PDA

View Full Version : The two conventions, compared...



Soflasnapper
09-07-2012, 10:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

September 06, 2012

President Obama Accepts the Democratic Nomination

President Obama's acceptance speech sounded more like a State of the Union address than the soaring rhetoric he used to rally the Democratic conventions in 2004 and 2008. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But it was exactly what polls suggest people wanted: Specific plans and proposals for a second term.</span>

Obama also made a persuasive case that things are better today than they were four years ago. It's not an easy one to make but he was helped tremendously last night by Bill Clinton and tonight by Joe Biden.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The Obama campaign wanted this election to be a stark choice between two different governing philosophies and not a referendum on the president's tenure. With this beautifully orchestrated convention -- and with poor strategic decisions and unforced errors by Mitt Romney and the Republicans -- they have succeeded.

Democrats decisively won the battle of the party conventions. It wasn't even close really. And they continue to hold the upper hand in this election.
</span>
I'm really looking forward to the debates.

</div></div>

From the Political Wire (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/09/06/president_obama_accepts_the_democratic_nomination. html)

People were CLAIMING that with Romney's businessman's grasp of statistics and facts and Ryan's supposed genius-like encyclopedic knowledge of the federal budget, those guys would run circles around the Dems on wonkish policy discussions.

Instead, of course, they offered pablum, only claiming that they would be honest and tell the American people the hard truths. They did nothing of the sort, and instead kept their mouths shut entirely on any of that except to offer inoffensive bromides.

Why? Because they desperately wanted a referendum on the last 4 years only, not a choice situation.

They've been forced into a choice election, to their great harm, because other than 'not what he did,' they cannot really speak to their own plans whatsoever. Why? They hold only albatross positions that will doom not only their presidential bid, but by depressing the top line of the ticket turnout, likely lose the House as well.

This was the 'genius' of Mitt's move, which was only plausibly a good idea because a) his own party base doubted him, and a lot; and b) he himself was so unbelievable and such a bad candidate that he had already made himself an issue, and needed some policy distractions.

Which is to say Ann Coulter had it right: '... if we nominate Mitt Romney, we will lose.' Pitiful, really.

They can't beat the foreigner with the funny name and 8%+ UE? Really? It's as if starving dogs won't eat the dog food you're peddling, which means it is really really bad dog food.

LWW
09-07-2012, 11:04 AM
What were these specific plans?

eg8r
09-07-2012, 12:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But it was exactly what polls suggest people wanted: Specific plans and proposals for a second term.</div></div>No hope and change BS this time around. The American people already know that was a lie. This time around they are asking him to be a little more specific. It seems Obama has too many people like yourself dancing around his lies so the American people want something a little more concrete.

What I think is funny is that people are afraid that Romney will do to America what he did to those businesses that Bain purchased. The left has Americans confused though. Romney will be working for the American people, just like he worked for Bain. If Romney is able to make a profit for the American people like he did for Bain then we could kiss poverty good by. Can he do that? No, but geez at least the lefties could quit lying about the scenario.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-07-2012, 03:54 PM
Finally people are waking up to the FACT that Republican policies have never worked. Everything they are likely to do is the same things they did that put us in the mess we're in, in the first place.

They have now made even more enemies than they already had after the eight years they controlled the entire Hill, from the W.H. to the congress, they owned it all and by the time we got rid of them, their multi disasters and F-ed up economy had already destroyed the progress that Clnton had to fight like hell to create, against the will of the Republicans. Republicans wasted that progress, ruined everything, were put out, and then came back for the last two years, and they did even more damage than they had done between 2000 and 2007, before Dems ever got the majority back.

No one can deny that it happened because of the Bush/Republican warring, tax cuts, deregulation, spending and borrowing, and the last two years again, obstructing progress.....and I hope for the last time, they proved once again, that their trickle down BS failed!

It's obvious to thinking people that no president could have pulled us out of it any faster than this president has turned things around, and the numbers prove that we are making a come back.

Bush and the Republicans created the mess, and followed up by trying to blame everyone else for their disastrous results.

Mitt doesn't want anyone to learn how many Americans lost their jobs, in order to line his bank account, but his statistics prove he was a lousy Governor, articularly in job creation, and paying down deificts, and like Ryans voting record, those statistics are on record as well....and Ryans votes prove the he was just aother Republican obstructionist, and has a false reputation for being a good policy wonk, when in fact, the CBo has proven that none of them are even close to logical.

They are about as stupid and feckless about Foreign Affairs as Bush and Palin, and it shows, shines, emanates, glows like fireworks on the fourth of July!

This election is over! The president will win, and the polls are already showing that. romney got no bump, Obama is already showing a good percentage increase. If these polls continue to rise for the president, it's a done deal for him. he wins, not only because Americans like him, but because they trust him, and they certainly do not trust Romney OR Ryan.

Now, if we Dems can also win back the majoirty in the house, and maintain the majority in the senate, then the adults on Capital Hill can get on with the clean up of disastrous Repiblican failed policies, as Democrats always do.

Bravo!

As for Romney and Ryan, it's Toot Toot Tootsies Goodbye!

G..

Soflasnapper
09-07-2012, 05:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What were these specific plans? </div></div>

If you know Romney's specific plans, please share them.

As for the Dems' plans, I have no idea. I'm quoting that from another commentator. I did not watch these things, except about half of Romney's to give him a chance.

Soflasnapper
09-07-2012, 05:19 PM
Can he do that? No...

Not only can he not do that, everything he has done relied upon other peoples' money, huge borrowing of other peoples' money, and large government subsidies (deductions on the huge interest payments required for the huge debt he laid on companies to pay himself and his team, and the carried interest tax loophole). How did he 'save' the Olympics, and supposedly 'turn a profit'? $400 million dollars from the government from every various and sundry level.

If one thinks what goes on in Washington in these regards is bad, that is his entire business model.

Perhaps you've seen the twin descriptions that show that Romney and Obama are fairly much alike? (On something like 40 parameters.) Why switch horses in the middle of the stream with the other horse really a pig in a poke?

Gayle in MD
09-07-2012, 05:40 PM
The President's Plan is to continue to invest in America's future.

Let the Bush Tax cuts expire on income over a quarter of a million dollars a year.

Cut the fat and waste out of defense spending.

Cut the fat out of administrative costs in Medical Expenses, and making them more effective by using more money in prevention.

Continue to cut waste in Government spending, and use more money to invest in Jobs, renewable cleaner energy, reducing our imports and rebuilding our exports, reducing oil consumption, investing more in public education. Continue rebuilding our infrastructure with jobs that cannot be outsourced, also continuing to rebuld our manufacturing base, and maintaining our social safety nets, also by reducing waste and corruption, and by eliminating fraud.

He vows to get us out of Afghanistan by 2014, and end that war as honorably as he ended the Bush fiasco in Iraq.

His intention is to continue to take better care of our veterans, unlike the Republicans who want to cut 11 billion dollars out of the V.A. in order to give more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.

The president intends to continue to limit interest on College loans, and provide more affordable education for all Americans.

Medical Insurance will continue to have to spend at least 80% of what they take in for actual medical payments, rather than spending most of it on advertsing.



The President's plan is to continue to add more jobs, which is the best way to create consumer demand, and bring in more revenue, by keeping more people in jobs.

He will continue investing in educating others so that they can qualify for better paying jobs, and get off unemployment.

Continue to give write offs on Home Loan Interest.


Continue to support new businesses which create American Jobs, and raise taxes on outsourcers.

His intention is to use the money we will save, to pay down the massive Bush debts, along with the resulting continuing debts and interest on those debts and deficits, you wiwll recall, deficits that didnt matter, lol. over time.

The President realizes that the best way to increase revenues, is to create more good paying jobs for Americans, and raise taxes on those who can well afford it, after having years of unprecedented tax breaks, loopholes and unearned subsidies.

His policies have already extended some social safety nets by eight years, I think that was Social Security, but could have been Medicare, not sure which.

One thing is clear, recalling the Bush administration's mult- disastrous economic results, and comparing them to the Clinton years, and then demonstrating how Republicans want to do the very same things Bush did, which failed to create jobs, is a powerful argument for re-electing the President, who has accomplished so much, and prevented disaster, despite irresponsible Republican obstructionists' tactics, and regardless of how many Americans were being hurt by it, all for their own selfish political gain, they thought.

Now that most thinking people have become more aware of their disgraceful behavior, failed results, and irresponsible obstruction, Republicans will FAIL, even with all of their voter suppression tactics, they will still fail, IMO!

G.

cushioncrawler
09-07-2012, 05:42 PM
http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a432/cushioncrawler/graph.jpg

Gayle in MD
09-07-2012, 06:06 PM
Gee, I'm not quite sure how to interpret your chart, Mac, /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif splain it to me.

Are you showing that when Republicans use the name of God the most, relevant to getting elected, it works, and then they gain power, and use that power so that more is stolen from all of us in the years that follow???


