them removed and not only was it the same doc but he had a brand new intern who was fresh on the floor that day. He introduced her and asked if the intern could watch and be involved in the removal so she could get some experience. I told him "if you remove staples as gently as you put them in I'd rather she did the work then you so let her give it a go". After demonstrating on the first she did a much more gentle job then he did on all the rest and I told her so. He really gave me a nasty look and probably cursed me with good health so he never had to see me again.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Here the hospitals use more LPN, and just have one RN on a shift to "sign the paperwork" and meet minimums for JCAHO accreditation.

Fact is they have to pay Bachelors Degre RN''s more than LPN's. Here RN's make ~22-26/hour and LPN's make 10-12


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

^Dirt, that's how it is here, too. The "shift supervisors" are hit and miss. Some are incredibly responsive; others couldn't really be bothered. 
.
Russ, I can totally relate to your experience. I trained in a Charity Hospital and I brutalized a few people with the stapler before I got a handle on it, lol. And I'm a hand tool kind of guy! Having had surgery 7 weeks ago, I was expecting my wounds to look terrible once undressed. Busy orthopedist, emergent trauma, etc. I was shocked to see ruler-straight incisions and perfectly evenly spaced staples. I commented to the PA and she said, "Oh yeah, he's pretty OCD". OCD is something I'm totally willing to accept in my surgeon, lol.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/01/the-romney-tax-plan-in-one-chart/

The blue bars indicate how the plan would affect after-tax income if the rate cuts are paid for with tax break cuts, and the red bars show its effects without making up the lost revenue. The top 0.1 percent see incomes that are 8.6 percent higher without paying for the rate cuts, and 4.4 percent higher if they're fully financed. Meanwhile, the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers see incomes fall by 1.1 percent if the rate cuts are paid for by cutting tax breaks.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Reid, who's not known for this kind of openly aggressive behavior
.
Got to agree with you there, Munk. Well, maybe he paid a WHOLE lot of taxes during the other two years, lol.


----------



## GregD (Oct 24, 2009)

I am a lot more concerned about the tax policies that Romney will push (or not) then what taxes he might or might not have paid. I disagree with tax preferences for capital gains and investment income; that should be taxed the same as ordinary income. I don't see Obama pushing for this, though.

In the end we in the US deserve the government we get. "The electorate" can't handle the truth. Any time a candidate proposes a realistic solution to a difficult problem it pretty much sinks their campaign because so many focus on the down sides of the proposal and so few compare the proposal thoughtfully to any other realistic alternatives with those down sides. As a result, campaigns typically offer only distractions, distortions, lies, and vacuous sound bites. As bad as this is, the noise coming out of the electorate during campaign season is far worse - "Swift Boating" anyone?


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

Geez, GregD for the win. I wish I had authored his post. Not necessarily for the capital gains as income thing (which makes quite a bit of sense; sorry other rich Republicans), but more-so the notion that we can't handle the truth. We pick a side and concentrate on the "noise", depending upon which camp it comes from. I told someone 15 years ago at the ripe age of 25 that the United States can't afford the healthcare they want. Now insert xxxx for healthcare. Although I don't agree with the proposed healthcare legislation (for a lot of reasons, several selfish), I agree that I'll never agree


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

And Munk, that little chick with the escargot on her face and Vera Wang tunic is definitely a gamer! Romney shops at Joseph A. Banks, Fox News told me. This stuff cracks me up


----------



## dbray45 (Oct 19, 2010)

GredD - You touch the surface of sooo many tangeints and you are sooo correct. If any of the proposals from the right could, or even on paper - possibly do anything to anybody, the demonizing that follows is incredible.

The other reality is that politicians do not want to fix the problems, even if they could. All of the major problems have pros and cons and there are always some that will benefit where others will loose - but - if they don't do anything, there is always something to run their next campain on - because people forget that they ran on the same thing 2, 4, or 6 years prior, while we suffer with the mudslinging.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

+ 1zillion to Greg


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

Something we need to look at is there is slowing in shipping jobs to China - and more where China (since they are flush with cash) are buying up businesses and industries world wide.
Here in Kansas, they are buying Hawker Beechcraft. While we argue about businesses staying here, we as a country are being sold off.

Just got this from my Chemical newsletter today:
http://www.chem.info/News/2012/08/International-News-Chinese-Not-Welcome-in-Shoe-Capital/?et_cid=2778016&et_rid=43999101&linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.chem.info%2fNews%2f2012%2f08%2fInternational-News-Chinese-Not-Welcome-in-Shoe-Capital%2f

WHere throughout africa - Chinese come in and look at the crafts (in this article shoes and textiles) at the trade shows, take photos, then start duplicating the shoes in a chinese factory and shipping containerloads to Senegal driving the local artisans out of business. 
To get the government to look the other way, the Chinese pave roads, and build dams in Senegal and Gabon… mainly as infrastructure to rob the country of their minerals. (I would have to expect that the new paved road is from the mines to the port.)

