In-A-Gadda-Levitre
-
Posts
1,737 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by In-A-Gadda-Levitre
-
-
What's funny is claiming he'd look like a "cheat" if he took the full deduction for the FOUR MILLION in charitable donations.
only for breaking his August statement, not for what % or the $. Que the Obama said he'd be a 1-term president...
-
Ok, but your post only questions if she was licensed to practice law, not about Brown's issue.
and I can't see anywhere in that article where he concedes they're federal cases and maybe she's got a possible out. He talks a lot about her practicing law out of her MA office, and that might not be totally legal, I have no info either way. Seems like she could use that office as an address if she only worked pro hac vice.
-
Because what I stated is true. If you had a !@#$ing clue you would understand that there is a difference between earned income such as wages, and capital gains. Our tax code, as screwed up as it is, at least recognizes that investment is good. What percentage would you pay on long-term capital gains?
Well, don't get your panties all in a bunch. I actually do get the difference between the two. I'm trying to understand why you're comparing what Romney paid (amount, not %) to Obama.
The percentages are the subject of ur rant, but your earlier post was talking about amounts, at least that's how I read it.
-
You are mistating the facts, as usual. Mitt paid 14.1 % for 2011. He paid an average of 20.2% over the last 20 years. Obama paid 20.5% in 2011 on 800k or so income (about 160-170k) Romney paid well more than 10 times what Obama paid on 17X the income.
why would you even make this comparison?
-
Yes, but...do you actually know the relevant MA law? I don't...for all we know, there's some sort of reciprocity between MA and NJ that makes the whole story irrelevant (I doubt it - there's not even reciprocity between NJ and NY, according to my sister who practiced in NJ two years ago. Don't see why there would be between NJ and MA).
As I dimly recall, that particular site is a politically unbiased legal blog, and I'm willing to defer to it with a LARGE grain of salt until someone points me to the applicable laws and regulations...and I start caring enough to read them.
if she's trying a federal case, which all the cases that Mr. Jacobson cited were, she doesn't need a Mass license to appear before a federal court. The so called “pro hac vice,” Latin for “for this occasion”, allows an attorney from another state to appear, as long as there's another attorney with an MA license in the docket for the case. Here's the applicable statute.
-
The winds of change are blowing.
And try as they might, the economy is a thorn in their sides, while their foreign policy is now becoming one.
not sure either of these is true. Check out the latest Fox Poll that shows not only Romney losing OH, FL and VA, but also has the President leading (albeit slim margins) on the economy and foreign policy. If Romney doesn't win in FL and probably OH and VA too, there's almost no way he gets to 270
Obama tops Romney by seven percentage points among likely voters in both Ohio (49-42 percent) and Virginia (50-43 percent). In Florida, the president holds a five-point edge (49-44 percent).
Obama’s lead is just outside the poll’s margin of sampling error in Ohio and Virginia, and within the margin of sampling error in Florida.
The good news for Romney is that among voters who are “extremely” interested in this year’s election, the races are much tighter. Obama is up by just two points with this group in Virginia (49-47 percent), Florida is tied (48-48 percent), and Romney is up by one point in Ohio (48-47 percent).
Independents are nearly evenly divided in each of the states, as well.
Majorities of voters are unhappy with how things are going in the country, yet in all three states more say they trust Obama than Romney to improve the economy.
Likewise, in each state more voters believe the Obama administration’s policies have helped rather than hurt the economy -- albeit by slim margins: By two points in Florida, three points in Ohio and five points in Virginia.
Amid the turbulent situation in the Middle East, each of the polls shows the president is more trusted than Romney on foreign policy.
-
How about this?
umm, what does some teacher's unions contributing to some republicans have to do with Obama/Romney polling or majorities in Congress?
-
From that well-known "conservative rag" , the Politico................lol
Romney winning with middle-class families
ok, that's the spin from GOP strategists Goeas and Nienaber, here's the left side take on the same poll
Not only is the President leading Mitt Romney with the support of half of all likely voters (50% to 47%), but fully six-in-ten voters now believe Obama will ultimately win, compared to just 30% who express similar confidence about Romney. This is no small point; at this point in the election cycle, voters’ expectations help fuel turnout and influence the last of the undecided voters. Underpinning these expectations is a set of judgments that voters are forming about the two candidates, their visions, and plans for the country.