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/whistle.gif

cushioncrawler
09-07-2012, 07:01 PM
Dunno for sure what "God in Gop platforms" meens. Praps it iz the number of times God appears in writing in the official list of promises etc.

There iz allso a chart that i didnt show showing recent years showing a komparison of demokrat and repub God graffs. The dem graff at 2008 iz way way higher (say 8 Gods) than the repub graff (2 Gods az shown), but the dem graff for 2012 goze down to (1 God or 2 Gods) kompared to repubs (10 Gods).
mac.

eg8r
09-07-2012, 07:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not only can he not do that, everything he has done relied upon other peoples' money, huge borrowing of other peoples' money, and large government subsidies (deductions on the huge interest payments required for the huge debt he laid on companies to pay himself and his team, and the carried interest tax loophole). </div></div>Sounds like what Obama has been doing. Spending a whole lot of other people's money, huge borrowing.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Perhaps you've seen the twin descriptions that show that Romney and Obama are fairly much alike? (On something like 40 parameters.) Why switch horses in the middle of the stream with the other horse really a pig in a poke? </div></div>The difference is that Romney has a history of turning this money into billions. Obama, just a history of failure.

eg8r

cushioncrawler
09-07-2012, 07:09 PM
HELL, EVEN THE PREAMBLE MENTIONS GOD AT LEAST TWICE.
MAC.

2012 Republican Party Platform
August 27, 2012
2012 Republican National Convention: Tampa Font Size:
The American Presidency Project

We Believe in America: 2012 REPUBLICAN PLATFORM
This platform is dedicated with appreciation and reverence for:

The wisdom of the Framers
of the United States Constitution,
who gave us a Republic,
as Benjamin Franklin cautioned,
if we can keep it.

[Paid for by the Committee on Arrangements for the 2012 Republican National Convention Not Authorized By Any Candidate Or Candidate's Committee http://www.gopconvention2012.com]

Preamble
The 2012 Republican Platform is a statement of who we are and what we believe as a Party and our vision for a stronger and freer America.

The pursuit of opportunity has defined America from our very beginning. This is a land of opportunity. The American Dream is a dream of equal opportunity for all. And the Republican Party is the party of opportunity.

Today, that American Dream is at risk.

Our nation faces unprecedented uncertainty with great fiscal and economic challenges, and under the current Administration has suffered through the longest and most severe economic downturn since the Great Depression.

Many Americans have experienced the burden of lost jobs, lost homes, and lost hopes. Our middle class has felt that burden most acutely. Meanwhile, the federal government has expanded its size and scope, its borrowing and spending, its debt and deficit. Federalism is threatened and liberty retreats.

For the world, this has been four years of lost American leadership, leadership that depends upon economic vitality and peace through strength.

Put simply: The times call for trustworthy leadership and honest talk about the challenges we face. Our nation and our people cannot afford the status quo. We must begin anew, with profound changes in the way government operates; the way it budgets, taxes, and regulates. Jefferson's vision of a "wise and frugal government" must be restored.

Providence has put us at the fork in the road, and we must answer the question: If not us, who? If not now, when?

That is the choice facing the American people this November. Every voter will be asked to choose between the chronic high unemployment and the unsustainable debt produced by a big government entitlement society, or a positive, optimistic view of an opportunity society, where any American who works hard, dreams big and follows the rules can achieve anything he or she wants.

The American people possess vast reserves of courage and determination and the capacity to hear the truth and chart a strong course. They are eager for the opportunity to take on life's challenges and, through faith and hard work, transform the future for the better. They are the most generous people on earth, giving sacrificially of their time, talent, and treasure.

This platform affirms that America has always been a place of grand dreams and even grander realities; and so it will be again, if we return government to its proper role, making it smaller and smarter. If we restructure government's most important domestic programs to avoid their fiscal collapse. If we keep taxation, litigation, and regulation to a minimum. If we celebrate success, entrepreneurship, and innovation. If we lift up the middle class. If we hand over to the next generation a legacy of growth and prosperity, rather than entitlements and indebtedness.

That same commitment must be present both here at home and abroad. We are a party that knows the difference between international acclaim and world leadership. We will lift the torch of freedom and democracy to inspire all those who would be free. As President Reagan issued the clarion call to "tear down this Wall," so must we always stand against tyranny and oppression. We will always support and cherish our men and women in uniform who defend our liberties with their lives.

As we embark upon this critical mission, we are not without guidance. We possess an owner's manual: the Constitution of the United States, the greatest political document ever written. That sacred document shows us the path forward. Trust the people. Limit government. Respect federalism. Guarantee opportunity, not outcomes. Adhere to the rule of law. Reaffirm that our rights come from <span style='font-size: 20pt'>God </span>, are protected by government, and that the only just government is one that truly governs with the consent of the governed.

The principles written in the Constitution are secured by the character of the American people. President George Washington said in his first inaugural address: "The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained." Values matter. Character counts.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan understand these great truths. They share a positive vision for America — a vision of America renewed and strong. They know America's best days lay ahead. It will take honest results-oriented, conservative leadership to enact good policies for our people. They will provide it.

We respectfully submit this platform to the American people. It is both a vision of where we are headed and an invitation to join us in that journey. It is about the great dreams and opportunities that have always been America and must remain the essence of America for generations to come.

May<span style='font-size: 20pt'> God </span>continue to shed his grace on the United States of America.

Governor Bob McDonnell, Chairman
Senator John Hoeven, Co-Chair

Congressman Marsha Blackburn, Co-Chair

Gayle in MD
09-07-2012, 07:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dunno for sure what "God in Gop platforms" meens. Praps it iz the number of times God appears in writing in the official list of promises etc.

There iz allso a chart that i didnt show showing recent years showing a komparison of demokrat and repub God graffs. The dem graff at 2008 iz way way higher (say 8 Gods) than the repub graff (2 Gods az shown), but the dem graff for 2012 goze down to (1 God or 2 Gods) kompared to repubs (10 Gods).
mac. </div></div>

LOL, now Mac is this supposed to mean the actual politicians of each party saying "God" or the repetative mentions in the news, or what? Because I have some doubts that in the last twenty- five years or so, that Republicans didn't use the Word, more than Dems.

Who did this study anyway?

G.

cushioncrawler
09-07-2012, 07:15 PM
We are the party of the Constitution, the solemn compact which confirms our <span style='font-size: 20pt'>God-given</span> individual rights and assures that all Americans stand equal before the law. Perhaps the greatest political document ever written, it defines the purposes and limits of government and is the blueprint for ordered liberty that makes the U.S. the world's freest, most stable, and most prosperous nation. Its Constitutional ideals have been emulated around the world, and with them has come unprecedented prosperity for billions of people.

In the spirit of the Constitution, we consider discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin unacceptable and immoral. We will strongly enforce antidiscrimination statutes and ask all to join us in rejecting the forces of hatred and bigotry and in denouncing all who practice or promote racism, anti- Semitism, ethnic prejudice, or religious intolerance. We support efforts to help low-income individuals get a fair chance based on their potential and individual merit; but we reject preferences, quotas, and set-asides as the best or sole methods through which fairness can be achieved, whether in government, education, or corporate boardrooms. In a free society, the primary role of government is to protect the <span style='font-size: 20pt'>God-given</span>, inalienable, inherent rights of its citizens, including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Merit, ability, aptitude, and results should be the factors that determine advancement in our society.

The Republican Party includes Americans from every faith and tradition, and our policies and positions respect the right of every American to follow his or her beliefs and underscore our reverence for the religious freedom envisioned by the Founding Fathers of our nation and of our party. As a matter of principle, we oppose the creation of any new race-based governments within the United States.

cushioncrawler
09-07-2012, 07:23 PM
The First Amendment: The Foresight of Our Founders to Protect Religious Freedom
The first provision of the First Amendment concerns freedom of religion. That guarantee reflected Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which declared that no one should "suffer on account of his religious opinion or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion…." That assurance has never been more needed than it is today, as liberal elites try to drive religious beliefs—and religious believers—out of the public square. The Founders of the American Republic universally agree that democracy presupposes a moral people and that, in the words of George Washington's Farewell Address, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports."

The most offensive instance of this war on religion has been the current Administration's attempt to compel faith-related institutions, as well as believing individuals, to contravene their deeply held religious, moral, or ethical beliefs regarding health services, traditional marriage, or abortion. This forcible secularization of religious and religiously affiliated organizations, including faith-based hospitals and colleges, has been in tandem with the current Administration's audacity in declaring which faithrelated activities are, or are not, protected by the First Amendment—an unprecedented aggression repudiated by a unanimous Supreme Court in its HosannaTabor v. EEOC decision.

