View Full Version : Mitt's taxes
I know we mentioned this in another thread but i thought this is important enough to have it's own thread. I have copied my comments from that thread to post here.
There are several reasons why he should release his taxes for at least 5 or 6 years.
1) it is traditional. All candidates, including his own father, released many years of returns. I think Bob Dole released 30 years and his dad released 12. I do think he really believes he deserves the Presidency and doesn't need to put forth any effort to get it!
2) It's called transparency. You know, that thing tea partiers keep banging on about. In fact, I'll just bet I can find a video of Romney himself taking about transparency in government. Oh, here's one where Romney himself has called for tax transparency, for his opponent!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/16/romney-called-for-tax-transparency-in-past-campaigns/
3) Romney doesn't exactly have the best tract record of honesty when it comes to his tax returns. When he ran in 2002 for Governor, the democrats said he wasn't qualified to run in Mass because he didn't meet the residency requirements. He kept insisting he had filed in both Utah and Mass..until he had to admit he had to 'retroactively' file to make that true. RETROACTIVELY!
Some keep accusing the Presidents mother of somehow registering his birth in Hawaii from Kenya because she thought he might run for President in 50 years, but this they give a pass! Really? Clearly he is hiding something. I'm wondering if Reid is right. Maybe he didn't pay any taxes for 10 years. he's lied about his taxes before...
4) and this is probably the most important and compelling reason. One of the central themes of his platform is that the wealthy need tax breaks. That the 1% are under such onerous tax burdens we should give them even more breaks. Ok, show us. If the wealthy, and Romney is solidly in there, are under such a strain and burden, then show us your returns. Show us what a burden taxes are to you. Show us how appalling your tax burden is. Show us why you would, on the first day, give yourself and your wealthy friends a huge gift of tax cuts. Justify this position of onerous taxes on the wealthy. Justify why you would give yourself a huge tax break!
I guess I just am not obessed with his taxes. It is pretty well known Mr. Romney is a very wealthy man and probably employs a small army of CPAs to make sure he files his taxes legally and pays as little tax as he can -- isn't that the American way? Some how it is okay for you and I do to that, but not for him?
It seems like I read where the tax report he did release was like 500 pages - sheesh - now times that by a dozen years or so. By night fall the news media will have picked them apart looking for any titillating headline they could find. Then spend 90 seconds with their interpretation during the evening news.
Perhaps he gave thousands to the BOY SCOUTS - MORMON CHURCH - MS - ETC. hang the man - how dare he give his money away in such a foolish manner. After all he gave this father's entire estate to charity. Just how much did VP Biden give to charity, Pres. Obama? Pennies compared to Mitt.
It is all a huge distraction from the failed policies of the Obama administration. Unfortunately it is working as here we are wasting time discussing it.
It is all a huge distraction from the failed policies of the Obama administration. Unfortunately it is working as here we are wasting time discussing it.
All part of the plan, Gregg :-)
ApatheticNoMore
8-9-12, 12:37am
I guess I just am not obessed with this taxes. It is pretty well known Mr. Romney is a very wealthy man and probably employs a small army of CPAs to make sure he files his taxes legally and pays as little tax as he can -- isn't that the American way? Some how it is okay for you and I do to that, but not for him?
the average person likely does not know enough to avoid getting totally ripped off via taxes. So no, I can almost never imagine some generic "you" doing it.
Just how much did VP Biden give to charity, Pres. Obama? Pennies compared to Mitt.
They don't have comparitive wealth. Oh they are wealthy, just not near that wealthy.
It is all a huge distraction from the failed policies of the Obama administration. Unfortunately it is working as here we are wasting time discussing it.
My real take on this is, I only care so much. But that the powerful should not be under a microscope when all of us are under a microscope is not a position I have any respect for. I mean ok our taxes may not be under a microscope (just subject to an IRS audit at any time), but they aren't building giant data centers for the NSA because the respect for the average person's privacy, that's for sure! So let anyone who wants to yield that power be under the microscope say I! They want to comandeer a government that gets to see our nudie pics (backscatter scans at airports and possibly elsewhere) and feel our private parts (TSA), they want to be surpreme leader of a government that spies on all our emails and phone calls, they want to probably soon be sending spy drones over us watching our every move? The very least we can ask if they be subject to the same scrutiny. But oh how they blanch and blush at the thought: that's private ... Yea well that's disgusting. When your laws and moral rules exist purely for those with less power, that's completely backward.
"They don't have comparitive wealth. Oh they are wealthy, just not near that wealthy" ApatheticNoMore
I've got to learn how to do this whole quote thing....
I think giving is a mind set and it doesn't matter how much money you have -- I think it speaks volumns about a person. As a percentage - the Bidens and the Obamas - according to the tax returns, gave very little of their income to charity (or maybe they are just poor record keepers)!
I'm sure someone at the White House dropped a note to Doug Shulman asking for a review of Mitt's taxes. Apparently they didn't find anything unusual and certainly didn't find anything illegal or we would have heard about it by now.
"They don't have comparitive wealth. Oh they are wealthy, just not near that wealthy" ApatheticNoMore
I've got to learn how to do this whole quote thing....