The moment of intervention and clarity that the Democratic convention provided the national consciousness has been sustained by Americans’ increasing recognition of the hostility and disrespect inherent in the GOP’s agenda, and voiced so unapologetically by the GOP’s standard-bearers, Romney and Ryan. As a result, Americans’ preference for Obama over Romney continues to grow, both in personal terms and on a range of issues central to their lives and the future of the country, including the economy, foreign policy, taxes, and the middle class.
both are spinning like crazy
-
And again, Barry said that if he didn't have the economy fixed in 3 years, he would be a one-term president.
yep, we'll find out in November if America agrees
-
And he is 100% correct. It is up to him to declare how much of his charitable contribution he wants to include.
of course it's up to him to declare how much he wants, but that's not what he said. He basically framed the legally required and not a dollar more as a condition of fitness to run for the office.
-
Link? And Barry said that if the economy wasn't better in 3 years, he'd be a one-term president.
for the 'paid more to match his statement'
They could have claimed more in deductions, said Brad Malt, the trustee of Romney's blind trust, but the couple "limited their deductions of charitable contributions to conform to the governor's statement in August, based on the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13 percent in income taxes in each of the last 10 years."if he paid more than he legally had to...
That decision contradicts a pledge Romney made during an interview in July, when he told ABC News he would not pay more in taxes "than are legally due. And, frankly, if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president. I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires."
Romney made a similar remark in January during a GOP primary debate, when he said, "I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more. I don't think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes."
yes he did, and if the American people/electoral college think he's had long enough, they'll vote him out, unless they prescribe to that devil you know idiom.
-
Mitt Romney's dirty tax secret is out, he paid MORE than he had to
so he would match the statement he made in August that he paid at least 13%, his trustee said yesterday.
I also remember a while back he said if he paid more than he was legally supposed to, that he (referring to himself) wasn't fit to be running for president.
edit: actually what he said was
“I pay all the taxes that are legally required and not a dollar more,” he said. “I don’t think you want someone as the candidate for president who pays more taxes than he owes.”
-
I heard this described as...."darker things are suggested to have happened to the body of the ambassador".
Sodomizing a dead guy?
Or, was that done before he was killed? As he was being suffocated?except that there was no sodomy, no dragging his body through the streets, nor any dark things actually happened. Eyewitnesses stated that his body was found still breathing in the burned out consulate, they picked him up, carried him outside and rushed him to the hospital in a private car. And it all jives with the doctor's statement.
Video taken by al-Bakoush and posted on YouTube shows Stevens being carried out of the room through a window with a raised shutter. “Bring him out, man,” someone shouts. “Out of the way, out of the way!”
“Alive, Alive!” come other shouts, then a cheer of “God is great.”
The next scene shows Stevens lying on a tile floor, with one man touching his neck to check his pulse. Al-Bakoush said that after that scene, they put Stevens in a private car to rush to the hospital.
-
His wonderful centerpiece of statesmanship - his Middle East policy - is burning daily and the vision of the sodomized and suffocated American ambassador to Libya is tucked away next to those of Bin Laden.
say what?
-
Here's one that (unfortunately for the whole country) is NOT photoshopped
The Pesident of the United States in his office yesterday.
.
May 12, 2009 11:02 AM
White House Back-Story: The President And The Pirate
Pity the poor historian a couple hundred years from now, at a loss to figure out why Barack Obama, an American president at the start of the 21st century, was photographed meeting in the Oval Office with – a pirate.
What kind of unexplained policy initiative was being played out in this photo, the historian might wonder, perhaps confusing it for something other than what it was: a gag – one of dozens – for the president's remarks at the White House Correspondent's Dinner.
-
What is he pushing in Obamcare? Is he pushing the $716B in Medicare cuts? No. He's pushing the (few) good things like allowing kids to stay on their parents' plan until age 26, covering pre-existing conditions and preventative care. And that was done so that people will think Obamacare is a good thing, re-elect him, and then find out that he's sent the country down the path of destruction when it's too late to do anything about it.
Romney supports covering pre-existing conditions as long as the person has continuous coverage
-
This is Monday night news, but it's still good news.
ya, I didn't see it listed in the 1st page topics, maybe I shoulda done a proper search...
-
Profootballtalk.com reports that Freddie won't need surgery
Jackson said after his television show on WBBZ-TV, via the Buffalo News, that tests showed his strained lateral collateral ligament didn’t need surgery.
If his rehab continues to go well, that would put him on the earlier end of the three- to eight-week time frame coach Chan Gailey mentioned when he was hurt. Jackson also said he expects to begin light running soon.
-
Keep in mind this is the same doucher that said middle income was 200-250k. It's unbelievable how out of touch this silver spooner is. Is this the best candidate the Republicans got?
Link.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?
MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less.
-
Ed Morrissey: Media having a little narrative problem today?
“It’s not often that I laugh out loud while reading my e-mail (and that’s not an invitation to forward the jokes from 1996 still circulating, either), but today’s entries left me no choice. No less than three media outlets have scoops about the Mitt Romney campaign this morning that describe changes in strategy and direction. The only problem is that all three contradict each other despite having come from sources inside the campaign.”
