AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 18, 2012 14:46:06 GMT -5
...explain that his income was taxed twice. First, it was taxed as corporate income at 35%, and then it was taxed AGAIN at the 15% rate. Am I wrong? I understand there's some question about the "carried interest loophole"-- does this preclude the corporation paying the 35% corporate income tax rate?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,515
|
Post by billisonboard on Jan 18, 2012 14:51:11 GMT -5
Is that actually a possibility in your mind?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:20:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2012 15:02:23 GMT -5
...explain that his income was taxed twice. First, it was taxed as corporate income at 35%, and then it was taxed AGAIN at the 15% rate. Am I wrong? I understand there's some question about the "carried interest loophole"-- does this preclude the corporation paying the 35% corporate income tax rate? But that is true of any corporate income, right? Businesses have some tax obligations on the money they earn (and I don't understand all of the "Double Irish" business, so I'll leave it at the corporation pays some taxes). Then, the corporation could have paid Mitt a salary based on those earnings, which would have been subject to a pretty hefty personal tax rate, or they can compensate him with investments so that he only pays the capital gains rate. Is that the deal? My knowledge of tax law doesn't extend beyond the 1040-EZ.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jan 18, 2012 17:17:16 GMT -5
Very unlikely that he paid tax twice. Most likely his income is now primarily from investments which are only taxed at a rate of 15% on their return.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jan 18, 2012 17:35:19 GMT -5
Say what you want about Mitt, he doesn't strike me as a guy dumb enough to structure his affairs so that he's getting taxed twice. I imagine most of his income comes from capital gains which are only taxed once, and his business income is passed through without being taxed at the corporate level, but counts as capital gains not income to him personally. That's like the whole point of hiring a bunch of lawyers and accountants right? To keep from paying a crap ton in taxes.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:20:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2012 18:14:57 GMT -5
I read an interesting commentary about this issue today. I don't want to dig out the link, but the general idea was that Mitt has the stink of wealth on him. He had it before the 15% brouhaha, and he'll have it after.
He can't escape it, so any explanations would be moot.
Either the voters will see him as a successful businessman and admire that and value his leadership, or they'll think he is an out-of-touch elitist who couldn't possibly understand and therefore represent their needs.
Public opinion... such a fickle fickle thing.
|
|
Sum Dum Gai
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 15, 2011 15:39:24 GMT -5
Posts: 19,892
|
Post by Sum Dum Gai on Jan 18, 2012 18:20:57 GMT -5
Either the voters will see him as a successful businessman and admire that and value his leadership, or they'll think he is an out-of-touch elitist who couldn't possibly understand and therefore represent their needs. Can't it be both?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:20:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2012 19:00:00 GMT -5
"Then, the corporation could have paid Mitt a salary based on those earnings, which would have been subject to a pretty hefty personal tax rate, or they can compensate him with investments so that he only pays the capital gains rate."
A salary is an expense for the business, so they don't pay tax on it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:20:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2012 19:37:22 GMT -5
Romney got an enormous break due to that loophole. It's not a loophole. It's a tax rate available to anyone with capital gains. My lawyer suggested it to me when I opened a small business.
|
|
rockon
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 8:49:55 GMT -5
Posts: 2,384
|
Post by rockon on Jan 18, 2012 19:47:20 GMT -5
If it looks like a loophole and walks like a loop hole and smells like a loophole...
There probably never has been a law passed that specifically had loopholes mentioned in them but our tax laws have plenty of incentives to benefit specific industries or individuals or to achieve a specific purpose. So technically this one would not be called a loophole because it is not an attempt to avoid the intent of the law. This law was intentionally written to give a break to investment income.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 18, 2012 20:47:35 GMT -5
"Then, the corporation could have paid Mitt a salary based on those earnings, which would have been subject to a pretty hefty personal tax rate, or they can compensate him with investments so that he only pays the capital gains rate." A salary is an expense for the business, so they don't pay tax on it. I have always said that we ought to change the tax code-- shred it, really. But as long as we have it, people are going to use it. I see no problem with the people, I see a problem with their government and the laws.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 18, 2012 20:50:08 GMT -5
Are you really and truly out of your mind Paul? Romney got an enormous break due to that loophole. I guess I don't understand the loophole? Is the loophole the capital gains tax rate, or is the loophole that some people feel his income was not capital gains, but salary? If the latter, I know the IRS is pretty fussy about paying a 'reasonable salary' and not disguising what is truly salary as dividends.
|
|
gavinsnana
Senior Member
If we forget we are One Nation Under God, then we are a Nation gone under. Ronald Reagan
Joined: Oct 13, 2011 11:02:40 GMT -5
Posts: 3,201
|
Post by gavinsnana on Jan 18, 2012 21:05:14 GMT -5
Before everyone jumps on the attack on Romney and his "richness" Take a long hard look at all of Washington's wealth. Politicians are not poor.. Just look up the top wealthy.. and go from there.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:20:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2012 21:20:15 GMT -5
I'm not attacking him - I take every exemption and deduction I can to lower my tax rate. In his shoes, I'd do the same.