We pledge to respect the religious beliefs and rights of conscience of all Americans and to safeguard the independence of their institutions from government. We support the public display of the <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Ten Commandments </span>as a reflection of our history and of our country's Judeo-Christian heritage, and we affirm the right of students to engage in <span style='font-size: 20pt'>prayer</span> at public school events in public schools and to have equal access to public schools and other public facilities to accommodate religious freedom in the public square. We assert every citizen's right to apply religious values to public policy and the right of faith-based organizations to participate fully in public programs without renouncing their beliefs, removing religious symbols, or submitting to government-imposed hiring practices. We oppose government discrimination against businesses due to religious views. We support the First Amendment right of freedom of association of the Boy Scouts of America and other service organizations whose values are under assault and condemn the State blacklisting of religious groups which decline to arrange adoptions by same-sex couples. We condemn the hate campaigns, threats of violence, and vandalism by proponents of same-sex marriage against advocates of traditional marriage and call for a federal investigation into attempts to deny religious believers their civil rights.

cushioncrawler
09-07-2012, 07:26 PM
The Second Amendment: Our Right to Keep and Bear Arms
We uphold the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, a right which antedated the Constitution and was solemnly confirmed by the Second Amendment. We acknowledge, support, and defend the lawabiding citizen's <span style='font-size: 20pt'>God-given</span> right of self-defense. We call for the protection of such fundamental individual rights recognized in the Supreme Court's decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago affirming that right, and we recognize the individual responsibility to safely use and store firearms. This also includes the right to obtain and store ammunition without registration. We support the fundamental right to self-defense wherever a lawabiding citizen has a legal right to be, and we support federal legislation that would expand the exercise of that right by allowing those with state-issued carry permits to carry firearms in any state that issues such permits to its own residents. Gun ownership is responsible citizenship, enabling Americans to defend their homes and communities. We condemn frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers and oppose federal licensing or registration of law-abiding gun owners. We oppose legislation that is intended to restrict our Second Amendment rights by limiting the capacity of clips or magazines or otherwise restoring the illconsidered Clinton gun ban. We condemn the reckless actions associated with the operation known as "Fast and Furious," conducted by the Department of Justice, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent and others on both sides of the border. We applaud the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives in holding the current Administration's Attorney General in contempt of Congress for his refusal to cooperate with their investigation into that debacle. We oppose the improper collection of firearms sales information in the four southern border states, which was imposed without congressional authority.

cushioncrawler
09-07-2012, 07:28 PM
Respect for Our Flag: Symbol of the Constitution
The symbol of our constitutional unity, to which we all pledge allegiance, is the flag of the United States of America. By whatever legislative method is most feasible, Old Glory should be given legal protection against desecration. We condemn decisions by activist judges to deny children the opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance in its entirety, including <span style='font-size: 20pt'>"Under God,"</span> in public schools and encourage States to promote the pledge. We condemn the actions of those who deny our children the means by which to show respect for our great country and the constitutional principles represented by our flag.

cushioncrawler
09-07-2012, 07:29 PM
Domestic Energy Independence: An "All of the Above" Energy Policy
The Republican Party is committed to domestic energy independence. The United States and its neighbors to the North and South have been blessed with abundant energy resources, tapped and untapped, traditional and alternative, that are among the largest and most valuable on earth. Advancing technology has given us a more accurate understanding of the nation's enormous reserves that are ours for the development. The role of public officials must be to encourage responsible development across the board. Unlike the current Administration, we will not pick winners and losers in the energy marketplace. Instead, we will let the free market and the public's preferences determine the industry outcomes. In assessing the various sources of potential energy, Republicans advocate an all-of-the-above diversified approach, taking advantage of all our American <span style='font-size: 20pt'>God-given resources</span>. That is the best way to advance North American energy independence.

Our policies aim at energy security to ensure an affordable, stable, and reliable energy supply for all parts of the country and all sectors of the economy. Energy security is intimately linked to national security both in terms of our current dependence upon foreign supplies and because some of the hundreds of billions of dollars we pay for foreign oil ends up in the hands of terrorist groups that wish to harm us. A growing, prosperous economy and our standard of living and quality of life, moreover, depend on affordable and abundant domestic energy supplies.

A strong and stable energy sector is a job generator and a catalyst of economic growth, not only in the labor-intensive energy industry but also in its secondary markets. The Republican Party will encourage and ensure diversified domestic sources of energy, from research and development, exploration, production, transportation, transmission, and consumption in a way that is economically viable and job-producing, as well as environmentally sound. When our energy industry is revitalized, millions more Americans will find work in manufacturing, food production, metals, minerals, packaging, transportation and other fields — because of the jobs that will be created in, and as a result of, the energy sector. We are determined to create jobs, spur economic growth, lower energy prices, and strengthen our energy industry.

cushioncrawler
09-07-2012, 07:32 PM
Our Republican Party's Commitment to Conservation
Conservation is a conservative value. As the pioneer of conservation over a century ago, the Republican Party believes in the moral obligation of the people to be good stewards of the <span style='font-size: 20pt'>God-given</span> natural beauty and resources of our country and bases environmental policy on several common-sense principles. For example, we believe people are the most valuable resource, and human health and safety are the most important measurements of success. A policy protecting these objectives, however, must balance economic development and private property rights in the short run with conservation goals over the long run. Also, public access to public lands for recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting should be permitted on all appropriate federal lands.

Moreover, the advance of science and technology advances environmentalism as well. Science allows us to weigh the costs and benefits of a policy so that we can prudently deal with our resources. This is especially important when the causes and long-range effects of a phenomenon are uncertain. We must restore scientific integrity to our public research institutions and remove political incentives from publicly funded research.

cushioncrawler
09-07-2012, 07:41 PM
Consumer Choice in Education
The Republican Party is the party of fresh and innovative ideas in education. We support options for learning, including home schooling and local innovations like single-sex classes, full-day school hours, and year-round schools. School choice—whether through charter schools, open enrollment requests, college lab schools, virtual schools, career and technical education programs, vouchers, or tax credits—is important for all children, especially for families with children trapped in failing schools. Getting those youngsters into decent learning environments and helping them to realize their full potential is the greatest civil rights challenge of our time. We support the promotion of local career and technical educational programs and entrepreneurial programs that have been supported by leaders in industry and will retrain and retool the American workforce, which is the best in the world. A young person's ability to achieve in school must be based on his or her <span style='font-size: 20pt'>God-given </span>talent and motivation, not an address, zip code, or economic status.

cushioncrawler
09-07-2012, 07:43 PM
American Exceptionalism
We are the party of peace through strength. Professing American exceptionalism—the conviction that our country holds a unique place and role in human history—we proudly associate ourselves with those Americans of all political stripes who, more than three decades ago in a world as dangerous as today's, came together to advance the cause of freedom. Repudiating the folly of an amateur foreign policy and defying a worldwide Marxist advance, they announced their strategy in the timeless slogan we repeat today: peace through strength—an enduring peace based on freedom and the will to defend it, and American democratic values and the will to promote them. While the twentieth century was undeniably an American century—with strong leadership, adherence to the principles of freedom and democracy our Founders' enshrined in our nation's Declaration of Independence and Constitution, and a continued reliance on <span style='font-size: 20pt'>Divine Providence </span>—the twenty-first century will be one of American greatness as well.

cushioncrawler
09-07-2012, 07:57 PM
I HADTA READ THE WHOLE GOP PLATFORM, AND NOW I FEEL SICK.
THE ABOV DUZNT INKLOOD SAY 100 REFERENCES TO HEAVEN AND FAITH AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ETC ETC ETC AND SACRED AND ETC ETC.
MAC.
I FEEL SICK.

cushioncrawler
09-07-2012, 08:14 PM
http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a432/cushioncrawler/graph2.jpg

Qtec
09-08-2012, 01:40 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">McCain, a POW turned political rebel, vowed Thursday night to vanquish the <u>"constant partisan rancor"</u> that grips Washington as he launched his fall campaign for the White House. "Change is coming," </div></div>

How did that work out. We all know the answer.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This morning, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough was floored by McConnell’s open admission that his single most important goal is to defeat Obama. “Mitch McConnell said that?!? … He admitted that on the record?!? That is embarrassing,” he said. “Can I just say for the record – that is pathetic.” Watch it: link (http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/10/25/126242/mcconnell-obama-one-term/)

</div></div>


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Mitch McConnell Reaffirms His Top Priority To Limit Barack Obama To One Term CHANGE!!!!!!!!!???????????? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gM-1HbK4qU) </div></div>

Republicans ditched the 'change' idea - that THEY campaigned on!- the moment Obama won and doubled down on partisan ship and obstruction.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The American people already know that was a lie. </div></div>

BS. Its not a lie. You could say he was wrong or naive but its not a lie.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Romney will be working for the American people, <span style="color: #990000">[What, for less than 20 Million a year? Don't think so.]</span> just like he worked for Bain.</div></div>

LOL.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If Romney is able to make a profit for the American people like he did for Bain then we could kiss poverty good by. Can he do that? No, but geez at least the lefties could quit lying about the scenario.

eg8r </div></div>

LMAO. You know nothing.