I think giving is a mind set and it doesn't matter how much money you have -- I think it speaks volumns about a person. As a percentage - the Bidens and the Obamas - according to the tax returns, gave very little of their income to charity (or maybe they are just poor record keepers)!
"...According to their tax returns!" Oh the irony!
So YOU are allowed to pick apart the Presidents and vice Presidents tax returns but we can't even see Romney's? How rich is that?!
He isn't the first rich President so that is a bogus argument. He IS the most secretive candidate since Nixon, and THAT turned out well, didn't it.
He lied about his returns before when it benefited him, so what's he hiding?
I find it curious that all these tea baggers who scream constantly about transparency in government, and accountability, and President Obama's birth certificate for heaven's sake, just kind of shuffle off into a mute corner when it comes to Mitt. Oh right, he has an R after his name. Oh well, that makes it all good.
Nothing to see here folks..move along.
He wants to give HIMSELF a huge tax break. He wants to be President so HE can gift HIMSELF with a huge tax break! Then, he complains so bitterly how burdensome his taxes are, how the wealthy are under such tax stress they need a tax break on the backs of the middle class. Cut welfare! Cut SS! Cut medicare! Cut infrastructure! Put 80 year old grandma on a voucher system! But give the super wealthy a tax break....
I say put up or shut up. If his taxes are such a burden, so onerous, let him prove it. He is asking ME, and you, and all of us 'little people' to swallow hard and tighten our belts so HE and his wealthy friends can get a tax break.
I think asking to see proof of his burden is a very reasonable request. besides, it is traditional for candidates to release at least 5 or 6 years of returns.
The man is running for the most important job in the land. The world really. And you are pretty much satisfied when Mitt says "Trust me?" Really? No proof? No vetting? No honesty? Just Trust me?
the GOP has turned into a pathetic shadow of 'say anything, do anything' to win, hold no convictions except where they benefit us then toss them aside when they no longer suit our purpose.
Give me a position, any position, and I can find several video of Mitt, in his own words, contradicting himself. He was against it before he was for it before he was against it....he is an etch-a-sketch!
But, he is hiding something. He is hiding something in his taxes. I'm beginning to wonder if Reid isn't right. You know, no one is asking him to do anything every other candidate hasne't done! Unlike the birthers who even to this day keep saying, 'yeah, we see that birth certificate, but it isn't the REAL one.'
Why are you so willing to give him a pass on something that you know people would be screaming about if it were a democrat? Why are you so willing to elect a man who is so secretive about, well, about everything?
We can't talk about Bain.
We can't talk about his governorship.
We can't talk about his taxes, but are supposed to 'take his word for it' and give him a huge raise!
So, how about his underwear? I suppose we can talk about his magic underwear. I mean, Obama's faith was a pretty hot topic running up to the last election. Still is. We all seemed pretty comfortable dissecting his faith and beliefs (while not believing him when he told us what he believed)
I'm sure someone at the White House dropped a note to Doug Shulman asking for a review of Mitt's taxes. Apparently they didn't find anything unusual and certainly didn't find anything illegal or we would have heard about it by now.
I just love it how people who would do something dishonest justify it by implying that of course EVERYONE would do that.
((Sigh....)) no Gregg, not everyone would break the law for political gain....you have been hanging around republicans too long. I'm just saying...;)
I doubt that there is anything lurking in his taxes that is dishonest or illegal. To me, his reluctance to reveal them is an admission that his real tax rate is lower than his secretary's (and mine) and that he made a lot of money. I think it is as simple as that.
So I guess I can conclude Peggy that you are not voting for Mitt?
So instead tearing Mitt to shreads, stomping him into the ground - why don't you get on the pro Obama band wagon and make some positive arguments to his re-election?
ApatheticNoMore
8-9-12, 11:39am
I doubt that there is anything lurking in his taxes that is dishonest or illegal. To me, his reluctance to reveal them is an admission that his real tax rate is lower than his secretary's (and mine) and that he made a lot of money. I think it is as simple as that.
Yea it's not in his self-interest to be dishonest on his taxes, really there is no rational incentive to do so, it would be irrational (although sometimes pathological people are dishonest when there is no point in being - Nixon kind of comes to mind - that's power corruption and corruption of soul). But anyway I don't assume Mitt was dishonest on his taxes. I just assume his tax *rate* is a lower percentage than mine probably. And that it will reveal how wealthy he is yes. That Mitt is wealthy will surprise exactly noone and wealth alone and in the abstract doesn't rankle. But if something was shown like (I'm making this up for example) Mitt earns more in one hour from passive income than the median wage person will earn in 45 years of giving themselves to a job (plus even investing in their 401k). That's potentially explosive and that's the kind of wealth inequality that likely really exists. Of course often the Dems also serve the plutocrats these days so ...
I haven't reported all my charity deductions for years because I don't want to bother with the record-keeping or potential for audit. I suspect I'm not alone.
So I guess I can conclude Peggy that you are not voting for Mitt?