Rather they come in- take pictures, then dump their products at 20% of what a person in senegal working at a roadside tent can make them for.

To me there is more reason to fear China itself, than short sighted CEO's here moving around production. The USA has a big For Sale sign on it, and only China has the cash to buy. These are issues that the government should look at, but wont because we NEED?? China to keep buying several hundred billion in US Bonds every year - so we smile and bend over. That is far worse than any BAIN dealing


----------



## DS (Oct 10, 2011)

Our tax code has gone from being a revenue system for funding government, to being a system for congress to influence social agendas. (We reward behaviours we want and penalize behaviours we don't want.)

The tax code offers incentives if you buy a home, (via the mortgage interest deduction), because congress wants to encourage home ownership. It also encourages investment into companies and, assumably, new job creation. This is behaviour that congress deemed important to our society, so we made an incentive (15% capital gains tax instead of ordinary income rates) to encourage people like Romney to take risks and invest thier money instead of hoarding thier wealth.

All of the sudden, the media would have us believe that it is evil to follow the guidance of congress and our social agenda based tax laws?

Fact is, Romney has no legal requirement to disclose his taxes, just the same as you and I. (That would change when, or if, he were ever elected to office.)

If he actually paid no taxes for the last 10 to 12 years, it just means he's been doing the things that congress chose to reward as socially responsible (e.g. donations to charities, business investing, etc, etc.), or he had no realized income, or perhaps even took a loss for some of those years. (That goes back to the investment risk that we reward with our tax laws.)

If you don't agree with this idea of social agendas via the tax code, you should make a point to go about getting the current laws changed. But, it is insincere to criticize someone else for obeying the current laws because they are paying only the amount of tax the law states they owe. 
Do you voluntarily make extra donations to the IRS out of some sense of obligation to society?

I didn't think so.

If anything, congress has proved that, to fund government, it need only print more paper money. (Massive budget deficits and TARP bailouts come to mind.) Taxes, as a means of funding government almost doesn't even apply anymore.

I should also note, that the ONLY constitutionally mandated role of the federal government is to provide for the common defense - but, of course, you knew that already.


----------



## DS (Oct 10, 2011)

I know for a fact that MY boss, who started the company I work for, created MY job by investing in this company and that he is only required to pay taxes on his realized capital gains from his investment at the incentivized rate of 15%.

I'm pretty sure congress will afford YOU the same consideration, if you are willing to take the risks involved.


----------



## DS (Oct 10, 2011)

I am with you when it comes to undue persuasion of a few on the policy makers, but, that's been going on since the beginning of this country and I don't see it changing anytime soon.

Point is, we couldn't change Romney's tax rates without it affecting a lot more people who are a lot less wealthy at the same time. Regardless of how he is taxed, the invested money was put to work to make more money. That usually means jobs, goods and services pumped into our economy. (Be it a our local economy, or, our global one, as may be.)


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

*Do you voluntarily make extra donations to the IRS out of some sense of obligation to society?*
.
I'll be the first to say I don't. I pay CPAs tons of money to pay the absolute least amount I possibly can legally. And I'll say it straight to the face of anyone on the planet. Like you say, want me to pay more? Change the law. 
.
Trim the fat and we'll talk. The money I donate directly to organizations that I believe in? They tend to be a bit more efficient. I mail those checks from the U.S. Post Office, lol.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DS (Oct 10, 2011)

There is not so much mystery around foreign bank accounts as the media would have you believe.
The media is playing people that tend to scorn what they don't understand.

Romney himself stated the foreign accounts were for the convenience of foreign investors.
Even if Romney wanted to legally ex-patriate his money, he'd have to pay USA taxes first.

Simply because some scheisters have defrauded the government by illegally hiding money in foreign accounts does not mean every foreign account holder is defrauding the US government. 
Romney stated that he paid all the taxes he is legally responsible for and the IRS apparently believes him.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who can meet the deposit requirements, yes, even you, can open a foreign bank account. But, like anyone, it would have to be to your advantage to do so. In this case, not to be a scheister, but to encourage foreign investment into his enterprises.


----------



## DS (Oct 10, 2011)

The reason it is convenient, is that banks charge to convert currency from one country to another. This can be as high as 4% each way.

I don't know about you, but my investments would take a substantial hit if they had to overcome an 8% shave round trip.


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

No chance Romney will be President. No chance.
..