If you want to know what Mitt would do just look at what the BUSH admin did and double it.

If American was a company, Bush took a going concern and drove it into the ground.
He BORROWED to pay for his tax cuts, twice!
He BORROWED to pay for the Afghan war.
He BORROWED to pay for the Iraq war.<span style="color: #990000">[ Both of which are still going on but you blame Obama for the cost!]</span>

EVERYTHING Bush did he put it on the CC for Obama to pay for! This is a fact!

NOW, the Republicans who went along with this spending and BORROWING, now want to cut spending because they want to make things worse so that they can again be elected!


Its as clear as day. They WANT to make Americans suffer because its the ONLY chance they have of being elected.

Q

Gayle in MD
09-08-2012, 06:04 AM
End of Story.

I didn't think that even the Republican supporters, even the far right ones, could possibly vote for a party that would choose to have such a damaging impact on the whole country, and not give a damn how much they would hurt all Americans.

Disgusting.

eg8r
09-08-2012, 03:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Republicans ditched the 'change' idea - that THEY campaigned on!- </div></div>LOL, so your point is to show Reps campaigned on Change and they dropped it so that is why Obama dropped it. You are a freaking laugh but nice try. At least cushioncrawler saw through Obama's speech for what it was. Full of nothing and certainly no hope and change.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LMAO. You know nothing.

If you want to know what Mitt would do just look at what the BUSH admin did and double it.</div></div>LOL, so my entire point was to look at Romney professional history and what he has done financially for those he worked for. You tell me I know nothing and then tell me is just like Bush? Obviously your comprehension is as poor as we have said all along or you don't know anything about Bush. Bush does not have the financial history to carry Romney's jock strap. LOL, next time you tell someone they don't know anything you better research your response so you don't look this stupid in the future.

eg8r

eg8r

LWW
09-08-2012, 07:38 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What were these specific plans? </div></div>

If you know Romney's specific plans, please share them.

As for the Dems' plans, I have no idea. I'm quoting that from another commentator. I did not watch these things, except about half of Romney's to give him a chance.

</div></div>

I never said that R-money gave specific plans ... in fact, I realize that he most certainly did not just as I realize tat Obama did not.

OTOH ... you were told that you believe Obama gave specific plans, so you obediently believed that he had.

Then, when you were called on to name them ... you realized that you had been hoodwinked and tried to turn the table.

IOW ... this is typical of what happens in any conversation with an Obamatron.

Qtec
09-08-2012, 11:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so my entire point was to look at Romney professional history and what he has done financially for those he worked for. </div></div>

Do you actually know how he made his money?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“In the old days,” he writes, “making money required sharing the wealth: with assembly-line workers, with middle management, with schools and communities, with investors. Even the Gilded Age robber barons, despite their unapologetic efforts to keep workers from getting any rights at all, built America in spite of themselves, erecting railroads and oil wells and telegraph wires. And from the time the monopolists were reined in with antitrust laws through the days when men like Mitt Romney's dad exited center stage in our economy, the American social contract was pretty consistent: The rich got to stay rich, often filthy rich, but they paid taxes and a living wage and everyone else rose at least a little bit along with them.”

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>That’s not, however, the Romney business model. Instead, his involves borrowing money to buy a company, then transferring that debt to the newly acquired company, and then asking for some more money from the company before flying off to the Cayman Islands.</span>

As Taibbi writes, “Here's how Romney would go about "liberating" a company: A private equity firm like Bain typically seeks out floundering businesses with good cash flows. It then puts down a relatively small amount of its own money and runs to a big bank like Goldman Sachs or Citigroup for the rest of the financing. (Most leveraged buyouts are financed with 60 to 90 percent borrowed cash.) The takeover firm then uses that borrowed money to buy a controlling stake in the target company, either with or without its consent. ... <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But here's the catch. When Bain borrows all of that money from the bank, it's the target company that ends up on the hook for all of the debt.”</span> </div></div>

link (http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/matt-taibbis-killer-takedown-mitt-romney)

Mitt is not a creator, he's a destroyer.
Mitt is a guy who can take over a company,fire 1,000 workers,raid their pension fund and cancel their HC insurance, just to make more money! [ Without losing a night's sleep I might add.]

This is the guy who says he will cut out the loopholes in the tax code but will not name ONE specific loophole he will close!

He says, "Trust me." And then he says, "No I will not release my tax returns. Trust me."


Q

LWW
09-09-2012, 06:02 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so my entire point was to look at Romney professional history and what he has done financially for those he worked for. </div></div>

Do you actually know how he made his money?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">“In the old days,” he writes, “making money required sharing the wealth: with assembly-line workers, with middle management, with schools and communities, with investors. Even the Gilded Age robber barons, despite their unapologetic efforts to keep workers from getting any rights at all, built America in spite of themselves, erecting railroads and oil wells and telegraph wires. And from the time the monopolists were reined in with antitrust laws through the days when men like Mitt Romney's dad exited center stage in our economy, the American social contract was pretty consistent: The rich got to stay rich, often filthy rich, but they paid taxes and a living wage and everyone else rose at least a little bit along with them.”

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>That’s not, however, the Romney business model. Instead, his involves borrowing money to buy a company, then transferring that debt to the newly acquired company, and then asking for some more money from the company before flying off to the Cayman Islands.</span>

As Taibbi writes, “Here's how Romney would go about "liberating" a company: A private equity firm like Bain typically seeks out floundering businesses with good cash flows. It then puts down a relatively small amount of its own money and runs to a big bank like Goldman Sachs or Citigroup for the rest of the financing. (Most leveraged buyouts are financed with 60 to 90 percent borrowed cash.) The takeover firm then uses that borrowed money to buy a controlling stake in the target company, either with or without its consent. ... <span style='font-size: 14pt'>But here's the catch. When Bain borrows all of that money from the bank, it's the target company that ends up on the hook for all of the debt.”</span> </div></div>

link (http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/matt-taibbis-killer-takedown-mitt-romney)

Mitt is not a creator, he's a destroyer.
Mitt is a guy who can take over a company,fire 1,000 workers,raid their pension fund and cancel their HC insurance, just to make more money! [ Without losing a night's sleep I might add.]

This is the guy who says he will cut out the loopholes in the tax code but will not name ONE specific loophole he will close!

He says, "Trust me." And then he says, "No I will not release my tax returns. Trust me."


Q </div></div>

Did you ever learn what a capital gain is?

Qtec
09-09-2012, 06:21 AM
All you do is ask questions that have nothing to do with my post! I don't have time or the energy or the desire to educate you. It would be a waste of time.

Answer just one question.

Why won't Mitt release his tax returns if everything he did was legal?


Q

Soflasnapper
09-09-2012, 10:12 AM
OTOH ... you were told that you believe Obama gave specific plans, so you obediently believed that he had.

Then, when you were called on to name them ... you realized that you had been hoodwinked and tried to turn the table.

IOW ... this is typical of what happens in any conversation with an Obamatron.

I was quoting Taegan Goddard's opinion, who is not a shill for either party, but reputable. You are quoting your own assumptions, apparently.

I haven't been hoodwinked, upon your entire lack of evidence so far to that effect. I didn't think I was.

What have we heard about Obama's speech? That it was lacking in the soaring rhetoric one might expect from him, that it was pedestrian, workmanlike, and similar to a state of the union address. I have yet to hear anyone complain that he had no plans, except you, which you really didn't say directly, only hinting that was true by your oblique question.

I hardly think you sat through his 35 minutes to have an opinion from first hand knowledge. And so far, you've not mentioned that you did. Did you?

For an Obamatron, I must be among the least entranced, as I have yet in over 4 years to send Obama's campaign any money, even though I support many Democrats and Democratic organizations with donations. Obviously, I'm not one now, and never have been in the past.

I'm a liberal and a Democrat, however, so I've been following the GOP's non-factual attacks on Democratic leaders for several decades. They continue in that pattern, and my calling them out for their lies is not because of my partisanship, but theirs. I'd call them out when lying about Dr. Ron Paul as well, even though I'm only a former libertarian party member, and that was a long time ago (when Paul ran for president on their ticket).

LWW
09-09-2012, 01:26 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All you do is ask questions that have nothing to do with my post! I don't have time or the energy or the desire to educate you. It would be a waste of time.

Q </div></div>

The question has everything to do with your post.

He makes his money through capital gains.

You have condemned capital gains ... yet you don't even know what a capital gain is.

I also make a large portion of my income from capital gains and pay a capital gains tax every year, therefore I in fact do speak from a position of knowledge ... while you speak from a position of self imposed ignorance, whereby your knowledge of the meanings of the words you use are equivalent to that of a parrot's understanding.

Actually, I retract part of that ... when the parrot says it wants a cracker, it actually knows what a cracker is.

