Romney/Inanimate Carbon Rod 2012/2016!keld feldspar wrote:Now that's just silly...Romney/Bain Capital Management Committee... 2016
Reid Pulls A Bachmann.....
-
Sue U
- Posts: 9101
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: Reid Pulls A Bachmann.....
GAH!
Re: Reid Pulls A Bachmann.....
Well at least the rod beat Homer for the employee of the month award...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
kf. YOU ARE CORRECT
I am a very silly man. If I took myself seriously I'd be rocking back and forth in my own feces in a similar institution that I suspect Lord Jim find himself.keld feldspar wrote:Now that's just silly...Romney/Bain Capital Management Committee... 2016
My liege, and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
What day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time;
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit,
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief. (Our) noble (Lord Jim) is mad. . . .
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.”
Re: Reid Pulls A Bachmann.....
Never liked Shakespeare I do like LJ...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: Reid Pulls A Bachmann.....
Romney promises to bring back the failed economics of the Bush Administration who produced the worst recovery after the smallest recession possible since WWII.
Why would someone smarter than dirt want that ? I mean he would borrow billions to give me and my cohort a huge fucking tax break but it would devastate the budget and pass the debt along to future generations just like the failed Bush policies did. How stupid are you people?
yrs,
rubato
Why would someone smarter than dirt want that ? I mean he would borrow billions to give me and my cohort a huge fucking tax break but it would devastate the budget and pass the debt along to future generations just like the failed Bush policies did. How stupid are you people?
yrs,
rubato
Re: Reid Pulls A Bachmann.....
To what people are you referring?How stupid are you people?
I don't see anyone jumping to support Romney, the OP was about Reid.
As long as the Dems keep their attention fixed on Romney's taxes I'm sure he'll let them.
For most folks with any intelligence it's a non issue, something with real substance would be more meaningful.
But hey forget that...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: Reid Pulls A Bachmann.....
The Romney strategy on his tax returns is making a lot of people - including most of his supporters - scratch their heads. The obvious sensitivity is that with his complex portfolio of investments and his multiple income streams, he knows that the D's will immediately unleash an army of analysts to take the next three months raising one investment after another as "proof" that Romney is un-American, or whatever.
As LJ points out, there is essentially no chance that he has evaded any taxes (as opposed to "avoiding" taxes). Indeed, he has always known that he would be in this position and he would be operating-room clean for that reason, if no other.
My totally-uneducated suggestion would be to release summaries of his taxes, indicating taxable income and amount paid to all levels of government. Parenthetically, he provided all of his tax information to the McCain campaign in '08 when he was being vetted for VP, so it is clear that he doesn't invest in Nevada whorehouses and such like that.
I WISH he would appoint a VP running mate, and cut him loose to fire back at OBP. I imagine a great deal of mileage could be gotten out of "speculation" that he won't open his academic records because he represented himself as a foreign exchange student, and that's why he achieved so much apparent academic success with no money and mediocre grades.
"Not accusin', just sayin'"
Reid is a slimeball. But there is no way he made these outrageous claims without running them past the Obama Campaign.
As LJ points out, there is essentially no chance that he has evaded any taxes (as opposed to "avoiding" taxes). Indeed, he has always known that he would be in this position and he would be operating-room clean for that reason, if no other.
My totally-uneducated suggestion would be to release summaries of his taxes, indicating taxable income and amount paid to all levels of government. Parenthetically, he provided all of his tax information to the McCain campaign in '08 when he was being vetted for VP, so it is clear that he doesn't invest in Nevada whorehouses and such like that.
I WISH he would appoint a VP running mate, and cut him loose to fire back at OBP. I imagine a great deal of mileage could be gotten out of "speculation" that he won't open his academic records because he represented himself as a foreign exchange student, and that's why he achieved so much apparent academic success with no money and mediocre grades.
"Not accusin', just sayin'"
Reid is a slimeball. But there is no way he made these outrageous claims without running them past the Obama Campaign.
Re: Reid Pulls A Bachmann.....
$100,000,000 in a 401k with no logical explanation offered.
I'm betting that Reid is substantially correct and Mitty was deferring a large fraction, perhaps all, of his partnership income into the 401k .
And this is true slime:
Nixon's tax cheating!