So instead tearing Mitt to shreads, stomping him into the ground - why don't you get on the pro Obama band wagon and make some positive arguments to his re-election?
nope, not gonna vote for him. :D
I have talked about President Obama's many good qualities and success in pulling us from the very edge of financial disaster many times here. I guess you just weren't paying attention.
But this discussion is about Mitt and his secretive dealings and his insistence on not following the rules of 'getting elected President', which is like a huge clue to his character right there!
But, Mitt Romney is the republican candidate, and certainly fair game/worthy of discussion. Maybe you are satisfied with voting for him simply because 'he deserves it' or 'it's his turn' but I think a man who expects to be given the most important job in the world should be vetted even just a little bit, don't you. I think we should discuss him even a little, don't you?
As ANM says, finding out he is rich won't surprise anyone. It's not that he is rich. I know the right keeps trying to make it some kind of envy thing, but you know, and this might come as a surprise, there are plenty of rich democrats too. And we have had rich democratic Presidents. His being wealthy isn't the question.
However, when this man is running on a platform that has as it's central theme that the wealthy are under some terrible tax burden, therefore we all must tighten our belts so they (he) can get a tax break, you bet your ass I want to see proof of this burden. Why don't you? The center for tax policy has stated that under Romney's tax plan my taxes will go up about $2000 a year. But his will go down. Wow! What a sweet deal! My 81 year old mother, with heart problems and joint problems is supposed to go on a voucher program so Romney can get a tax break, but of course he won't show us why or prove to us that his burden is so great. We have to just TRUST HIM.
OK, anyone see a problem with this? Anyone..anyone? Show of hands..
I'm sorry. The tea bagger movement is a farce and a sham (as I always suspected) if they keep mum on this and all his other secrets. I really was hoping I was wrong and that these people would stand up for whatever it was they said they stood for, but unfortunately no.
The longer this goes on, the more I'm convinced there is something there to hide. Did he do something illegal, or sneaky? I don't know, who knows? I'm not going to add 'I doubt it" cause I really don't know. I don't' find him particularly honest or forthcoming or anything but a political willow blowing this way and that, however he sees the wind, so, no benefit of the doubt. That is reserved for someone who has actually shown themselves to be deserving of it. There is only one way to find out.
But, and this is really my point, he has stated, on his first day in office, he would give himself and his wealthy buddies a huge tax break. I think it only reasonable that someone who is asking ME to tighten MY belt for his gain should come clean on exactly how generous my belt tightening will be for him.
I think he has paid no taxes. or maybe 5% or 10%. Or he has the bulk of his wealth hidden in overseas accounts, or he lied about how long he was in charge of Bain. Or, yes, maybe he did out and out cheat. Who knows? And that's the point.
Feigned innocence/ignorance of common usage or meaning is the refuge of the bigoted, small minded, cowardly, and just plain bad mannered.
The tea bagger movement is a farce and a sham.
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iBDQOXCHTEU/TLFC-LEQr1I/AAAAAAAAA8Q/IoA7ySsJOqo/s1600/princess-bride.jpg
Leona Helmsley, famous billionaire and felon is said to have asserted "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes." Some things never change.
So instead tearing Mitt to shreads, stomping him into the ground - why don't you get on the pro Obama band wagon and make some positive arguments to his re-election?
You're in American now Greg. That's not how we roll.
Leona Helmsley, famous billionaire and felon is said to have asserted "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes." Some things never change.
And yet, when you look at the IRS' actual data, seems rich folks pay quite a whompload of taxes. Going by the numbers, and not by the blather coming out of Helmsley's mouth...
There really aren't any super-magical tax dodges for the wealthy, if they are actually making profit. I've gone years in a row not paying a dime in federal income tax because, after the dust settled, I had no taxable income. Not from sneaky tax shelters, but by having expenses and losses that offset my gain.
Who knows what Romney's situation is? I think for transparency it'd be best for him to be up front and release information, I can also see his concern that the class warfare fans will use anything in those returns to create out-of-context kerfluffle to confound low-information voters.
He's sunk though, no matter how he responds, the leftists will use that as ammo to muddy the waters, so we don't ever get around to talking about what an incredibly good job Obama has been doing. The army of attack dogs is already prepped and at work - you can see this in spew of some of the clearly-connected-to-the-pipeline posters here...
Stay on the message!
Peggy, you are right - perhaps I just wasn't "paying attention". Your posts are long and frankly filled with venom - I just don't have the time to read them all.
If you are looking to win over Obama supporters - try a bit of honey. I think you have about beat the Mitt horse to death!
I personally do not think Obama is evil man many on the right have made him out to be. I do think he did not have enough experience before taking office and has been on the defensive ever since. I am frightened at the huge deficit the current administration seems to be comfortable with. I do think the race relations in the US has gotten worse, rather than better in the last three years. I do think there has been an organized effort to engage in class warfare. And the left's obsession with "sneaky" Mitt (using your words) ;) wealth is tiring. IMHO!
And yet, when you look at the IRS' actual data, seems rich folks pay quite a whompload of taxes. Going by the numbers, and not by the blather coming out of Helmsley's mouth...