LWW
09-09-2012, 01:29 PM
So what are the specific plans?

eg8r
09-09-2012, 02:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Do you actually know how he made his money?</div></div>LOL, obviously are stuggling with the point. Mitt made billions for his employers. You then got stupid and brought up Bush, but then you could not show any examples of Bush making millions. Again, don't tell someone they don't know anything when you are clearly proving you did not even know what was being discussed in the first place. I know you wear stupid well but do you need to brag about it?

As far as opening this post with the "borrow money" stuff, that is all Obama has done and driven us to record debt. Obama has been a destroyer of this economy and a destroyer of our ability to pay off the debt or cut down the deficit.

eg8r

eg8r
09-09-2012, 02:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">while you speak from a position of self imposed ignorance</div></div>What is even more funny is when this idiot tries to tell us Romney is a bad person for following the law yet qtip is the one that worked for cash under the table so he did not have to pay any taxes.

It is funny seeing the criminal talk about the law abiding citizen.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-09-2012, 06:51 PM
Mitt made billions for his employers.

He wasn't an employee. He owned the company or companies, either in part or in full. Often as the 100% shareholder/owner.

Qtec
09-10-2012, 05:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He makes his money through capital gains. </div></div>

Now he does, but when he worked at Bain, a large part of their income was from management fees which are not capital gains.
How much tax did he pay then?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The second technique is "not legal," according to Victor Fleischer, a tax expert and professor of law at the University of Colorado. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>A taxpayer saves substantial amounts of money by pretending that regular income received as a management fee for running a private equity firm is not income, but is instead a capital gain. That drops the tax rate on that income from 35 percent to 15 percent.</span>

Citing the Gawker documents, Fleischer notes that Bain engaged in the management-fee maneuver to reduce the tax bill of its investors. "Unlike carried interest, which is unseemly but perfectly legal, Bain’s management fee conversions are not legal. If challenged in court, Bain would lose. <span style='font-size: 17pt'>The Bain partners, in my opinion, misreported their income if they reported these converted fees as capital gain instead of ordinary income," he writes.</span> </div></div>

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/mitt-romney-tax-returns_n_1827632.html)

Q

Qtec
09-10-2012, 05:31 AM
Mittens MO is the same as Bush.

Borrow a $hit load of cash, steal as much as you can for yourself and your buddies [ Bush's Base/ the 1%] and stuff the the majority [ the 99%] with the bill.

The dif between Bush and Obama is that Obama HAD to borrow money to pay off the BUSH DEBT. Bush didn't need to borrow at all.


Q

LWW
09-10-2012, 05:51 AM
Are you aware that your link disputes what you claim?

Qtec
09-10-2012, 05:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Obama has been a destroyer of this economy and a destroyer of our ability to pay off the debt or cut down the deficit.

eg8r </div></div>

LOL


<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In a debate on "Face the Nation" today about the need for a deficit reduction agreement, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., argued that the present problem with the federal deficit was created by an imbalance between a drop in taxes collected and a rise in spending, and said that tackling both must be a part of any agreement.

"How did we get into this problem of the big deficit?" Nelson said. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"It's basically a fall-off of revenues and an increase in spending.</span> So you got to correct that imbalance; otherwise you're not doing real deficit reduction."

In debating the tax revenue part of the equation with fellow guest Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., Nelson said, "Jeffrey, you have to acknowledge that part of our deficit problem was the huge Bush tax cuts in the early part of the decade. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>What was handed off to the new administration of over a trillion dollars of annual deficit,</span> that accounted for almost half of it. If you're going to be real about the numbers, you're going to have to address these kinds of things."

"That's not accurate, Bill," Sessions responded. "The revenue went up every single year after those tax cuts were put in. The revenue is down now because of the low economy ... It's not because taxes have been cut in recent years. It's because people are not making money. They're not paying as much taxes. So increasing taxes on that weakened economy is not the way to increase revenue. "

<span style="color: #3333FF">Fact. Revenue went down for 5 years before it reach the level of 2008!</span>

Sessions: Dem tax demands killing debt deal

A review of data from the White House Office of Management and Budget <span style='font-size: 17pt'>shows that tax revenues did not consistently increase after the Bush tax cuts went into effect.</span>

In FY 2001, tax revenue in dollars was $1,991.1 billion. For FY 2002 - the first budget of the Bush administration, which went into effect after President George W. Bush signed tax cuts into law in June 2001 - <span style='font-size: 20pt'>revenue dropped to $1,853.1 billion.</span>

Bush signed two more tax cuts into law over the next two years. In FY 2003, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>revenue dropped further</span>, to $1,782.3 billion - about a 10-percent reduction from two years earlier.

This drop in tax revenue occurred even as economic activity - the nation's GDP - was continually rising, according to Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

Revenues then increased for four years - from $1,880.1 billion in FY 2004 to $2,568 billion in FY 2007 - before sliding to $2,524 billion in FY 2008, and then dropping further to $2,105 billion in FY 2009 <span style='font-size: 26pt'>as the recession exploded. </span> </div></div>

Bush destroyed the economy, Obama is the guy guy desperately trying to put the fire out but the GOP keeping throwing gasoline on the fire.

Q

eg8r
09-10-2012, 09:29 AM
Nothing you have posted goes against what I have said yet bolsters my point. He performed at such an incredibly high degree when the risk was the highest...when he was the 100% owner. When it was his bottom line. When he used borrowed money or in those instances that there were other shareholders, he worked to make them million upon millions upon millions. The idiot qtip tried to say he was like Bush who ran companies into the ground. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I do want to thank you though. Normally you have to talk for a while before you start agreeing with me. This time it only took a couple sentences. Thanks.

eg8r

eg8r
09-10-2012, 09:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mittens MO is the same as Bush.

Borrow a $hit load of cash</div></div>So you think he is Obama?

eg8r

eg8r
09-10-2012, 09:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In debating the tax revenue part of the equation with fellow guest Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., Nelson said, "Jeffrey, you have to acknowledge that part of our deficit problem was the huge Bush tax cuts in the early part of the decade. What was handed off to the new administration of over a trillion dollars of annual deficit,</div></div>HAHAHA! I love when lefties mention this because it shows they are intellectually dishonest. Obama did the same thing and ran us into deeper deficit. If these tax cuts were what was driving this country down then he should had the spine to sign them in again.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-10-2012, 09:57 AM
Nothing you have posted goes against what I have said yet bolsters my point.

It contradicted your point, actually. Nice catch!

He performed at such an incredibly high degree when the risk was the highest...when he was the 100% owner

Sure, except that also included a period in which he supposedly had retired for several years, and he claims he did absolutely no work for them (and got over $100k for that non-work), while reaping huge management fees booked as carried interest.

And yes, Romney and Bain ran many companies into the ground, while making money hand over fist for themselves. Sometimes leaving the American tax payers to pick up the pieces.

Sort of what W did. W never lost money personally, even as companies he was involved in lost plenty.

Gayle in MD
09-10-2012, 11:25 AM
I don't think we even need to see his taxes. Most Americans know what he's done, and they don't approve.

There are plenty of people in our country who were victims of Vulture Capitalists just like Romey.

They know the kind of devastation that they, and other Americans they know, friends and family, just like them, have suffered at the greedy hands of unpatriotic Vulture Capitalists like Mitt
Romney.

Romney will not carry the swing states, the women's vote, the Gay Vote, the college aged voters, the Hispanic vote, nor the entire white vote.

It is mathematically impossible for him to win, IMO, and now that his and the Republican Party's plans for throwing the election through unconstitutional efforts, through voter obstruction, planned solely to deprive AMERICAN people of color from voting, the actual tax returns, are no long needed. The Fact that he refuses to give them up, is the important part, IMHO.

We Know he's hiding his history as Governor, and as a venture capitalist, and we know why.

We know everything about him, and his lying wife, that we need to know.

We don't need to see how he cheated on his taxes, or how he "worked" the uneven and corrupt system of unfairness, we already know how devastating his decisions have been to American Workers, and we already know what we think about greedy, deceitful, lying people like him with no morals and no conscience, whenn it comes to bilking other people out of money. We saw planet of that during Bush.

Romney's going to lose. With or whtiout releasing his taxes, Americans know that he is the very greedy kind of person who doesn't care about how much devastation he created for others, so much loss, pain and stress for Upper and Lower Middle class Americans.

And we know his performance as governor was pathetic, just as his perfomrnace as a contender has been pathetic.

And we know sorst of all, that he is a SNEAK!

Americans don't vote sneaks into office when they already know they are sneaks who will say and do anything and everything to win, without conscience.

G.

eg8r
09-10-2012, 11:47 AM
It did not contradict anything but then maybe your brain doesn't quite catch on to what your fingers are typing.