________________________
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings. ... enDocument
What is striking is how little income tax was paid, even in 1969 (the "high" tax year of the four), relative to the total income amount. The reported total income during those four years (line marked A in Exhibit 1) was more than $1 million; however, Nixon paid only $72,682 in the highest tax year (1969), making the average tax rate on reported gross income slightly more than 22 percent for 1969. For 1970, 1971, and 1972 the income tax amounts (line marked J in Exhibit 1) were a pittance relative to the reported gross income. The four-year average of tax-to-gross income was only 7 percent.
The small tax burden, contrasted with the large ability to pay, raises the question of why Nixon was not audited by the IRS. In fact, at least a half dozen other red-flag issues are apparent on the returns. Those issues appear for 1969 and 1970, and, for the most part, the issues continue on the succeeding years' returns. The issues are:
1. In 1969, Nixon did not recognize the $142,912 of gain on the sale of his New York City residence. (See B in Exhibit 3.) He reported that he had rolled over the proceeds into a new personal residence, the $1.5 million property he purchased two months later in San Clemente, Calif. Given his prominent address -- The White House (which he even used on the tax returns) -- the obvious issue was that such a tax-free rollover of gain would be disallowed because the San Clemente property would not qualify as his principal residence.
2. A related problem arises on the 1970 tax return when Nixon sold off part of the San Clemente acreage to friends. The amount he received covered 80 percent of the $1.5 million he paid to get the house and land. That sale, for $1,249,000, was reduced by exactly $1,249,000 of basis so that no gain was recognized. [See C in Exhibit 3.] That left the remaining acreage and house with about $250,000 of basis. That overallocation of basis to the acres sold certainly could have been easily challenged.
3. The deduction for the charitable contribution of Nixon's vice-presidential papers in 1969 raised an obvious and basic issue: valuation. Despite having an appraisal for $576,000, the valuation of property donated to charity is normally red-flag issue. With a deduction of almost $600,000, an IRS challenge would be certain for the average taxpayer. [See D in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 4.]
4. No state income tax deduction appears on Nixon's 1970, 1971, and 1972 tax returns. The 1969 state income tax deduction was for taxes paid to New York. [See E in Exhibit 2.] The 1969 move to California should have meant that Nixon paid state income tax to California (if that was his true residence) or to the District of Columbia, both jurisdictions having high income tax rates. Nixon apparently did not pay any state or D.C. income tax after 1969. While the issue shows up on the federal returns, certainly state tax officials should have questioned why no state or local income tax was being paid.
5. From 1969 through 1972, Nixon deducted the costs of his Florida house (500 Bay Lane). He claimed use of the house related to his job as president. The costs that were being deducted include depreciation, utilities, and insurance. The obvious question was whether the Florida house was used for personal or business purposes. [See line F in Exhibit 2.]
6. A series of deductions from 1969 through 1972 relate to the fact that Nixon also deducted 25 percent of the cost of the San Clemente home as a deduction related to his job as president. [See line G in Exhibit 2.] The 25 percent allocation figure seems arbitrary. The costs that were deducted include depreciation, utilities, insurance, maintenance, wages of household help, and related payroll taxes. Again, the issue that the IRS is good in raising is whether these are personal items. Certainly, deductions related to a personal residence become highly scrutinized in an audit.
...
In the months that followed the Agnew resignation, a more aggressive press began to demand more details about Nixon's taxes. The press revealed Nixon's 1970 return showed a presidential salary of $200,000, yet federal income tax was less than $1,000. The Wall Street Journal reported on December 10, 1973, that the Nixon tax returns from 1969 through 1972 had the following adjusted gross incomes and taxes:
..........Adjusted Gross ... Federal Income
Year ..... Income ..... Tax
1969 ..... $328,161 ..... $72,682
1970 ..... $262,942 ..... $792
1971 ..... $262,384 ..... $878
1972 ..... $268,777 ..... $4,298
The disparity between the income and tax figures was initially attributed to large deductions of interest on the loan to buy the San Clemente residence and to the charitable contribution of his vice- presidential papers. With a top federal income tax rate of 70 percent at the time, many were amazed how someone with such an enormous ability to pay tax could almost completely escape taxation. With the Watergate story unfolding, American confidence in government again was shaken. A Wall Street Journal editorial on November 13 spoke to the heart of the issue:
It does seem unseemly that the President of the United States should almost completely escape taxation. Since he is in some way supposed to set a national example, a case can be made that he ought to bend over backward to make sure his taxes are not too low.