There really aren't any super-magical tax dodges for the wealthy, if they are actually making profit. I've gone years in a row not paying a dime in federal income tax because, after the dust settled, I had no taxable income. Not from sneaky tax shelters, but by having expenses and losses that offset my gain.
Who knows what Romney's situation is? I think for transparency it'd be best for him to be up front and release information, I can also see his concern that the class warfare fans will use anything in those returns to create out-of-context kerfluffle to confound low-information voters.
He's sunk though, no matter how he responds, the leftists will use that as ammo to muddy the waters, so we don't ever get around to talking about what an incredibly good job Obama has been doing. The army of attack dogs is already prepped and at work - you can see this in spew of some of the clearly-connected-to-the-pipeline posters here...
Stay on the message!
I am on message, unfortunately for the Mitt apologists.
so, again you say oh dear is me...oh woe oh woe for all the taxes we wealthy pay...dear dear dear..if only the little people will give us a tax break! Oh the irony!!
In one breath you cry burden of taxes, if even you made anything (gasp..how DO you make it day to day!) and in the next breath worry how people will 'spin' the fact that Mitt, who is apparently ready for the poor house, pays little or no taxes! You are just too funny!:laff::laff:
And really out of touch if you can't see how we aren't sympathetic with the 'burden' of having to hire an army of tax lawyers to keep from contributing to the welfare of this great nation which afforded you the opportunity to make your great wealth! Sorry if we just aren't feeling that...
It has nothing to do with wealth envy, and has everything to do with the arrogance of entitlement Mitt has displayed over and over, and apparently republicans agree he is entitled. He hasn't really done anything except outsource jobs, scavenged others for profit (which was his job after all), and made a lot of money. I guess to some that alone makes him and others like him, entitled to whatever they want. Hell, they don't even need to follow the rules (releasing taxes) Rules are for the little people, just like taxes.
You know I haven't just pulled this out of my butt. No one is asking anything of him that hasn't been asked of candidates for a very long time. Even Mitt 'etch-a-sketch' Romney demanded the release of tax records...of his opponent!
What a farce he has made of your party! And what a farce he has made of the whole process of electing the President of the United States! He comes swaggering on to the stage, refusing to follow protocol, or fill any of the squares, or do anything that would endear him, or show anything that would prove him honest, or trustworthy, or capable of the office, yet knows he doesn't have to do any of those things cause, slap an R on his butt and he's in!
After all, it's his turn!
No, we don't know his circumstance, and that's the point. And until he clears it up by releasing his returns, I'm going to say...What's he hiding!
Yup - on message indeed: " Romney - evil entitled guy. And the Republicans suck. Obama, well, we won't talk about him, that doesn't matter. In fact, you must hate America, and be a racist if you even talk about Obama's record or policies, you tea-bagging crackers."
We get it, Peggy, we really do. It's right out of the program.
Enjoy the society you are creating with this.
“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.”
I can find fault with President Obama's record, but mostly he seems hamstrung by Republicans' avowed one and only goal: to make him a one term president. I'm in awe of his steadfast grace in the face of their onslaught, and I'm pleased that he's made a start toward universal health coverage, an end to DADT and the Iraq war...According to Forbes magazine, he's the most frugal government spender since Eisenhower, but you don't hear that on Fox News. He approaches issues of women's health and employment challenges as an advocate, and I like that. He engineered loans to save our domestic auto industry. He worked hard to come up with a compromise the Catholic church could live with vis-a-vis contraception coverage--which I think was way more than he should have done. If you were concerned with al Qaeda, he's taken out a lot of their leaders including that one George Bush didn't think a lot about. Considering what he's up against--a huge corporate machine with unlimited money and a media empire dedicated solely to assassinating his character--I'm amazed he's done as well as he has.
ApatheticNoMore
8-9-12, 4:56pm
I do think he did not have enough experience before taking office and has been on the defensive ever since.
I wonder if it matters, presidents have many many advisors right so how much does their personal experience matter? Which isn't to say that you want a complete idiot, but I have never for a second believed Obama was a complete idiot (other things perhaps ...)
I am frightened at the huge deficit the current administration seems to be comfortable with.
I'm more frightened by environmental issues. Yes I'm sure I've spent some time worrying about every doomer theory out there. The dollar was going to collapse and Europe was going to be the new powerhouse (haha, that one worked out real well). We were going to run out of oil as per peak oil theory (Monbiot has given up the ghost on that one and I feel the same, we have enough fossil fuel to fry the whole planet - which is not to say that the return on investment on oil extraction isn't declining as per theory ...). Still though environmental issues - frighteningly real, seem so much larger a future concern than the deficit to me, which isn't to say the deficit isn't *a* problem, but there is more than one way to skin a cat, oops I mean more than one way to take care of the deficit, at least they should get rid of the bush tax cuts.
I do think the race relations in the US has gotten worse, rather than better in the last three years.
On what basis? Personal anecdote? I'm not seeing it. Got any data? Such as I don't know maybe hate crimes up might be one data point on which to argue this?
It's impossible to fight a deficit with no revenue. Taxes rates are at record lows, wages have been stagnant for decades, and too many people are out of work. If we move to grow our economy and strengthen the middle class, deficits will shrink on their own. Perhaps we should study countries that have low unemployment and high citizen satisfaction and see what they're doing right. We've lived with deficits historically; I think they're more of a talking point than a real problem.