Let's just start real slow for you...I state he makes money for his employers, maybe that can be clarified to include business partners, but the clarification does not change the fact that he makes money for those that depend on it. So here is what you responded with...<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He owned the company or companies, either in part or in full.</div></div>Ignoring the "in full" part since it is only half what you said we can go with the "in part". This implies there are others that have a financial stake in the business and Romney's actions are expected to lead to a positive outcome. That outcome could be making the absolute most money possible and certainly not losing any. He has performed quite admirably and your insinuations that he is hiding some of this success is proof I am correct.

You have done nothing to contradict what I have said. All you have done was allow your mouth to continue to run until you agreed with me. LOL, it happens ever single time. I am just happy you did not waste all the extra time you normally do by typing out a book before you come around.

eg8r

hondo
09-10-2012, 05:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">while you speak from a position of self imposed ignorance</div></div>What is even more funny is when this "idiot" tries to tell us Romney is a bad person

eg8r </div></div>

The examples abound.

LWW
09-11-2012, 04:23 AM
What is even funnier is that we have one member of the cabal lamenting how evil it is that R-Money makes a living from capital gains, even though he has no clue what a capital gain is ... and another member who brags about Obama's specific plans, even though they have no idea what those specific plans are ... and another who believes that reading a book is defined as watching television .... and you beleving they are bright because they spoon feed you the lies you want to hear.

hondo
09-11-2012, 05:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What is even funnier is that we have one member of the cabal lamenting how evil it is that R-Money makes a living from capital gains, even though he has no clue what a capital gain is ... and another member who brags about Obama's specific plans, even though they have no idea what those specific plans are ... and another who believes that reading a book is defined as watching television .... and you beleving they are bright because they spoon feed you the lies you want to hear. </div></div>

Believe it or not, I listen pretty carefully to what both sides say and I recognize who the bullshitters are. Whenever you make a good point that isn't a spin or a bias or an outright lie I acknowledge it.
Perhaps I would be inclined to believe you if I didn't know for a fact how you twist my words, fail to recognize when I am simply trying to be humorous or simply fabricate some tale in your desparate attempt to discredit me.
Then you find it funny that I trust them over you?
That was simply precious. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Qtec
09-11-2012, 06:18 AM
This is excellent. "We can change it". Jon Stewart. LOL

link (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-blasts-truth-teller-paul-ryan-for-inaccuracies-in-vp-acceptance-speech/)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, it was the factual inaccuracies in Ryan’s speech that earned much of Stewart’s scorn. He called out Ryan for attacking Obama over cutting Medicare and rejecting the report of a bipartisan debt commission when Ryan himself is guilty of the same. Stewart highlighted Ryan’s defenders in the media, particularly a comment by Rudy Giuliani <u>that not every fact in a convention speech is necessarily accurate.</u>

Stewart was then joined by correspondent John Oliver,<span style='font-size: 14pt'> who argued that the GOP’s “We Can Change It” theme was really all about changing “facts, reality, and the meaning of words in order to make a much larger point.”</span> Oliver went as far as to compare Republicans changing the facts to himself making up lies to hit on a woman. </div></div>

Oliver nails it.

Q....LOL

Qtec
09-11-2012, 06:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's just start real slow for you...I state he makes money for his employers, </div></div>

If America is a corporation and he works for his employers, ie WALL ST, the 99% get screwed again and the select few increase their stranglehold on power. These days, thanks to the radicals on the supreme court, you can buy your own seat.

If Mittens has such a great plan, why can't he name a SINGLE tax loophole he would close?

If he has always paid all the taxes he owed, why not release those returns?

His whole campaign is based on lies and now his wife is caught fibbing as well.

Ryan .............where to start?

The only reason anyone could vote for Romney is if they hate Obama.

Q

Soflasnapper
09-11-2012, 08:29 AM
What is even funnier is that we have one member of the cabal lamenting how evil it is that R-Money makes a living from capital gains, even though he has no clue what a capital gain is

Of course, one key controversy for Mitt is how he claims management fees are capital gains to avoid the earned income tax rate, when they plainly are not capital gains at all, and nobody says they are. Which you apparently don't know a thing about, as you certainly haven't offered any explanation as to why that abuse, acknowledged by all to be an abuse, I guess excepting those using it, is defensible, correct, should remain in the law, and not be changed.

another member who brags about Obama's specific plans, even though they have no idea what those specific plans are

Here you lie, and then guess in mind-reading fashion.

Just because people decline to play your tiresome and bad faith attempted Socratic method 20 question game doesn't mean they don't know the answer, which of course highly depends upon the meaning of specific and plans.

Soflasnapper
09-11-2012, 09:16 AM
He has performed quite admirably and your insinuations that he is hiding some of this success is proof I am correct.

It depends upon what admirable performance is defined as.

Making a ton of money? Yes, he has done that.

But promising to keep a workforce's pension in place, deliberately underfunding necessary pension contributions to take out huge management fees (and paying cap gains tax rates as a tax dodge), and then loading up a company with massive debt to take out still more money, and then when the company cannot pay such massive debt service, bankrupting the company, putting over $40 million in pension liability to the taxpayers to pick up, which still didn't make the workers whole on the promised pensions, is not admirable at all.

It is damnable, and the behavior of an amoral businessman, not a businessman with ethics and a good character. It is vulture capitalism, as his own party's contenders for the nomination made abundantly clear on stage with Romney, and in their broadcast ads.

We've just found out that he extorted the FDIC to write off a huge amount of debt, by threatening to pay out huge bonuses to his crime crew to deplete the company's assets further and cause the FDIC to have to pay still more money in the breach.

Let's unpack that one a bit. The company under his management and his cohorts in corporate crime failed, owing a lot of money. For that amazing, and you say admirable, success record, the FDIC was having to step in to make things whole. Romney insisted they write down the debt to the company, or else he'd 'reward' himself and his crime crew by looting the rest of the cash to deliberately make the FDIC's losses greater.

These are the amoral values of a selfish snake, maximizing his money and his crime crew's haul.

eg8r
09-11-2012, 09:36 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Which you apparently don't know a thing about, as you certainly haven't offered any explanation as to why that abuse, acknowledged by all to be an abuse,</div></div>And "by all" you mean not the IRS right? This would be tax fraud and the IRS would be swooping in. Instead that isn't what it is at all and yet again we see Romney acting in full accordance with the law and taking advantage of the carried interest loophole.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-11-2012, 10:03 AM
There is a loophole that the IRS cannot complain about, as it exists in the law.

There is an abuse of that loophole that the IRS does object to, and it isn't clear that Romney hasn't crossed that line.

The limitations of IRS personnel and funding mean that only a fraction of the cases that deserve attention are examined. That Romney so far (so far as we know) hasn't had a review from them does not establish he's in the clear.

eg8r
09-11-2012, 12:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It depends upon what admirable performance is defined as.

Making a ton of money? Yes, he has done that.</div></div>How could this not be clear. His job was to make money and the most possible. He did exactly that. What part is confusing you?

So again, his job was to make money for the financial stakeholders and that is what he did. Obama has not been able to make anything other than new debt.

eg8r

eg8r
09-11-2012, 12:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If America is a corporation and he works for his employers, ie WALL ST, the 99% get screwed again and the select few increase their stranglehold on power.</div></div>Then what difference is that from what Obama has been doing? Wall St is his pimp.

However, America is not a corporation so your belief that Wall St is who he would be working for and not the American people shows you don't know what you are talking about.

eg8r

LWW
09-11-2012, 12:21 PM
To properly compare the to conventions:

RNC: A group of people claiming to be conservatives, but are almost all actually fascists, cheered for a candidate wanting to slowly convert America from a nation of liberty and capitalism to one of totalitarian fascism.

DNC: A group of people claiming to be liberals, but are almost all actually fascists, cheered for a candidate wanting to rapidly convert America from a nation of liberty and capitalism to one of totalitarian fascism.

hondo
09-11-2012, 07:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To properly compare the to conventions:

RNC: A group of people claiming to be conservatives, but are almost all actually fascists, cheered for a candidate wanting to slowly convert America from a nation of liberty and capitalism to one of totalitarian fascism.

DNC: A group of people claiming to be liberals, but are almost all actually fascists, cheered for a candidate wanting to rapidly convert America from a nation of liberty and capitalism to one of totalitarian fascism.

</div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Stretch
09-12-2012, 12:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: hondo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To properly compare the to conventions:

RNC: A group of people claiming to be conservatives, but are almost all actually fascists, cheered for a candidate wanting to slowly convert America from a nation of liberty and capitalism to one of totalitarian fascism.

DNC: A group of people claiming to be liberals, but are almost all actually fascists, cheered for a candidate wanting to rapidly convert America from a nation of liberty and capitalism to one of totalitarian fascism.

</div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif </div></div>

What? Not even one mention of Socialism in his ideological brain spasm. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif St.

