Romney's Tax Returns Held Ransom?

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

But in their defense, you have to remember that for no small segment of the population, the system WAS really rigged against them, and opportunity - and success - was something that was granted to them by the government.

 

We just happen to see the generation that grew up within that context coming into power.

 

you stole my hammer B word!!!!!!!

[Doc]

The difference between successful liberals and conservatives is this; a conservative never admits weakness, and a liberal never admits they made it on their own. Conservatives tend to be narcists and Liberals tend to be humble. A conservative who doesn't make it "rich" will always blame government or a union, a liberal will blame himself.

I suppose that's why Barry is the most narcissistic prez ever and can't accept blame for the lousy current state of the country.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

are you stuck on the word narcissistic doc?

 

Myth Romney tellus Americans lies every day and brags of accomplishments only he could do. YEY you don't see that as narcissistic?!?!?!

 

 

The only people paying a 30% tax rate are making 178K or more.

 

Actually I am wrong, it's those making more than 218000 or more.

 

So why did Myth Romney pay only 14% and white lie Ryan (in his youth couldn't beat old Sarah Palin in a marathon) pay 15%?

 

 

Individual income tax rates: They are currently 10%, 15%, 25%, 33%, and 35%

 

Obama: Would make those Bush-era tax rates permanent for everyone except those making more than $200,000 ($250,000 if married). For those high-income households, Obama would preserve the Bush tax rates at the low end (10%, 15% and 25%) but raise the top two rates to 36% and 39.6%.

 

Romney: Would reduce each of the Bush-era income tax rates by 20%. So the top rate would fall to 28% and the bottom rate would fall to 8%.

 

 

wow 28% and Myth still paid half of that.

 

Alternative Minimum Tax: Currently, unless Congress makes special adjustments for inflation to the amount of income exempt from the AMT, the so-called wealth tax would hit tens of millions in the middle class. Making the adjustment is costly; getting rid of the AMT altogether is really costly.

 

Obama: Would permanently adjust the AMT for inflation.

Romney: Would abolish the AMT.

 

Obama: Would raise the capital gains rate to 20% and tax dividends at ordinary income tax rates for those making more than $200,000 ($250,000 if married).

Romney: Would maintain the current 15% investment income tax rate, but exempt from taxation all capital gains, (are from the sale of stocks, bonds, precious metals and property) dividends and interest for those with adjusted gross incomes up to $100,000 ($200,000 for married couples).

 

So..... people making big $ in the stock market get a bonus, while those who can't lose out on Mortgage interest tax deduction.

 

BRAVO!!!!

[Doc]

are you stuck on the word narcissistic doc?

 

Myth Romney tellus Americans lies every day and brags of accomplishments only he could do. YEY you don't see that as narcissistic?!?!?!

 

I went and looked up the definition BF-4-E. And guess what? Instead of a description I saw a pic of Barry.

 

As for Romney, he tells lies just like Barry does. The difference is he doesn't blame others for his failures. Therein lies the difference.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Tax breaks: Tax credits, deductions and other breaks reduce revenue by more than $1 trillion every year. To pay for lower income tax rates and reduce deficits, many breaks -- including the largest and most popular -- have to be eliminated or curtailed, experts say.

Obama: Has proposed limiting the value of itemized deductions and other tax breaks such as exclusions for those with adjusted gross income over $200,000. Today, many filers in that group can deduct 33% or 35% of a qualified expense. Obama would limit that to 28%.

Obama also has proposed making permanent some expanded tax breaks for the middle class, such as one for college costs.

Romney: Has failed to specify which tax breaks he'd eliminate or reduce to help pay for his proposed tax cuts. He has suggested that he would limit them for high-income filers, but has offered no details. Economist Martin Feldstein, a Romney campaign adviser, noted in a recent Wall Street Journal editorial that he would keep all deductions but limit their value to a small percentage of a taxpayer's adjusted gross income.

Estate tax: Until the end of this year, only estates valued at more than $5.12 million are subject to an estate tax up to a 35% top rate. Barring congressional action, all estates worth more than $1 million will be subject to the estate tax at a top rate of 55% next year.

Obama: Would reinstate the estate tax at 2009 levels -- meaning estates worth more than $3.5 million would be subject to the tax and face a top rate of 45%.