It's impossible to fight a deficit with no revenue.
Often when my family finances have been facing a deficit, I cut expenses until I could sort things out and arrange to have more revenue. Of course, I wasn't spending more on my household's military than the rest of the planet combined....
I can find fault with President Obama's record, but mostly he seems hamstrung by Republicans' avowed one and only goal: to make him a one term president. I'm in awe of his steadfast grace in the face of their onslaught, and I'm pleased that he's made a start toward universal health coverage, an end to DADT and the Iraq war...According to Forbes magazine, he's the most frugal government spender since Eisenhower, but you don't hear that on Fox News. He approaches issues of women's health and employment challenges as an advocate, and I like that. He engineered loans to save our domestic auto industry. He worked hard to come up with a compromise the Catholic church could live with vis-a-vis contraception coverage--which I think was way more than he should have done. If you were concerned with al Qaeda, he's taken out a lot of their leaders including that one George Bush didn't think a lot about. Considering what he's up against--a huge corporate machine with unlimited money and a media empire dedicated solely to assassinating his character--I'm amazed he's done as well as he has.
I'll give you the fact that Obama inherited a difficult hand. Having said that, he also had a democratic congress for 2 years. At the end of those 2 years and now, the economy was still sucking wind. We are way past blaming Bush at this point.
With regard to his spending, I read the following Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2012/05/24/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-which-president-is-the-biggest-spender-of-all/2/
Once TARP (which inflated Bushes numbers significantly) is pulled out, the numbers change significantly and Obama's year over year growth becomes 7%. That's one of the largest spending increases in modern history.
Midwest
Peggy, you are right - perhaps I just wasn't "paying attention". Your posts are long and frankly filled with venom - I just don't have the time to read them all.
If you are looking to win over Obama supporters - try a bit of honey. I think you have about beat the Mitt horse to death!
I personally do not think Obama is evil man many on the right have made him out to be. I do think he did not have enough experience before taking office and has been on the defensive ever since. I am frightened at the huge deficit the current administration seems to be comfortable with. I do think the race relations in the US has gotten worse, rather than better in the last three years. I do think there has been an organized effort to engage in class warfare. And the left's obsession with "sneaky" Mitt (using your words) ;) wealth is tiring. IMHO!
Obsession! Really? Pssst...the man is running for President! FYI
So, expecting this guy to do what every other presidential candidate has done, including his own father, is obsessive, but birtherism and truthism and what Obama's grades in Jr high isn't? We know every second of Obama's life, and plenty of his parents lives even before he was born, his finances, his positions, his faith and beliefs (although we don't really believe him do we) but you are perfectly willing to just hand over the keys of the country to a secretive, blowing in the wind kind of guy who gives you nothing and tells you you don't deserve to know anything, to just Trust Him! And you are OK with that?
The real question is, why aren't you demanding truth and transparency from your candidate? Why aren't you demanding proof that he is capable and deserves the job, along with the big fat raise he is giving himself on the first day? Why aren't you demanding those things? Doesn't that kind of make you not worthy of the tea party creds? I too am worried for this country and I know handing it over to someone who wants to take us back to GW's game plan would be suicide for this nation.
I see Mitt as an empty suit and I also see all the neocon hands just itching to shove up his back and pull the strings. And I see him letting them cause he doesn't care. he really doesn't . he holds no conviction about anything, at all. All he wants is to 'be President'. He wants the title...and the big fat raise he will give himself on day one! He said so himself!
The tea baggers (and bae, they self identified as tea baggers, I didn't give them that name) have ruined the republican party. They are Koch puppets, and you know what the real kicker is? Mitt isn't one of them, thinks they are a bunch of loonies, would never identify with them, but knows they will vote for him anyway.
Ok greg, give me a good reason why Romney, who IS running for the highest office in the world, should not release his tax returns for at least 5 or 6 years, something every other candidate has done (I'm not just making this up).
Being rich isn't an excuse. We have had plenty of wealthy candidates, some of them Democratic.
His opponents will read them...well duh! As if that hasn't happened to every other candidate! Do you really believe Romney's group hasn't combed obama's tax records over and over? Even you have, looking for something, anything. Didn't stop him from releasing though. And really greg, if he can't stand up to a little scrutiny, how can we expect him to stand up to scrutiny from the world? If he's this cowardly now, he's probably not ready for prime time.
So, is there another reason? All i can come up with is, he's hiding something.
Often when my family finances have been facing a deficit, I cut expenses until I could sort things out and arrange to have more revenue. Of course, I wasn't spending more on my household's military than the rest of the planet combined....
Here we go. I knew it wouldn't be long until someone compared their family budget to Running the largest nation on earth. Probably one of the most useless comparisons ever, but..carry on.
Often when my family finances have been facing a deficit, I cut expenses until I could sort things out and arrange to have more revenue. Of course, I wasn't spending more on my household's military than the rest of the planet combined....