Qtec
09-12-2012, 01:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>America is not a corporation</span> so your belief that Wall St is who he would be working for and not the American people shows you don't know what you are talking about.

eg8r </div></div>

Exactly. America is not a corporation, so Mittens being a business man is irrelevant.
We already know how Mittens fares when in office, he was a Governor after all, wasn't he?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We used state-level statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal government’s official source of employment data. We used figures for non-farm jobs, seasonally adjusted. And because the Massachusetts governor takes office in early January, we used the data for December of each year as a baseline.

We found that from December 2002 to December 2006, Massachusetts ranked <span style='font-size: 17pt'>47th out of 50 states</span> (not including the District of Columbia) in job growth. (We calculated that by using the number of jobs at the beginning and end of the period for each state to determine the percentage change and then ranking the states.) Only Ohio, Louisiana and Michigan fared worse. </div></div>

the Real Mitt Romney (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlnaYOv0DZY)


Q

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Analyst puts increase in fees, taxes at $700m
Governor gives far lower figure
By Brian C. Mooney
Globe Staff / <u>September 27, 2006</u>


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Fees and taxes have increased more than $700 million a year under Governor Mitt Romney and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, a leading budget specialist said yesterday.</span> (Full article: 841 words) </div></div>

Qtec
09-12-2012, 01:38 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mitt Romney Gave Massachusetts a $700 Million Increase in Fees and Taxes
The South Coast Conservative ^ | January 2, 2012

Posted on donderdag 19 april 2012 21:53:25 by SoConPubbie

Mitt Romney often states that when he was the Governor of Massachusetts he "cut taxes" and "held spending down"

Here is the TRUTH

"He did not have any broad-based tax cuts in his four years as governor," said former Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci, who preceded Romney in office.

Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation: More Than $700 Million Per Year In Increased Fees And Taxes Under Romney. "Fees and taxes have increased more than $700 million a year under Governor Mitt Romney and Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, a leading budget specialist said yesterday. Michael J. Widmer -- president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, which closely tracks state finances -- said the state has raised roughly $740 million to $750 million per year by increasing fees and corporate taxes gained from what the Romney administration describes as 'closing loopholes.'(Brian Mooney, "Analyst Puts Increase In Fees, Taxes At $700m," The Boston Globe, 9/27/06)

"It's straightforward," said Michael J. Widmer, president of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, a Boston-based research group, without hesitation. "He raised corporate taxes." Romney also shifted some of the state tax burden down to the local level, by cutting local aid revenues. The Massachusetts Municipal Association, representing the state's cities and towns, said Romney's cut "forced communities statewide to cut services and raise local taxes and fees." The exact amount of the local increases hasn't been determined, but Romney at least partly avoided increasing state taxes by forcing Massachusetts cities and towns to raise theirs.(factcheck.org)

Massachusetts homeowners paid a steep price for Romney's shell game. The average single-family property tax bill statewide rose from $3,015 in fiscal 2002 to $3,799 in 2006, a 26 percent increase, or $784 a year.4 During the same period, the residential property tax levy (that is, the total amount collected) increased by $1.8 billion statewide, or a staggering 35 percent from fiscal 2002 to 2006. (Massachusetts Municipal Association Research Bulletin, 4/3/06)

Romney’s Claim That He Didn’t Raised Taxes Is “Mostly A Myth.” “Romney will likely also be eager to push the message that he was a governor who stood by a no-new-taxes pledge. That’s mostly a myth. His first budget included no general tax increases but did include a $500 million increase in various fees. He later proposed $140 in business tax hikes through the closing of ‘loopholes’ in the tax code.” (Stephen Slivinski, “Fiscal Policy Report Card On America’s Governors: 2006,” Cato Institute, 2006, p. 26) </div></div>

Q

LWW
09-12-2012, 03:58 AM
So ... what are the specific plans?

Qtec
09-12-2012, 04:06 AM
LOL. YET another Q.

You remind me of my 4 yr old neighbour.

WHY? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQDcKtfnEo)

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Qtec
09-12-2012, 04:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How could this not be clear. His job was to make money and the most possible. He did exactly that. What part is confusing you? </div></div>

He took from the MANY and gave it to himself and a select FEW! Don't you get it?

Q

LWW
09-12-2012, 04:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL. YET another Q.

You remind me of my 4 yr old neighbour.

WHY? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQDcKtfnEo)

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

If any of y'all could ever answer a Q this wouldn't happen.

hondo
09-12-2012, 08:24 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL. YET another Q.

You remind me of my 4 yr old neighbour.

WHY? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQDcKtfnEo)

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif </div></div>

If any of y'all could ever answer a Q this wouldn't happen. </div></div>

Why hush my mouth, y'all!
You wants to be a good ole country boy yet trash me for being from West Virginny in every other post.
Didn't your pappy back in the woods in Kentucky tell you when you talk out of both sides of yo mouth, people tend to think yor jist a snake oil salesman sellin us good ole boys some bogus bullshit.
Now you decide which side of the fence you on , Kentucky boy, and quit actin like a carpetbagger, hear?
Y'all have a good day now, sonny buck. Looks like it's gonna be a beyootiful day in the hills.

eg8r
09-12-2012, 02:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He took from the MANY and gave it to himself and a select FEW! Don't you get it?</div></div>He did his job, don't you get it?

eg8r

eg8r
09-12-2012, 02:15 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Exactly. America is not a corporation, so Mittens being a business man is irrelevant. </div></div>LOL, dumbest thing you have ever said. I have to saw that is quite an achievment being you say dumb things every time you open your mouth.

eg8r

eg8r
09-12-2012, 02:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a loophole that the IRS cannot complain about, as it exists in the law.

There is an abuse of that loophole that the IRS does object to,</div></div>If the IRS objects to the abuse then why haven't they come out and asked the legislators to fix the problem? Has it ever even been brought up before?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The limitations of IRS personnel and funding mean that only a fraction of the cases that deserve attention are examined.</div></div>Kind of like Democrats who really are cheating on their taxes get a bye as long as they quietly pay up the back taxes yet Republicans who follow the law get chastised for following the law.

eg8r

eg8r
09-12-2012, 02:19 PM
LOL, another example of honduh providing zero value to the forum.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
09-12-2012, 03:49 PM
If the IRS objects to the abuse then why haven't they come out and asked the legislators to fix the problem? Has it ever even been brought up before?

You know they haven't, how? My understanding is the IRS has weighed in plenty, and of course, fights these matters in tax court as well. There is a limit on how many cases they can bring, based on how many investigators and the funding they have.

Kind of like Democrats who really are cheating on their taxes get a bye as long as they quietly pay up the back taxes yet Republicans who follow the law get chastised for following the law.

No, not like that at all, and that isn't true. Most tax matters are civil violations and not criminal ones. Or at least, the IRS takes the civil prosecution and penalty pathway on most people out of convenience and necessity, just as 80% of people in the trial system get plea bargains to lesser crimes to move the people through.

You may recall Kimba Woods or Zoe Baird, AG nominees from Clinton. They did not sail through despite their failure to file and pay matching taxes on their nannies. In fact, their nominations were withdrawn, and eventually Janet Reno was the pick (as a woman, but a childless woman who didn't resort to nannies). Geithner is an exception because the banking higher ups demanded he be put in, as one of their own, the just prior president of the NY Regional Federal Reserve.

LWW
09-12-2012, 06:44 PM
So what are the specific plans Obama presented?

hondo
09-12-2012, 07:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I have to saw that is quite an achievment being you say dumb things every time you open your mouth.

eg8r </div></div>

Exhibit 100, your honor.

hondo
09-12-2012, 07:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, another example of honduh providing zero value to the forum.

eg8r </div></div>

I'm sorry I just can't get into calling people stupid idiots and pretending like it's cool.
You do your thing, Eg; I'll do mine. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r
09-13-2012, 08:59 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You know they haven't, how? </div></div>This is the third post of your where you have blatantly exhibited a lack of comprehension. What is funny is that you even quoted the answer to your question. Let me post it again and maybe the third time you run your eyes over it you have your answer.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the IRS objects to the abuse then why haven't they come out and asked the legislators to fix the problem? Has it ever even been brought up before?</div></div>Did that help answer your question?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a limit on how many cases they can bring, based on how many investigators and the funding they have.</div></div>So what do you propose happened? Romney is one of the richest Americans why not go after him since you say he was abusing the law? My guess is that it wasn't abuse at all other than you hoping to have some made up story to attack him with.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You may recall Kimba Woods or Zoe Baird, AG nominees from Clinton. They did not sail through despite their failure to file and pay matching taxes on their nannies. In fact, their nominations were withdrawn,</div></div>So you are saying Democrats had a bit of dignity back in the 90's but that is all gone now. I can buy that.

eg8r

eg8r
09-13-2012, 09:00 AM
Your thing is zero value add. Basically instead of calling people names you act like a troll. I guess if that is what makes you happy.

eg8r

LWW
09-13-2012, 09:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your thing is zero value add. Basically instead of calling people names you act like a troll. I guess if that is what makes you happy.

eg8r </div></div>

I feel obliged to tell you that aitch most assuredly is not acting.