.... "
_______________________________________________
Lying and cheating! They're Republican traditions
yrs,
rubato
I'm betting that Reid is substantially correct and Mitty was deferring a large fraction, perhaps all, of his partnership income into the 401k .
And this is true slime:
Nixon's tax cheating!
________________________
http://www.taxhistory.org/thp/readings. ... enDocument
What is striking is how little income tax was paid, even in 1969 (the "high" tax year of the four), relative to the total income amount. The reported total income during those four years (line marked A in Exhibit 1) was more than $1 million; however, Nixon paid only $72,682 in the highest tax year (1969), making the average tax rate on reported gross income slightly more than 22 percent for 1969. For 1970, 1971, and 1972 the income tax amounts (line marked J in Exhibit 1) were a pittance relative to the reported gross income. The four-year average of tax-to-gross income was only 7 percent.
The small tax burden, contrasted with the large ability to pay, raises the question of why Nixon was not audited by the IRS. In fact, at least a half dozen other red-flag issues are apparent on the returns. Those issues appear for 1969 and 1970, and, for the most part, the issues continue on the succeeding years' returns. The issues are:
1. In 1969, Nixon did not recognize the $142,912 of gain on the sale of his New York City residence. (See B in Exhibit 3.) He reported that he had rolled over the proceeds into a new personal residence, the $1.5 million property he purchased two months later in San Clemente, Calif. Given his prominent address -- The White House (which he even used on the tax returns) -- the obvious issue was that such a tax-free rollover of gain would be disallowed because the San Clemente property would not qualify as his principal residence.
2. A related problem arises on the 1970 tax return when Nixon sold off part of the San Clemente acreage to friends. The amount he received covered 80 percent of the $1.5 million he paid to get the house and land. That sale, for $1,249,000, was reduced by exactly $1,249,000 of basis so that no gain was recognized. [See C in Exhibit 3.] That left the remaining acreage and house with about $250,000 of basis. That overallocation of basis to the acres sold certainly could have been easily challenged.
3. The deduction for the charitable contribution of Nixon's vice-presidential papers in 1969 raised an obvious and basic issue: valuation. Despite having an appraisal for $576,000, the valuation of property donated to charity is normally red-flag issue. With a deduction of almost $600,000, an IRS challenge would be certain for the average taxpayer. [See D in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 4.]
4. No state income tax deduction appears on Nixon's 1970, 1971, and 1972 tax returns. The 1969 state income tax deduction was for taxes paid to New York. [See E in Exhibit 2.] The 1969 move to California should have meant that Nixon paid state income tax to California (if that was his true residence) or to the District of Columbia, both jurisdictions having high income tax rates. Nixon apparently did not pay any state or D.C. income tax after 1969. While the issue shows up on the federal returns, certainly state tax officials should have questioned why no state or local income tax was being paid.
5. From 1969 through 1972, Nixon deducted the costs of his Florida house (500 Bay Lane). He claimed use of the house related to his job as president. The costs that were being deducted include depreciation, utilities, and insurance. The obvious question was whether the Florida house was used for personal or business purposes. [See line F in Exhibit 2.]
6. A series of deductions from 1969 through 1972 relate to the fact that Nixon also deducted 25 percent of the cost of the San Clemente home as a deduction related to his job as president. [See line G in Exhibit 2.] The 25 percent allocation figure seems arbitrary. The costs that were deducted include depreciation, utilities, insurance, maintenance, wages of household help, and related payroll taxes. Again, the issue that the IRS is good in raising is whether these are personal items. Certainly, deductions related to a personal residence become highly scrutinized in an audit.
...
