And given his own tax returns he's capable of exploiting every possible tax deduction that allows the rich to pay 15% or less, much lower than average middle class American, while earning way over 100 times what they earn. He's the second example of this, Warren Buffet at least came clean and freely admitted this.

Oh and all this info runs contrary to what the Tax Foundation publishes. Are you surprised? Well you shouldn't be, that shows a high level of naiveness.

Exactly, that's why I say "Romney Romney he's my man, if he can't fix it no one can."

I watched him at two republican gatherings blame everything on the Godless liberals. Obviously he was pandering to the crowd, but it shows he'll simply say anything to get what he wants.

Haven't we had enough of this type of exploiter? Do we really need to continue the current 2 party dictatorship?

Aristide, What do you think he really wants, and why?

Given the existence enlargement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by previous Democratics, and derivative deregulation pushed through by Clinton, you are probably right.

But after it happened, what did Obama do about it? Nothing. Not a damn thing. No indictments, no curtailment of obscene bonuses even when the government took over the companies.

Romney has paid 15% in taxes recently since his only source of income the last few years have been dividends from his investments. He is a self-made millionaire, and did not inherit his money. The middle class, and the pensions that fund their retirements, pay the same 15% on their dividends. Dividends are actually double-taxation, since corporations have to pay taxes on pre-dividend income, and then the recipients of the dividends pay another 15%, and all of this happens even though the US has the highest corporate tax rates of any advanced country. We should not punish someone who has been successful and made money, and has invested in stocks that pay dividends.

Buffet came clean? He is a devout Democrat, and the religion dies hard.

Obama (with the possible exception of a stint at McDonald's, or whatever) has never had a job in the private sector. He has always worked in a taxpayer funded agency his entire professional career. How much does Obama pay on his dividends? How much does Bill Clinton pay on his dividends? Both these guys are multi-millionaires and they pay 15% on their dividends just like everyone else.

Presidential candidates are merely tools of their party. They cater to their kind (first 6 years GWB never vetoed a single pork laden pub bill) and fight whatever and whomever didn't contribute to them. (You didn't really believe you as a voter represents anything to them, do you?) So:

1. They run, even with huge financial losses, to push their agenda, not their constituents.

2. To make the really big money afterwards. Books, speeches, cushy deals with their fellow cult follower members. Much the same way senators and congressmen become lobbyists, but in a manner that initially appears they have not been prostituting themselves during their "public service" years.

3. Some simply run to make money. It's less work than what L Ron Hubbard did. Scientology may earn more money, but by the hour running for president probably pays better. The sheer number of dumb ass free volunteers makes this possible.

Anyway I wish I had a clip of this wonderfully astute Mexican comedian I saw the other night. He was talking about how he was invited to town meeting to talk about what needs to be done and how to spend money, etc. And the person inviting him asks, "First I need to know are you a republican or are you a democrat?" And the comedian replies, "Neither." So the guy asks him , Well, why?"

And the comedian replies with totally accuracy and honesty

"Well I consider myself to be somewhat intelligent, and frankly, I simply don't like being 50% wrong
ALL THE FUCKING TIME!

And the crowd went wild.

Bill Clinton, George W Bush, and Obama didn't (and don't) have an agenda. They just wanted to be president. That's fine, if nothing needs to be fixed, but when things go wrong it is like a deer in the headlights (or a cigar somewhere else).

Like most political pundits you seem to believe your opinion has a higher value than everyone else's. Perhaps to the degree it's the only one that counts. But whatever the case may be, what's most apparent you don't have no understanding of the phrase "Piss off" and continue to return, like a bad case of dandruff or athlete's foot.

Note to the remaining public - Sorry to have disparaged dried out skin flakes and fungus like that. It wasn't by choice.

Obama has done (or not done) a lot of things while in office that I disapprove of. Still, my best guess for what a McCain/Palin administration would have been like is far worse. Same for Romney/Paul/Gingrich/etc. I have no objections to criticizing Obama's failures to deal with Wall St. or the BP oil spill in a reasonable way, but to think that a Republican administration would do better goes way beyond pulling the wool over your eyes. (Remember when Joe Barton apologized to BP CEO Hayward about the "shakedown" he was getting from Obama? Yeah, this is the guy the Republicans had as head of the House Energy Subcommittee...)