That's part of it, of course. I would be thrilled if we could get out of the business of world warmonger, but there's a huge industry built up around being the arms dealer to the planet and all. And we could cut a wide swath through the federal government by cutting programs and laying people off (and I have no doubt there is a lot of prudent trimming that could be done) but then you'd have even more people out of work--and people with healthy incomes who contribute to the economy. If there are easy answers, they escape me. No matter what, oxen will be gored.
hmm one good reason - it is not required of him, it is not the law. If releasing tax returns and college transcripts is important it should be a law. It is not. So we don't see Obama's college records (that is where the real story is ;)) and we don't see Mitts tax records - sorry I mean sneaky Mitt.
We never saw Clinton's health records - and he WAS already in the highest. Life went on - and who knew we could of been one heart beat away from Pres. Gore!
Yup - on message indeed: " Romney - evil entitled guy. And the Republicans suck. Obama, well, we won't talk about him, that doesn't matter. In fact, you must hate America, and be a racist if you even talk about Obama's record or policies, you tea-bagging crackers."
We get it, Peggy, we really do. It's right out of the program.
Enjoy the society you are creating with this.
“It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen.”
Yes, i am on message, bae, and if you scroll up just a bit you will see that this thread is about Mitt's taxes. Now if you want to start a thread about anything else, how wonderful Mitt is or what wonderful things he has done to deserve this office, well, please do. I'm sure it would be a short thread, but then, there you are.
I know, let's look at his resume and pick something there. How about a thread on Bain and what he did there? Or a thread on his governorship and what he did there? Anything else? These two are the main references on his resume.
OH, and I never called him evil. I do think he is an arrogant entitled guy, but then that is a perception I share with more than one republican.
And we do talk about Obama. In fact, if you scroll down a bit you will see that Jane has said quite a lot about him. And I know I have in many other threads, but since I wish to talk about Mitt's taxes, that's the focus of this thread.
But, you know, it's a nice attempt at distraction. I'll give you a C (mainly for the completely inappropriate use of an excellent quote)
I can find fault with President Obama's record, but mostly he seems hamstrung by Republicans' avowed one and only goal: to make him a one term president. I'm in awe of his steadfast grace in the face of their onslaught, and I'm pleased that he's made a start toward universal health coverage, an end to DADT and the Iraq war...According to Forbes magazine, he's the most frugal government spender since Eisenhower, but you don't hear that on Fox News. He approaches issues of women's health and employment challenges as an advocate, and I like that. He engineered loans to save our domestic auto industry. He worked hard to come up with a compromise the Catholic church could live with vis-a-vis contraception coverage--which I think was way more than he should have done. If you were concerned with al Qaeda, he's taken out a lot of their leaders including that one George Bush didn't think a lot about. Considering what he's up against--a huge corporate machine with unlimited money and a media empire dedicated solely to assassinating his character--I'm amazed he's done as well as he has.
+1
hmm one good reason - it is not required of him, it is not the law. If releasing tax returns and college transcripts is important it should be a law. It is not. So we don't see Obama's college records (that is where the real story is ;)) and we don't see Mitts tax records - sorry I mean sneaky Mitt.
We never saw Clinton's health records - and he WAS already in the highest. Life went on - and who knew we could of been one heart beat away from Pres. Gore!
So, you really don't care if he cheated? You really don't care if he paid no taxes, yet insists on giving himself a huge tax break while raising mine and yours $2000? You really don't care if he has hidden his wealth in off shore accounts to avoid taxes? Taxes in the country he 'deserves' to be President of? You really don't care?
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_iBDQOXCHTEU/TLFC-LEQr1I/AAAAAAAAA8Q/IoA7ySsJOqo/s1600/princess-bride.jpg
Gee bae, I though it was incredible bad form, not to mention kind of dishonest, to grab something from one thread for another. Seems to me even you found it distasteful when it was used against you at one point.
The tea baggers are self identified as this. I did not make up the name, they did. As a group, Koch puppets, I have no respect for them. As individuals I feel sorry for them as they have been duped into believing they were a part of something good, but really they are just used for political gain. I don't call the individuals tea baggers, just the movement.
So, you really don't care if he cheated? You really don't care if he paid no taxes, yet insists on giving himself a huge tax break while raising mine and yours $2000? You really don't care if he has hidden his wealth in off shore accounts to avoid taxes? Taxes in the country he 'deserves' to be President of? You really don't care?
Are you this passionate about Rangel and Geitner? I mean, we actually know they cheated.
Thats just it Peggy, I don't think he is a cheating kind of guy. He is wealthy. I don't think he is stupid enough to cheat on is taxes - I do think he is smart enough to use every legal way to avoid tax. If congress wants wealthy people to pay more tax - then they need to write the law - it is their job. If he really paid no tax I blame that on congress.
I don't think he thinks he 'deserves' to be President -- he learned that first go around the office is earned.
Gee bae, I though it was incredible bad form, not to mention kind of dishonest, to grab something from one thread for another. Seems to me even you found it distasteful when it was used against you at one point.
I grabbed your words from a very recent still-active thread in this same forum. For you to represent this as substantially similar to the incident you are referring to is the sort of completely dishonest behavior we have come to expect from you.
So bleep off.