Romney: Would repeal the estate tax but preserve the gift tax rate at 35%

[truth on hold]

sure sounds like a cheap and desperate hoax to have Romney release them. Theyre demanding a ransom? C'mon man, like Romney could ever pay that and not get kicked out of the race

[Juror#8]

It's easy to identify the individuals who don't know squat about legislative politics. They're the ones who insist that Obama had carte blanche to do whatever he wanted in 09-10 because he had a majority in Congress. They're the ones who feel that innaction or watered down legislation then and since was the result of poorly conceived initiatives or just a general lack of effort.

 

The matrix has them. They want to be re-inserted wealthy, as an actor, to enjoy the medium-rare steak, and enjoy the harp at the scene's transition.

 

The same dolts on the other side couldn't understand why Bush couldn't get a judicial appointment through in 2004.

 

But carry on thinking that the filibuster is just an excuse. The rest of us will appreciate the reality of legislative gridlock and obstructionist politics.

 

Who is gonna be the first dolt to mention "60 senators," Joe Lieberman, and/or filibuster-proof majorities. Who is gonna be the first to !@#$ up the time stamp?

[/dev/null]

The matrix has them. They want to be re-inserted wealthy, as an actor, to enjoy the medium-rare steak, and enjoy the harp at the scene's transition.

 

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify Progressives and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but Progressives do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Progressives are a disease, a cancer of this planet

 

(if you want to try to play snarky with the sci-fi references, please feel free. All politics aside there are several on this board who will pwn u)

Edited September 7, 2012 by /dev/null

[Juror#8]

I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify Progressives and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but Progressives do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Progressives are a disease, a cancer of this planet

 

(if you want to try to play snarky with the sci-fi references, please feel free. All politics aside there are several on this board who will pwn u)

 

I can dig that. I don't profess do be an expert in sci-fi flics but I know enough to get by. I did finally figure out "Primer" after the fourth viewing, ya know.

 

Anyway, outside of the sci fi stuffs, the whole "if you opine, and if the opinion doesn't entirely criticize Obama, you're a Progressive," or "if you dislike Romney personally, and feel that his shortcomings and lack of personal ethic will color his leadership capabilities, you're a progressive," is profoundly, profoundly, myopic.

 

I'm glad that the myopia articulated by some here is not reflected amongst the GOP at large. Otherwise, independents would be ostracized wholesale.

 

Believe it or not, there are some who feel that the President is a nice person, but don't agree with his policies. There are also those who align more closely with the generic GOP platform, but feel that Romney is an insufferable lout.

 

Not everyone will abandon their principles at nomination time. I also understand that not everyone feels that a vote for Romney constitutes "abandoning their principles." I voted republican in 2004 and libertarian in 2008. I won't vote the ticket in 2012. I'm going to write in my candidate. If there are an appreciable number of voters who feel like me, who consider their vote inviolate, who won't vote for a smug two-faced poser, or an unskilled, unprepared, and "at-best," local politician with lofty ideals, there are a lot of Ds and Rs who are in trouble.

 

Some of you don't get that. You'd rather get ass !@#$ed but act like you're eating pusssssy. I call that queer; you might call it pumpkin pie. Either way, it doesn't compute.

 

Not everyone who feels that Romney has demonstrated textbook opportunistic ethics and is a man who is personally repugnant, is willing look beyond that.

 

You call that "progressive," I call it standing on personal principle.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Juror#8

[Juror#8]

Above post edited.

[Juror#8]

I'd also be interested to know if ANYONE has met either candidate? And if not, how could you not, but be so ardent in your support? One would think that actually personally hearing someone articulate a view (campaign event, etc.) would inform your views on the candidates. I've never met the president, but I know 4 or 5 people who have...some have met him on a few occassions.

 

I've met Mitt Romney on two occassions - both unmemorable. I met him twice in VA in 2007. I even have his autograph on the back of a Dream Theater cd booklet. I didn't dislike him then and he still came off as a glad-handing, unprincipled, egoist.

 

I've also met H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford. It would be interesting to get a perspective from someone else who has met these folks...even casually. Mitt Romney just gives off an unsettling, aloof, vibe that is COMPLETELY manufactured.

 

If you have a conversation with H.W. Bush, and then immediately speak with Mitt Romney, it is night and day. I'm not talking about simple personality differences; I'm talking about the sincerity of their presence.

 

It is VERY difficult to explain. But if you could juxtapose the two, you'd know what I was saying.

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone here of anything. I'm not trying to be persuasive. Everyone here has their mind made up. I just want to give some more layers to my dislike for Romney.