In the months that followed the Agnew resignation, a more aggressive press began to demand more details about Nixon's taxes. The press revealed Nixon's 1970 return showed a presidential salary of $200,000, yet federal income tax was less than $1,000. The Wall Street Journal reported on December 10, 1973, that the Nixon tax returns from 1969 through 1972 had the following adjusted gross incomes and taxes:
..........Adjusted Gross ... Federal Income
Year ..... Income ..... Tax
1969 ..... $328,161 ..... $72,682
1970 ..... $262,942 ..... $792
1971 ..... $262,384 ..... $878
1972 ..... $268,777 ..... $4,298
The disparity between the income and tax figures was initially attributed to large deductions of interest on the loan to buy the San Clemente residence and to the charitable contribution of his vice- presidential papers. With a top federal income tax rate of 70 percent at the time, many were amazed how someone with such an enormous ability to pay tax could almost completely escape taxation. With the Watergate story unfolding, American confidence in government again was shaken. A Wall Street Journal editorial on November 13 spoke to the heart of the issue:
It does seem unseemly that the President of the United States should almost completely escape taxation. Since he is in some way supposed to set a national example, a case can be made that he ought to bend over backward to make sure his taxes are not too low.
.... "
_______________________________________________
Lying and cheating! They're Republican traditions
yrs,
rubato
Re: Reid Pulls A Bachmann.....
Why of course they are, no one else has the temerityLying and cheating! They're Republican traditions
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: Reid Pulls A Bachmann.....
No other president has ever shown quite this level of gall.keld feldspar wrote:Why of course they are, no one else has the temerityLying and cheating! They're Republican traditions
yrs,
rubato
Re: Reid Pulls A Bachmann.....
Oh so Reid is actually an Obama puppet?
He denies it on the news, well at least his press secretary does...
He denies it on the news, well at least his press secretary does...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: Reid Pulls A Bachmann.....
Those are all really good questions Big RR....(sorry it took me so long to respond)Jim--I agree wth you about the practical impossibility of viable third party candidates, but what, if any, effect do you think of those, like myself, who think "none of the above" is the only possible vote will have on the outcome? Those don't think things will change much regardless of which of these two candidate is elected and/or feel either candidate does not even begin to represent their point of view? I do think we will have a very sparse turnout for this election, but do you think that could favor either candidate? Ordinarily I would think that momentum would go to the challenger, but I'm really not certain here.
First of all I agree with you that this is likely to be a fairly low turnout election. On both sides, you start out with candidates who have a large part of their respective party bases that are not turning cartwheels over the prospect of voting for their candidate (on the Demo side you have folks who for various reasons are disappointed in Obama's performance, and on the GOP side you have folks who for various reasons either don't trust Romney or just see him as a weak choice)
Added to this you have what is likely to be the most negative presidential campaign (on both sides) in modern political history (in nearly four decades of following presidential politics, I've seen some nasty campaigns, but I've never seen one that got as dirty as early as this one did...you've got two camps here that definitely brought guns to a gun fight) The primary purpose of negative ads is not to motivate your supporters, (though it helps some with the base in that regard) the primary purpose of negative ads is to suppress your opponent's turnout. (You won't have any campaign spokespersons publicly admit this because they'll never admit that they're trying to get people to not vote, but it's a fact.) The purpose is to get potential voters for your opponent so dispirited about their candidate that they won't show up to vote. And it's effective; that's why you see so many negative ads.
So yes, it's likely to be a low turnout election. As far as the "none of the above factor goes, history shows that absent some high profile third party candidate, a much higher percentage of people who are turned off with both candidates simply stays home than turns out just to cast a protest vote for some unknown candidate.
To illustrate this, let's take a look at the the popular vote percentages for the past three elections:
2008 Obama McCain Total Others
52.9 45.6 98.5 1.5
2004 Kerry Bush Total Others
48.1 50.6 98.7 1.3
2000 Gore Bush Total Others
48.3 47.8 96.1 3.9
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/electi ... CJMqaDPwSQ
In 2004 and 2008, there were lots of folks who weren't happy with either candidate, but only a miniscule percentage of those folks turned out to vote. In 2000, even with Nader getting a lot of public attention, the total voting for all other candidates was still less than 4% (about 2.7% of that 3.9 was Nader...it was significant, but only because of the fact that the vote was so incredibly close in key states between the two major candidates; to find a third party candidate with genuinely significant numbers, you have to go back to Ross Perot in '96 and '92 when he took 19% and 9% respectively.)