I'll give you the fact that Obama inherited a difficult hand. Having said that, he also had a democratic congress for 2 years. At the end of those 2 years and now, the economy was still sucking wind. We are way past blaming Bush at this point.
With regard to his spending, I read the following Forbes article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2012/05/24/mirror-mirror-on-the-wall-which-president-is-the-biggest-spender-of-all/2/
Once TARP (which inflated Bushes numbers significantly) is pulled out, the numbers change significantly and Obama's year over year growth becomes 7%. That's one of the largest spending increases in modern history.
Midwest
This is from a Forbes article posted on 5-24-12:
So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?
Courtesy of Marke****ch-
In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.
However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.
This is from a Forbes article posted on 5-24-12:
So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?
Courtesy of Marke****ch-
In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.
However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.
I believe the problem with the #'s you quoted is the TARP. Bush's final year included TARP spending which inflated it dramatically. Once that is removed, the picture becomes very different (see the article I provided).
Here's another article on the subject http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/the-facts-about-the-growth-of-spending-under-obama/2012/05/24/gJQAIJh6nU_blog.html
We are way past blaming Bush at this point.
It should reassure people that whatever is going on now will be entirely irrelevant by 2015. Unless Obama is still President, of course, in which case won't be past blame until 2019.
Unless you think what Bush did became irrelevant much sooner?
It should reassure people that whatever is going on now will be entirely irrelevant by 2015. Unless Obama is still President, of course in which case won't be past blame until 2019.
Unless you think what Bush did became irrelevant much sooner?
I think at some point you have to take responsibility for the country (regardless of your party affiliation) and quit blaming the guy before you. Obama's had 3.5 years to correct this economy and increased the deficit significantly during his tenure. Unemployment is still over 8.0% and GDP growth is slow. Economically, I think he's a failure.
Incidentally, I'm not defending every Bush policy. His spending record, for one, was abysmal.
ApatheticNoMore
8-9-12, 7:45pm
It should reassure people that whatever is going on now will be entirely irrelevant by 2015. Unless Obama is still President, of course in which case won't be past blame until 2019.
That any of this could possibly be the result of long term trends and policies ... nah couldn't possibly be. I'm waiting for a white knight ... to take responsibility for fixing the entire economy.
That any of this could possibly be the result of long term trends and policies ... nah couldn't possibly be. I'm waiting for a white knight ... to take responsibility for fixing the entire economy.
As noted in my original post, he inherited a bad set of circumstances. 3.5 years later, the deficit under him has increased appreciably. The stimulus, even if you argue that it saved the economy, failed to generate significant long-term benefit despite a trillion dollars in spending.
Reported unemployment remains exceedingly high and real unemployment is probably even higher.
Given those set of facts, yes, I view him as a economic failure.
PS - Before someone blames the republican congress. First 2 years was all democrat.
I think at some point you have to take responsibility for the country (regardless of your party affiliation) and quit blaming the guy before you. Obama's had 3.5 years to correct this economy and increased the deficit significantly during his tenure. Unemployment is still over 8.0% and GDP growth is slow. Economically, I think he's a failure.
Incidentally, I'm not defending every Bush policy. His spending record, for one, was abysmal.
Agreed, but I think Obama did not do a bad job, given it was and continues to be a global issue. I also think it's not just where we were when he took office, but the direction and velocity the economy was going at the time - very bad. I don't know what our government could do to fix quickly - Europe is a mess and even China is running out of steam at this point.
And I have yet to hear what could have been done that would be considered "successful". Even with hindsight. The market is up by around 5k points since Obama came in (closer to 7k if consider the additional 2k it dropped before it bottomed out 2 months into his term). If the market hadn't come back I'd say that was a failure - but it has. (I also wonder if this is one reason Romney is stingy with his tax returns - it's harder calling someone a failure if it's easy to see you've done very well while they were in office).
Unemployment is 8%, but companies have been trying dump American workers for years, why after they get this opportunity to shed huge numbers, would they want to rehire immediately? I heard stories this week this saying how the economy picking up is finally forcing (and forcing is the word they used) employers to hire because they can't wring any more out of the workers they have. But I expect many also are taking the opportunity to outsource so the jobs that are coming back aren't coming back here.
Also we're comparing current unemployment numbers to those we had while we were in an unsustainable bubble. I don't think the numbers would have looked as good last decade if they were at more sustainable levels.
On Bush's (Washington's) spending record, I don't think people take into account enough that we were in this huge economic bubble, but still running up huge debts. In the previous bubble we were pushing into surpluses. I think it masked how hard the tax cuts hit government revenue until we crashed.
ApatheticNoMore
8-9-12, 8:13pm
The stimulus, even if you argue that it saved the economy, failed to generate significant long-term benefit despite a trillion dollars in spending.
The total for the stimulus wasn't that much nor was it spending as 1/3 of the stimulus was tax cuts, tax cuts are the new spending?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_stimulus
Health care reform was passed in his first 2 years. That took all his time. It also took two republicans to pass it in the senate. In his last two years he could get noting done because the republicans had control of the house and he did not have 60 democratic senators to over come a filibuster.