It’s like they’re just making **** up.
.
First, we have Politico, which insists that the campaign wants to broaden its message to include more issues and more voters:
No, no, no, says BuzzFeed — Romney wants to focus on the base, and will talk more about family values than the economy:
Meanwhile, today’s Washington Post reports that both Romney and Barack Obama will focus even more on the economy:
This looks like media narrative-building to leave the impression that Team Romney is in disarray.
It ends up appearing more like the media’s narrative-building apparatus is in disarray.
I suspect that the Romney campaign is more or less on the message trajectory they anticipated.
.
Mr Gillespie was given the job to muddy the waters, but I kinda agree with alot of what you said.
it isn't that crazy. There were more than enough conservatives like Bill Kristol, the WSJ, and others saying he needs to abandon the current strategy; open up on policy details on how he is different and expanding to other issues, like foreign policy.
So it's pretty clear that he jumped on foreign policy, lots of opinions about the goodness factor of that, but now it looks like he's yielding and describing his policies more detail (within the economy) for starters - taxes, entitlements, etc. A good chance that he'll follow up with non-economic policies and use the debates to talk about details in some cases.
And Ryan is a good social issues guy to go on the stump. He delivered at Values Voters, and probably more after that. One thing that hasn't been said yet (I haven't heard...) is that the Romney campaign is gonna unmuzzle Ryan, so focusing on values and staying on their economic message might be his do this for the team thing. BuzzFeed might be mostly right, but using surrogates.
IMO, your last sentence is probably wrong, he's changing the campaign in a big way, based on performance and advice.
-
Politico has a fairly detailed article describing the turmoil in Romney's campaign, mostly pointing the finger at Stuart Stevens, one of the top strategists. Yeah, I know, it's that liberal media bias trying to make Romney look bad...
In what many in the campaign now consider a fundamental design flaw, Stevens is doing three major jobs: chief strategist, chief ad maker and chief speechwriter. It would be as if George W. Bush had run for president in 2000 with one person playing the roles of Karl Rove, Mark McKinnon and Michael Gerson. Or if on the Obama campaign of 2008, David Axelrod had not been backed up by Jim Margolis, Robert Gibbs and Jon Favreau. -
In the end, it doesn't matter. The article I linked was wrong according to the Pentagon. So, there's that.
Now, where is that report stating such?
Wait, what?
if you follow the timeline on this, you'll see a rash of articles by major and minor news agencies early, and of course the blogosphere went totally bonkers, as one might expect. Then, the Pentagon responded affirmatively that this was not the case, and the story died in the news media after the updates (AP, Fox News, etc.). Now the only people that appear to hang on to the original theory are the blogs, who apparently aren't satisfied by the Pentagon's statement. Ok, The Free Beacon isn't buying it, I get that, but unless you provide a reasonably legitimate source that can prove or least shed some light as to why the original statement is still true, just let it go.
-
You make this as though the "UPDATE" was there when I read the article. But thanks for the update just the same.
nope, just pointing out that your source had been updated and the theory had been debunked.
-
A Wisconsin judge declares Walker's controversial collective bargaining law is unconstitutional
It was not clear if the ruling means the law is immediately suspended. The law took away nearly all collective bargaining rights from most workers and has been in effect for more than a year.
Dane County Circuit Judge Juan Colas ruled that the law violates both the state and U.S. Constitution and is null and void. The ruling comes after a lawsuit brought by the Madison teachers union and a union for Milwaukee city employees.
Romney's 2011 taxes
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
dude, I have no such standards. I don't think he pays too little or too much. The tax rates are what they are, his income is all unearned, he's entitled to take every deduction and pay whatever rate he complies with.
His statement, and nobody held a gun to his head, was that he never paid less than 13%, so he adjusted his 2011 deductions for charity to match the 13% floor. That's all. If he takes the full deduction as Doc mentioned, it's all legal, but breaks Mitt's own promise, nothing more or less.
I agree that there's people and media that try to compare his unearned rates with those that primarily have earned income, and that's BS. Unless we're willing to raise capital gains to match earned income (which I don't support), they'll never be close, nor should they be.
What would I do if I was in his shoes? I don't know, I probably wouldn't have made that 13% statement before I know what's in my 2011 taxes. But maybe he knew, and the campaign, accountants, etc. agreed he can claim 13% in all years if we take less than the max this year... Who knows?
I think maybe I would've taken the maximum and said "We filed an extension on our 2011 taxes because we didn't have all the data. Once we collected everything, we learned that it was below13% for 2011, but only this year, all other years were 13% or more." He would've taken a little heat, but probably less than he does for adjusting his deduction to match the 13% floor.