[Doc]

It's easy to identify the individuals who don't know squat about legislative politics. They're the ones who insist that Obama had carte blanche to do whatever he wanted in 09-10 because he had a majority in Congress. They're the ones who feel that innaction or watered down legislation then and since was the result of poorly conceived initiatives or just a general lack of effort.

 

The matrix has them. They want to be re-inserted wealthy, as an actor, to enjoy the medium-rare steak, and enjoy the harp at the scene's transition.

 

The same dolts on the other side couldn't understand why Bush couldn't get a judicial appointment through in 2004.

 

But carry on thinking that the filibuster is just an excuse. The rest of us will appreciate the reality of legislative gridlock and obstructionist politics.

 

Who is gonna be the first dolt to mention "60 senators," Joe Lieberman, and/or filibuster-proof majorities. Who is gonna be the first to !@#$ up the time stamp?

He had a filibuster-proof majority from September 27th 2009-February 4th 2010 since he had 58 Dem senators and 2 Independents who were former Dems and who caucused with the Dems. Sure that's "only" 4-1/2 months...

[Juror#8]

He had a filibuster-proof majority from September 27th 2009-February 4th 2010 since he had 58 Dem senators and 2 Independents who were former Dems and who caucused with the Dems. Sure that's "only" 4-1/2 months...

 

Thank you for getting the time stamp correct. 4 1/2 months. Have some of these dolts here tell it, he was ruling by fiat for 2 full years and could do what he wanted. I have to wonder, have they even read a short summary on legislative process? Just like the cliff's notes ****?

 

And let's remember for that 4 1/2 months, his 60th vote was Joe Lieberman...the same man that campaigned and voted for the republican, John McCain.

 

Anyway, the president was filibustered...a lot. It was obstructionist by the republicans to do that. It was politically smart, but it was obstructionist. That way nothing gets done and they can blame it on the president. If the Ds had done it, it would have been obstructionist by them too. They did it to Bush's judicial appointments in early 04. Guess what, it was obstructionist.

 

Why is that so hard for folks here to admit? Does a "fact" become an "excuse" if you don't like the person?

 

It's just a fact. It's not a partisan fact. It's just a fact. The Republicans doubled the record for filibusters by a single Congress. The Dems had the record in 1999-2000 with like 55 filibusters. The republicans filibustered like 120 times in 09-10.

 

Is that not significant because you (not "you" Doc) don't like the president?

 

And is it "progressive" to mention the truth of a political circumstance that undermines a GOP talking point?

[Doc]

Thank you for getting the time stamp correct. 4 1/2 months. Have some of these dolts here tell it, he was ruling by fiat for 2 full years and could do what he wanted. I have to wonder, have they even read a short summary on legislative process? Just like the cliff's notes ****?

 

And let's remember for that 4 1/2 months, his 60th vote was Joe Lieberman...the same man that campaigned and voted for the republican, John McCain.

 

Anyway, the president was filibustered...a lot. It was obstructionist by the republicans to do that. It was politically smart, but it was obstructionist. That way nothing gets done and they can blame it on the president. If the Ds had done it, it would have been obstructionist by them too. They did it to Bush's judicial appointments in early 04. Guess what, it was obstructionist.

 

Why is that so hard for folks here to admit? Does a "fact" become an "excuse" if you don't like the person?

 

It's just a fact. It's not a partisan fact. It's just a fact. The Republicans doubled the record for filibusters by a single Congress. The Dems had the record in 1999-2000 with like 55 filibusters. The republicans filibustered like 120 times in 09-10.

 

Is that not significant because you (not "you" Doc) don't like the president?

 

And is it "progressive" to mention the truth of a political circumstance that undermines a GOP talking point?

My "only 4-1/2 months" was meant to be sarcastic, Juror. They could have gotten a lot done during that time period. It's not like it was the first 4-1/2 months were there was a transition; it was 9 months into Barry's first term. They managed to pass a 2,000 page monstrosity of a health care bill. They could easily have tackled a lot of other issues like capital gains, which Barry said he'd raise when campaigning for president.

[WorldTraveller]

 

Anyway, the president was filibustered...a lot. It was obstructionist by the republicans to do that. It was politically smart, but it was obstructionist. That way nothing gets done and they can blame it on the president. If the Ds had done it, it would have been obstructionist by them too. They did it to Bush's judicial appointments in early 04. Guess what, it was obstructionist.

 

Why is that so hard for folks here to admit? Does a "fact" become an "excuse" if you don't like the person?

 

It's just a fact. It's not a partisan fact. It's just a fact. The Republicans doubled the record for filibusters by a single Congress. The Dems had the record in 1999-2000 with like 55 filibusters. The republicans filibustered like 120 times in 09-10.