I think there is legitimate debate about what will increase tax revenue (FWIW, I believe promoting economic growth is more important than changes to the tax rate), but to have one political party outright reject any proposal that includes an increase in tax rates smacks of ignorant stubbornness. If you're not willing to compromise at all, then what's the point of democracy?

We don't live in a democracy, not even a republic. It's a 2 party dictatorship, each of which is sustaining a plutarchy.

Now M002A will come along with twice as many antics as what you listed and will attempt to justify his "2 wrongs make a right" stance, which is the only card he can ever hope to play, and has done nothing but on this entire thread.

Forgot to mention after having more than enough money the only way to get what you want that can't be bought is through power.

What an appropriate term.

Unlike you, I have never started any of these contentious threads, so I don't believe that my opinion has a higher value than anyone else's. Do I have a opinion? Yes, and what's wrong with that unless you are anti-intellectual Neanderthal who is afraid to discuss ideas with others?

It appears that you want to post on this forum, but don't want anyone to disagree with you. You can't stand any scrutiny of your "ideas" (I use that word advisedly), and your typical response is like a little boy who kicks the rock he has just stumbled on and yells "absurd" at the world.

Considering your lack of literacy as displayed in the post above, and your intolerance to allow those with other opinions to post, it is no wonder you had such a hard time finding a job.

I just hope someone will ask Santorum why he chose to download Anal Nuns In Heat. God fearing folks deserve an explanation!

Agreed

Disagree.

No you simply have contentious responses, well ain't that just a hell of a lot better?

Your presence, always unwanted, has ruined 1 thread of mine and 1 other post. I've seen more productive results from carpet bombing of the 1960's.

So what part of "piss off" still escapes you? See what I've learned from the likes of you is that diplomatic solutions sometimes only extend a problem. I use diplomacy with higher life forms. Please don't mistake the prior sentence as saying your not intelligent, your posts successfully accomplished that conclusion long before I showed up.

As a self admitted wetback stated of being partisan and beyond your incredibily limited acceptance and understanding:

Imagine that? He gets it, you don't. I noticed you didn't mention this, staying silent is your way of agreeing, and hoping nobody will notice.

Any why exactly don't you go to someplace where you would be more welcome? There's all of AM talk radio, and here's a whole list
https://www.google.com/#hl=en&gs_nf=1&t ... h=669&bs=1

Lots of places to go to with others like you. You can talk about how bad Obama is to followers of Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Markin, Pat Buchanan, Glenn Beck, there are plenty of pundits around to moan and cheer about similar stuff like yourself. Why not start your own website? Think of how many people you can reach and they too will feel like they just developed a raging case of hemorrhoids? And that list you posted here, you could start a new TV network called dark comedy central, you obviously have the material.


Your English comprehension is extremely limited. I never said or implied you could not post, I said you're a pompous windbag for posting here. I also said you should go elsewhere. I know you won't because some things in life only exist to irritate others, like those I already mentioned - atheletes foot, dandruff, I should include toe nail fungus, that's a really happy one.

Don't like my shpelling? Call 1-800-Dan-Quayle or 1-888-POTATOE (yeah with an E).

He could have been a lot more discrete and simply borrowed it from Newt or Cain.

Agreed

I don't think my responses are any more contentious than yours, and usually much less so. I do try to make them well thought out and provide the best arguments that I can muster to support my views, but I don't see how that is threatening to anyone.

I always assumed that the left consider themselves to be more intellectual than the right, so I am a bit surprised that you react that way to those who express different ideas than you. I prefer to let everyone have the opportunity to discuss the major issues of our day in a civilized and intelligent manor. Although you apparently would prefer that I disappear, I don't think every person I argue with on this forum shares that opinion, and they (at least sometimes) enjoy some good intellectual give and take. If you only want affirmation, maybe a public forum is not the best place to discuss these issues.