This is from a Forbes article posted on 5-24-12:
So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?
Courtesy of Marke****ch-
In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.
No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.
However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.
Except that one glaring fact is overlooked in that analysis. The 2009 budget submitted by President Bush was never approved by Congress. Instead, Congress passed a series of emergency spending bills to keep government running until such time as a new President took office. These spending bills covered the first five months of the 09 fiscal year until a budget was sent to and signed by President Obama In March 2009. This new budget, which totalled $3.5T was totally proposed and authorized by a Democrat controlled Congress and President Obama, and then became the baseline which your article based its subsequent analysis on.
By leaving out the 2009 numbers, they've effectively hidden the 20% increase over the 2008 budget, masking not only the true cost of Democrat spending, but also ignoring the true size of subsequent spending during the ensuing years.
An Obama initiative that does often get mentioned is his push for all Street reform that resulted in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. It has many features, but basically protects consumers from predatory lending, regulates banks so that they do not become too big to fail, and includes the Volker Rule, which limits banks from making risky investments in things like hedge funds. It intention is to avoid another financial crisis. Mitt wants to real Dodd-Frank.
An Obama initiative that does often get mentioned is his push for all Street reform that resulted in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. It has many features, but basically protects consumers from predatory lending, regulates banks so that they do not become too big to fail, and includes the Volker Rule, which limits banks from making risky investments in things like hedge funds. It intention is to avoid another financial crisis. Mitt wants to real Dodd-Frank.
Wasn't Elizabeth Warren slated to head a consumer bureau until the Republicans made her Public Enemy Number One? It's clear Big Money doesn't want any regulation at all, so they can run their endless scams unimpeded.
I grabbed your words from a very recent still-active thread in this same forum. For you to represent this as substantially similar to the incident you are referring to is the sort of completely dishonest behavior we have come to expect from you.
So bleep off.
Way to keep it classy bae...:(
Here we go. I knew it wouldn't be long until someone compared their family budget to Running the largest nation on earth. Probably one of the most useless comparisons ever, but..carry on.
I'll give it to you that running the US is a different animal than running a household (although I have told my kids if they ever move back home they will be taxed). Still, it would be interesting to see what happened if Congress took an approach similar to what the rest of us do.
I'll give it to you that running the US is a different animal than running a household (although I have told my kids if they ever move back home they will be taxed). Still, it would be interesting to see what happened if Congress took an approach similar to what the rest of us do.
That would be interesting, except for the fact that congresses real power is in spending (and gifting- tax breaks, grabbing money for local supporters, etc..) and they aren't likely to give that up without a fight. If they had to follow a budget, not much room to grease palms of supporters, build bridges to nowhere, offer tax breaks to buddies, etc...
The problem is, this new crop of tea party folks want to only cut cut cut taxes, but still gift their pet projects and people. We the people want SS and medicare, and good roads and bridges, and safe food and a well educated public, and on and on, all the fiddly things you need to thrive and compete in a modern progressive world, but we don't pay for it. Or we want all these 21st century items on a 20th century budget. Stuff costs, and costs rise. I know my food budget has gone up and I'm sure so has yours, but if I go into the grocery store and demand they sell me broccoli at the price I paid last year, or last century, they'd laugh me out, empty handed.
If we want to continue farm subsidies then we need to pay for them. Otherwise, stop it. Stop corn subsidies, and bridges to no where, and federal money for left handed plumbers museums in Po-Dunk where ever. But that's the rub! congress doesn't want to stop these things because here is where their real power is. Here is where each congressperson sustains their own purpose, if you will. And this is where the real game is!
Just ticking off the budget items (that we as Americans said we want) and their real costs isn't very 'sexy'. Pretty boring actually, and straight forward. And doesn't get you re-elected. Pandering to the corn farmers, or the honey producers, or whoever the big bad guys in your state are, will. And those people just don't happen to be on SS, Medicare, etc...so, what we do is, toss these folks under the bus so we can have more of the dwindling pie (remember, costs go up while revenue goes down)
to feed (pander) this increasingly hungry select few. We write tax laws to funnel even more wealth to the greedy few so maybe they will funnel a bit back to us in our re-election. And, as pointed out on these forums before, money is speech. We know who is talking the loudest...and on it goes.
ApatheticNoMore
8-10-12, 11:18am
An Obama initiative that does often get mentioned is his push for all Street reform that resulted in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act. It has many features, but basically protects consumers from predatory lending, regulates banks so that they do not become too big to fail, and includes the Volker Rule, which limits banks from making risky investments in things like hedge funds. It intention is to avoid another financial crisis. Mitt wants to real Dodd-Frank.
Yea I know, I worked for a company nearly put completely out of business by it (and that of course wouldn't have been affected by the reimplementation of Glass Stegal), in all seriousness. But the bill was improved and it was not put out of business. No that company never had anything to do with the economic mess. No I never expected the world to work otherwise. I don't expect law making in Washington to not often be random and with unintended consequences, but it is nice the law was at least improved. I dont' expect a Republican push to get rid of the few things that actually on net have some positive impact (never the war making though) to turn out well either for that matter, not at all.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.