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

I heard Romney hasn't worn any underwear for 10 years. 
Think it was Harry Reed that said that….Something like that anyway>grinz<


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

*Really, would you vote for someone who wears "magic underwear"?*
.
Who has magic underwear? I need a pair for reasons I won't get into here


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

magic Underwear…. do I have to trade an old cow for them in order to grow the Magic Beanstalk?


----------



## toeachhisown (Eddie) (Mar 30, 2011)

*Bertha* now that was funny lol


----------



## bunkie (Oct 13, 2009)

My personal feeling is that Romney should do what he wants. No one has to release their tax returns to the general public.

Having said that, his unwillingness to do so only fuels speculation about his sources of income and his effective tax rate. My guess (and this is just a guess) is that he really doesn't want us to know how little of his income went to taxes. He's stuck between a rock and a hard place.

But then again, that's Romney in a nutshell. He lacks the real conviction to proudly boast about how much he made and how little he paid in taxes. He wants it both ways. Why anyone thinks that they can trust him is beyond me.


----------



## DrDirt (Feb 26, 2008)

But Chipmunk…I *suspect* when you are cutting checks for several million dollars to the LDS church…. they aren't getting too strict about saying "HEY A-hole, that was only 8.5% of your gross"

The Christian Churches in general demand 10%.... I don't see where Obama gave his 10% of all the book sales/deals to reverend Wright back in Chitown..ever!

LDS and IRS aren't the same thing


----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)




----------



## DanYo (Jun 30, 2007)

Speculation About Romney's Taxes

As Democrats continue to press Mitt Romney to release more of his tax records, the Republican candidate has become more assertive in his rejection of such calls, leading many to speculate about what the filings contain. Here are some of the details experts suggest he may not want the public to see:

List of residences includes Caribbean property named "Skull Island"
Used Obama's $6,500 homebuyer credit for six different houses in 2010
From 2002 to 2006, official occupation was listed as "masseuse"
Wrote off $10,000 in aftershave during 2004
Really ********************ty handwriting for someone who expects to be elected president
Years of filings in state of Delaware prove definitively that the candidate himself is a corporation
In 2009, thanks to clever accounting, the IRS actually paid Romney $25 million in taxes
Just doesn't want people to see so many pages of official documents that list his first name as Willard


----------



## Miket (Jan 27, 2008)

Joe Lyddon - Good list of what obama is hiding.

The big question is why?


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

*As far I'm concerned the less money anyone gives any church the better.*
.
Man, I love you, Munk. Not afraid to really put it out there! 
.
OK, I'm not a religious man. I was a scientist, after all, before I became a rich Satanic Republican. However, I donate to the Church; and not the Church of Satan, although if I met the right chick…. I even donate to a gay church organization, lol (as a Republican). 
.
I look at it like this: who do you want as a neighbor? Do you want a gay neighbor that believes in a higher power, pays taxes, is altruistic, loves animals, donates his time for the less fortunate, keeps his property spectacular (he's gay, remember), marries a dude (like I care) and cries at Disney movies; or do you want me (a straight but awful, lacking empathy, unrefined, but incredibly attractive, svelt, muscular, (vain) etc. piece of $hit). 
.
I'm a practical man. I support the environment that I prefer, gay, black, whatever. I'll still vote based primarliy upon taxes. If I see a gross contradiction with my values, I'll boycott. Like I said, I'm a practical man.
.
All this drama is preventing us from having a good friggin time. I'm going to watch gymnastics on my big fat Republian flat screen.


----------



## Bertha (Jan 10, 2011)

8 days and nothing of any substance. Unwatched.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

Chipmunk you are skewing the facts again by listing the contribution max of a traditional IRA of $6000 and you know damn well Romney had a SEP IRA that has contribution limits that are much higher. Your use of half truths are ment to decieve and shape opinion, therefore you are lying.


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

From the irs website

*How much may be contributed to a SEP?

Annual contributions an employer makes to an employee's SEP-IRA cannot exceed the lesser of:

25% of compensation, or

$49,000 for 2011 and $50,000 for 2012 (subject to annual cost-of-living adjustments for later years).
The limits in the preceding sentence apply in the aggregate to contributions an employer makes for its employees to all defined contribution plans, which includes SEPs. Only up to $245,000 in 2011 and $250,000 for 2012 (subject to annual cost-of-living adjustments for later years) of an employee's compensation may be considered. Contributions must be made in cash. Property cannot be contributed.*

Now tell me was the part about the contribution limit for a standard IRA irrelevant or purposely put in there to mislead?


----------



## patcollins (Jul 22, 2010)

If the arguement was so strong why did a false/and or irrelevant fact have to be put into it?


----------



## roman (Sep 28, 2007)

I thought this kind of crap was now banned.

This is senseless burble.


----------