In fact ... if he hasn't threatened you and your family with violence, lawsuits, picketing and turning you in to the feds you hven't experienced te true aitch.

Soflasnapper
09-13-2012, 09:54 AM
You seem sincere, if a little dim, so I'll humor this line of discussion further with a bit of background history.

DESCRIPTION OF THE DISPUTE ABOUT CARRIED INTEREST <u>ABUSES</u>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">TWO AND TWENTY

The tax issue centers on the disparate treatment given under U.S. law to income from wages, taxed at a top rate of 35 percent, and that applied to investments, taxed at 15 percent.

Private equity managers typically get a "2-and-20" compensation package. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>This consists of a 2 percent management fee, taxed as ordinary income, and a 20 percent share of fund profits, taxed as capital gains at 15 percent.</span>

The 2 percent fee is guaranteed income that defrays some of the risk associated with investing. But managers may waive the fee and convert it to income that benefits from the lower tax rate.

Lawyers such as Hechinger defend the fee-waiver strategy because of the increased risk to which the income is subject. "You're taking a risk - there is no certainty you're going to have income in the life of the fund," Hechinger said.

Others say it is not so clear. Critics argue that fee waiver is a tax loophole.</div></div>

Here's when the IRS looked into it:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The IRS said in November 2007 it was studying tax techniques used by alternative investment firms, including private equity. Among firms subpoenaed, in addition to Bain, were KKR & Co LP, TPG Capital LP, Apollo Global Management LLC and Silver Lake Partners LP, a source told Reuters.

"The service never said anything after that," said Francois Hechinger, an attorney for private equity firms at accounting firm BDO in California. "I don't think they are happy about it."

It is unknown if the IRS audited private equity funds to investigate management compensation. It is also unclear why the IRS took no public action.

A tax lawyer who was at the IRS in 2007 said the firms' pay structures are complex, posing a challenge for IRS auditors.</div></div>

Here's this same article's earlier admission, which provides the answers to why the IRS's actions are unclear:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The tax status of carried interest has drawn fire for years from Democrats in Congress who argue the gains should be taxed as ordinary income.<span style='font-size: 14pt'> The private equity industry and their allies have blocked such a change</span>, arguing that carried interest carries risks and deserves investment tax treatment.
</div></div>

Here's the actual lede to this article:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">U.S. tax authorities took no formal action after launching a probe five years ago of tax strategies used by private equity managers at firms such as Bain Capital LLC, leaving a legal gray area that is now being examined by New York's attorney general.
</div></div>

These are the new charges or investigations being mentioned in the news concerning Bain's tax treatment of its earnings.

Reuters/Thompson, via MoneyNews.com (http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/new-york-tax-private-equity-bain/2012/09/03/id/450658)

To summarize, beyond the idea of carried interest is the abuse of that idea, to turn the management fee from earned income to carried interest capital gains, which plenty of people think is illegitimate.

Including the IRS, which opened an investigation on this subject in 2007. Which was blocked, and no report, either for or against, was issued.

The Congress has tried to change the carried interest rule altogether, in each of the last 3 years or so. That change, and the IRS action, is being blocked by the guys with the most money in the world (including using some Democrats in Congress).

eg8r
09-13-2012, 11:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">U.S. tax authorities took no formal action after launching a probe five years ago </div></div>If they took no action which we can clearly see it is quite obvious that there was nothing illegal happening. So all we have is a made up "issue" by the lefties in hopes it will look bad on Romney.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Including the IRS, which opened an investigation on this subject in 2007. Which was blocked, and no report, either for or against, was issued.
</div></div>Blocked...that is pretty funny since your own quotes state you are lying. Do you need me to point it out for you or are you willing to "clarify" what you THINK happened. LOL, and you call me dim. Give me a break.

Basically this was looked at a long time ago and there was no basis for action. Heck as it turns out the IRS struggle to even understand what was happening.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-13-2012, 11:50 AM
The Investigation is still on-going.

I just posted about the current investigations within the last two weeks.

Bain is definitely among those Vulture Capitalist Corporations under current FBI and IRS investigative scrutiny.

Bain refused to answer any questions when asked about it.

Romney refuses to answer any specific Questions about Bain.

An Romney and her Olympic Partners in her corporations, also have a foreign Swiss Account, and she has also been sued for fraud, and a settlement was made. She was nvolved in abusing a horse, which the vet stated was the most drugged horse he had evern seen in his life. Drugged to appear able to perform in dressage, when the horse was actualoly lame.

She refuses to discuss that, as well.

Nobody in the Republican Campaign, neither Romney, or Ryan, Ryan's lobbyst wife, or Queen "You People" Ann, will talk or answer any of the pressing questions about which the American Public has every right to seek honest answers!

WHAT ARE THEY ALL HIDING?

G.

hondo
09-13-2012, 01:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your thing is zero value add. Basically instead of calling people names you act like a troll.

eg8r </div></div>

Exhibit 101.

hondo
09-13-2012, 01:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Your thing is zero value add. Basically instead of calling people names you act like a troll. I guess if that is what makes you happy.

eg8r </div></div>

I feel obliged to tell you that aitch most assuredly is not acting.

In fact ... if he hasn't threatened you and your family with violence, lawsuits, picketing and turning you in to the feds you hven't experienced te true aitch. </div></div>

Exhibit 100.

Soflasnapper
09-13-2012, 06:34 PM
Basically this was looked at a long time ago and there was no basis for action. Heck as it turns out the IRS struggle to even understand what was happening.

They are either going to find it improper or rule that it's ok. (It wasn't about one company, but about an industry-wide practice, as the article makes clear.)

Everyone has been waiting for five years. That does not mean they found it ok. It means they are under phenomenal pressure to shut up about it. Five years with no report out is highly unusual.

eg8r
09-13-2012, 06:56 PM
Actually you can't help but continue the intellectual dishonesty can you. At least the person you quoted chose to be honest about what is happening. Why can't you just be honest and state that in your opinion blah blah blah.

eg8r

Qtec
09-15-2012, 04:56 AM
Its simple.

If Mittens wants to base his Pres run on his business experience, then he should show his tax returns.

This is a guy that has said he paid all the taxes he owed, after a zillion deductions and its all above board but he STILL won't release his tax returns, just to show the American public that they can trust him.

Why should anyone trust Mittens?

Can anyone give me ONE reason.

Q

Soflasnapper
09-15-2012, 09:59 AM
Can anyone give me ONE reason.

They say he's a Mormon, a member of the LDS. Those people do not lie. At least, not all the time. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Soflasnapper
09-15-2012, 10:08 AM
Actually you can't help but continue the intellectual dishonesty can you.

I have no idea what you mean. I try my best to be honest in all things, intellectual matters no less than any others.

Why can't you just be honest and state that in your opinion blah blah blah.

Everything I post carries a hidden 'in my opinion' tag. That's why I post things. They are all my opinions.

But further, I assert they are facts, or are true, etc. If asked, sometimes not even asked, I provide the reasons I think what I've said is true, which are again my opinion.

Nothing I've said here is wrong. If you think it is, what part?

The IRS doesn't sit on rulings for 5 years. Either they say something is ok, or they say something is prohibited and they'll assess tax liability and penalties and interest if they find that being used. Silence in this case is not their assent, which they know how to give in more direct fashion through an IRS publication or Treasury Dept. advice.

But any knowledgeable CPA or tax attorney would advise their client considering doing this dodge that it is more than a grey area, it's being directly looked at, and may not fly eventually if the IRS ever gets around to deciding their position on it. They would not use the silence to date to assure their clients this is an ok'd trick without danger.

Gayle in MD
09-15-2012, 10:26 AM
I wonder if one opts for the Amnesty, after being caught hiding money illegally off shore, if the IRS includes in that deal an agreement for public silence on the subject?


They might agree to keep it under taps on everything but the official private record, if all back payments are remedied?

"We have paid everything we are supposed to pay on our taxes."

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

G.

eg8r
09-15-2012, 12:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have no idea what you mean. I try my best to be honest in all things, intellectual matters no less than any others.</div></div>You are saying this is your best attempt at being honest. Dang, then there is no hope.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The IRS doesn't sit on rulings for 5 years. Either they say something is ok, or they say something is prohibited and they'll assess tax liability and penalties and interest if they find that being used. Silence in this case is not their assent, which they know how to give in more direct fashion through an IRS publication or Treasury Dept. advice.
</div></div>You very clearly stated that the IRS was "blocked" yet the author never even said that lie. The author was being honest and if you are not lying then you are just guessing. However you come to your conclusion based on what you quoted and the two don't match.

eg8r

hondo
09-15-2012, 10:39 PM
I truly admire your self-control in dealing with Larry and Ed.

eg8r
09-17-2012, 08:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Its simple.

If Mittens wants to base his Pres run on his business experience, then he should show his tax returns.</div></div>This simply shows you don't know the difference between personal and business.

eg8r