I wouldn't take these things so personally. The problems of the world (or even the USA) are probably too complicated for any of us to actually know for sure how to solve them.

Since you did not say exactly what you disagree with, or why you disagree, it is a bit hard to respond.

Your posts seem to have gotten a lot shorter recently. Do you have arthritis, or having some keyboard problems, or what? Maybe you are on a mobile device?

Well that was as intellectual as it was on topic.


What ideas?
And I laugh at your feeble classification, as I did not vote for Obama.

I disagree with you of course.

Agreed

Maybe you should lighten up a little.

This could be interesting.



Otherwise known as corporate tax avoidance, which is certainly not a good thing.

My Conservative led government is reducing the corporate tax rate in the UK every year by 1% since they came to power, by the time we have another election our corporate tax rate will be the lowest of any major country in Europe - why would they do this, to attract more foreign business investment, which will create more jobs, which will more than pay for the loss of corporate tax via income tax. Remember this was a Conservative pledge should they have got into power, to reduce the corporation tax by 5% in their first term, that is not simply an "ideological tax" as some idiots claim, but one that will help growth, reduce the amount of unemployed and actually generate the UK government MORE tax revenues. I thank the USA that their corporation tax is so high, it will only help the UK



The first sentence is seriously wrong. "Gross" is the amount of income before tax, "Net" is the amount that person takes home. The government is the difference there, the difference between Gross income and Net income is "Government Tax", therefore your sentence should read.

"The amount of tax revenue the government receives is dependent on the amount of GROSS income that people and companies make."

Anyway, moving on, one of the other things that the UK government is in the process of doing during its 5-year term is to increase the amount of money that someone can earn before they pay "income tax", this is an idea agreed to by the Conservatives, but is actually their junior coalition partners idea (Liberal Democrats), this is a good idea for 2-reasons.

a,) Everyone pays less tax, but specifically those on low incomes and part time workers benefit greatly, which it these troubled times is a very good thing as there is a much larger number of part-time workers currently than there has been for a long time - due to the worldwide economy.

b.) This encourages people to get a job rather than sitting around in-front of the TV living off of the dole, anyone who isn't working, but is claiming benefits is a burden on all of the working tax-payers, the decision to increase the amount of income before tax gets paid to £10,000 per year by the end of the governments 5-year term sounds like a lot, but I for one am happy about it those on higher incomes are the ones that wont be as they have to pay for it.

As far as JFK's lowering of tax rates to boost the economy, that is exactly what every Conservative government aims to do, whether the economy allows them to do so is another matter. Personally I believe that there needs to be more balance than there has been, the current UK government is getting there by cutting a few hundred thousand government workers, and making big cuts almost everywhere, but they are not giving the money to the people, they are giving it to our creditors, so that in the future we wont have a gigantic budget deficit.



I agree entirely, and that is why the Eurozone is totally phuqt, there is a huge variation in the countries of the Eurozone, but they want there to be a single rulebook for everyone, and they want every country to have an economy like Germany's, well that obviously wont work, as time has proven.

But I best mention agian that I dont want to impose anything on the American people, I just want to see my cousins over the Atlantic do better for themselves.

Anyway I have to go out, so I will pick this up later.


Andy

Now where have I heard that before?

agreed

Taxes and tax terminology are quite a bit different in the US.

Gross income, take home pay (not exactly relevant for computing taxes), adjusted gross income, tax deductions, taxable income, taxes due, tax credits are all different concepts for individuals. To simplify matters, saying that companies and individuals pay taxes on net taxable income is fairly accurate without getting into all the messy details of the US tax code. In the US, taxes are not calculated on the basis of Gross Income.

Because only amounts over a certain level of income are taxed, and because of tax credits, and because some do not have any income, only about 50% of US households pay federal (or state) income taxes, In some cases they may actually get money back from the government (over and above any withholding) because of tax credits, primarily the earned income credit for low income persons who have a job that does not pay very much money (and especially if they have children they support).