 

 

Obviously you don't know what a "fact" is.

 

So allow me to educate you:

 

 

Fact: A thing that is indisputably the case.

 

What you stated, was your opinion.

 

 

Opinion: A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

 

 

You believe they were obstructionist for purely political reasons and discount their motives.

 

I for one am glad that they in your words "obstructed" Obama's agenda of higher spending, with the intentions of temporarily stimulating the economy.

 

Fiscal conservatives vehemently disagree with the presidents policies because we believe that they don't solve the countries problems. Bush was a big spender, and as a result fiscal conservative minded voters didn't turn out for the 2006 mid term and 2008 presidential elections.

 

That is what we call "message received".

 

So you can pretend to know what you are talking about, which you don't, and spout your own OPINIONS and try to cast them off as facts, but we know better.

 

So please, spare us your bull ****

[DC Tom]

Obviously you don't know what a "fact" is.

 

So allow me to educate you:

 

 

 

What you stated, was your opinion.

 

 

 

 

You believe they were obstructionist for purely political reasons and discount their motives.

 

I for one am glad that they in your words "obstructed" Obama's agenda of higher spending, with the intentions of temporarily stimulating the economy.

 

Fiscal conservatives vehemently disagree with the presidents policies because we believe that they don't solve the countries problems. Bush was a big spender, and as a result fiscal conservative minded voters didn't turn out for the 2006 mid term and 2008 presidential elections.

 

That is what we call "message received".

 

So you can pretend to know what you are talking about, which you don't, and spout your own OPINIONS and try to cast them off as facts, but we know better.

 

So please, spare us your bull ****

 

Generally, it's probably safe to assume they're being obstructionist if they filibuster everything.

 

It's even reasonable to say they're being obstructionist if they filibuster anything...on the basis that, yes, they are obstructing something. Doesn't mean it's wrong...but again, given the hyper-partisan atmosphere of the past ten or so years, it's not unreasonable to assume it's strictly political.

[3rdnlng]

I'd also be interested to know if ANYONE has met either candidate? And if not, how could you not, but be so ardent in your support? One would think that actually personally hearing someone articulate a view (campaign event, etc.) would inform your views on the candidates. I've never met the president, but I know 4 or 5 people who have...some have met him on a few occassions.

 

I've met Mitt Romney on two occassions - both unmemorable. I met him twice in VA in 2007. I even have his autograph on the back of a Dream Theater cd booklet. I didn't dislike him then and he still came off as a glad-handing, unprincipled, egoist.

 

I've also met H.W. Bush and Gerald Ford. It would be interesting to get a perspective from someone else who has met these folks...even casually. Mitt Romney just gives off an unsettling, aloof, vibe that is COMPLETELY manufactured.

 

If you have a conversation with H.W. Bush, and then immediately speak with Mitt Romney, it is night and day. I'm not talking about simple personality differences; I'm talking about the sincerity of their presence.

 

It is VERY difficult to explain. But if you could juxtapose the two, you'd know what I was saying.

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone here of anything. I'm not trying to be persuasive. Everyone here has their mind made up. I just want to give some more layers to my dislike for Romney.

 

 

I'm voting for someone who is more in line with my political philosophy and is competent. I'm not voting for Gary Johnson. I want to see my guy win so that we have a better chance of coming out of this mess. It would be nice if he sent a tingle up my leg, but that is not what's important here.

[WorldTraveller]

Generally, it's probably safe to assume they're being obstructionist if they filibuster everything.

 

It's even reasonable to say they're being obstructionist if they filibuster anything...on the basis that, yes, they are obstructing something. Doesn't mean it's wrong...but again, given the hyper-partisan atmosphere of the past ten or so years, it's not unreasonable to assume it's strictly political.

 

Doesn't make it a fact, makes it an opinion. I'm a staunch fiscal conservative, When Bush signed the Medicare Part D, I sat out the elections.

 

So if you want to assume that it's political, then thats your opinion. I happen to agree with the decisions of opposing most of Obama's agenda.

[DC Tom]

I happen to agree with the decisions of opposing most of Obama's agenda.

 

So do I. Doesn't mean it's not politically motivated.

 

Just don't go all Big Cat "I disagree because it's politics, even though I agree because it's a good idea" on us.

[WorldTraveller]

 

 

Just don't go all Big Cat "I disagree because it's politics, even though I agree because it's a good idea" on us.

 

That's a low blow