Which candidate is the stay-at-home factor likely to hurt more? Well, if you use his 2008 numbers as the bench mark, the answer is clearly Barack Obama. Poll after poll after after poll, both nationally and state by state shows lower enthusiasm among numerous constituencies he carried, than was present in 2008. There is nobody, absolutely nobody, who knows anything at all about the politics who expects Obama to win by anything like the margin he got in 2008. Not even Obama's most senior advisers or most ardent loyalists believe that. (At least the loyalists who know anything about the political realities of the race)
In fairness to Obama, it should be said that the enthusiasm level his candidacy generated in '08 due to a number of factors (his youth, the fact that he was the first serious Black candidate, Bush Fatigue, etc.) would have been nearly impossible for anyone to sustain after four years in Office, even if the country were in great shape. The fact that the economy is in the tank, just compounds the problem.
The $64,000 question isn't whether the stay-at-home-factor is going to hurt Obama or Romney more; the question is whether or not it's going to hurt Obama enough more to cost him the election. (The Obama campaign is obviously pulling out all the stops to try to prevent this from happening; since the spring, they have been working round the clock to drive down Romney's vote with a tsunami of negative campaigning)
My best estimate at this point is that at the end of the day, (and of course lots of things could happen, domestically and internationally that could change this, between now and election day) that while Obama's vote will be off significantly he will dodge the bullet and most likely win re-election. My belief in this is based primarily on an analysis of the numbers in the swing states where Obama does marginally better than he does in the national polling that shows the race as a dead heat. (One thing he has going for him is that in many of these states, the unemployment rate is lower than the national average...I'm planning on putting up a post analyzing the electoral math in depth either later this week or this weekend)
I know the fact that I refuse to say with absolute certainty who will win the election will piss off Ray, but I guess that somehow I'll just have to live with that....
The fact is that for someone like me who has worked in politics, followed it closely for many years, has a pretty good understanding of how the process works, and who has followed this particular campaign very closely, to stand up and say three months out that they know for a fact what is going to happen on election day wouldn't be "courageous"; it would be foolhardy. Nobody who understands these things at all would tell you they are 100% certain of what will happen. As anyone who has read my posts over the years knows, when I'm wearing my political analyst hat, (as opposed to when I'm wearing my party hat....and a festive hat it is...) what I do, (as I have done in this post) is to try to weigh the available information as objectively as possible, and then process that information with my knowledge and experience in the area to give what are my honest best estimates as to likely outcomes.
That is what I have always done in these forums, and that is what I will continue to do.
Re: Reid Pulls A Bachmann.....
Intersting analysis Jim, and i'm inclined to agree with you. Thanks.
Re: Reid Pulls A Bachmann.....
Ditto...Big RR wrote:Intersting analysis Jim, and i'm inclined to agree with you. Thanks.
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
LJ. AND AMERICA SALUTES YOU
For the record, LJ, noting pisses me off in cyberspace, and rarely in regular space for that matter. I have a zen approach to all I do.Lord Jim wrote:... I know the fact that I refuse to say with absolute certainty who will win the election will piss off Ray, but I guess that somehow I'll just have to live with that....
As anyone who has read my posts over the years knows, when I'm wearing my political analyst hat, (as opposed to when I'm wearing my party hat....and a festive hat it is...) what I do, (as I have done in this post) is to try to weigh the available information as objectively as possible, and then process that information with my knowledge and experience in the area to give what are my honest best estimates as to likely outcomes.
That is what I have always done in these forums, and that is what I will continue to do.
That said, Internet forums are rife with opinions, with "real facts" (not the made up kind) often taking a back seat, or being left behind completely. I'm just astonished that I can read paragraph after paragraph, page after page, of someone's biased, ranting, opinion and then get people to actually listen as though it's God's word in the process. Cults are stated with less. God bless you, Lord Jim.
Truth, justice, and the American way.
"Sepius nefas, nunquam in nuto."
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.”
Re: Reid Pulls A Bachmann.....
Sooooo Yer "FACTS" are betteren anyone elses?
Latin is Greek to me...
Latin is Greek to me...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: Reid Pulls A Bachmann.....
Google is our new overlord:
The Latin translation of phrase "Often wrong, never in doubt" is "Sepius nefas , nunquam in nuto".
The Latin translation of phrase "Often wrong, never in doubt" is "Sepius nefas , nunquam in nuto".