He is rich though. And not just politician rich, but rich rich. And that can be a liability with the general public (see: Kerry, John)
|
|
milee
Senior Associate
Joined: Jan 17, 2012 13:20:00 GMT -5
Posts: 12,344
|
Post by milee on Jan 18, 2012 21:35:30 GMT -5
"not just politician rich, but rich, rich. And that can be a liability with the general public"
Yeah, that's a tough one. On one hand, I like the idea of a president being one of the really, really smart people that's so charitable and civic minded s/he's only worked for good and noble causes. But then the realist in me is suspicious of that and understands it's important to pick a person that has some real world experience in how business, employment, organizations and the markets work. You know, someone who knows what it's like to be responsible for making payroll happen and keeping customers and shareholders happy. And generally, if you're really, really smart and hard working and have spent time getting real world experience, you have the chance to get rich, rich. So from that standpoint, I want the guy who was smart enough to become rich, rich.
I think the general public lets envy get in the way of their judgment on that particular issue.
|
|
|
Post by funforall on Jan 18, 2012 22:40:38 GMT -5
Willard Mitt Romney didn't exist, we'd have to invent him. And in a way, we did. Perhaps no single political candidate personifies our greed-is-good-meets-Bachelorette era as a guy who thinks back to his many firings, starts to move his hips to the music and sing "I, had the time of my life". In fact, if one were to trace the journey from Mitt's dad, George Romney, to his shiny-teethed offspring, they'd find a perfect roadmap - a Da Vinci Code, if you will - to how we got from the shared-prosperity-creating, centre-left consensus to the plastic, money-changing, showy Tim Tebowism that masquerades as civic virtue today. George Romney was the CEO of the American Motors Corporation, a company that made stuff - back before we outsourced that kind of thing to such shiny locales as Mexico and China. The kind that helped propel the United States into an economic powerhouse while creating a prosperous middle class that enjoyed real wages and benefits.
Romney fires back at Republican rivals
Mitt Romney, to use Rick Perry's words, has been a "vulture capitalist". His business career has pretty much consisted of taking over troubled companies, hoovering up pensions, assets and anything of value not nailed to the floor, and then "liberating" workers to become characters in Bill Joel's "Allentown". You ever see Pretty Woman? Remember Richard Gere's "Edward", who describes what he does once he takes over a company thusly: "I break it up into pieces, and then I sell that off, it's worth more than the whole." Romney's that guy. Hunting "varmints". And, you know, without the prostitute. Presumably. George Romney was a Rockefeller Republican, one of an extinct breed that put this nation first, fought for civil rights laws and really believed in balanced budgets, and not supply-side Jesus. As Governor of Michigan, presidential candidate and cabinet secretary he supported these values, and came out decisively against the Vietnam War because it was the right thing to do. Mitt would like to enshrine discrimination into our constitution with an amendment banning gay marriage, thinks George W Bush's economic programme was groovy (even though he won't say his name) and is busy trying to invent new nations just so we can invade them. No, the apple didn't fall far from the tree - it took a Gulfstream 5 down, rolled over an array of foreclosed houses and leveraged a buyout of a vineyard. Sadly, there can be no doubt that what George Romney stood for is now largely antiquated, as monied interests rent Congress and segments of the Democratic Party, and outright own the GOP. As the US has traded its manufacturing muscle for get-rich-quick financial transactions that mostly benefit people with names such as Willard.
Gingrich takes on Romney in latest Republican debate
Again, Romney didn't create this system. But he also didn't have to spiritually merge with it and embrace the plastic, consumerised nature of our culture and politics with such fervour; talk about the 99.99999 per cent of those in the US that lack his wealth with all the effusive intensity of a corporatised cyborg; use enough LA Looks Mega Hold to cryogenically flatten his hair and cause a greenhouse effect anywhere immediately downwind. When Romney gave his "victory" speech after winning (his almost-home state of) New Hampshire last week, my five-year old son, playing in the room and not looking at the television, suddenly cried out, "It's Buzz Lightyear!" Yes, Romney sounds like a toy robot. In fact, one could easily picture him suddenly proclaiming "to infinity, and beyond". His serially dishonest and completely vapid campaign slogans have about as much chance of being accomplished. I suspect Mitt might even have a "Made In China" label attached to him somewhere, if we were to look hard enough. So yes, Romney is a product of our age at its most extreme - its logical conclusion. Certainly, President Obama plays this game too, making promise after promise he has no intention of keeping, and hiding behind clever branding - as do most other politicians today. But nobody can match Mitt. In sheer personal, political and moral malleability, he rules this age. We're just living in it. As John Hlinko, founder of the activist group Left Action, and author of the brilliant book Share, Retweet, Repeat: Get Your Message Read and Spread, cheekily put it to me: "Romney wasn’t built in a day - he was carefully crafted, focus group by focus group to be sold to the largest number of people. Even his Facebook posts seem painfully focus-tested ... rarely has so much pandering been crammed into 420 characters." Like Vivian - Edward's companion - says to him in Pretty Woman, in response to his telling her about his work: "So, it's sort of like, um ... stealing cars and selling 'em for parts, right?" That might best describe the life and politics of Mitt Romney, as well as the era in which we live
|
|
|
Post by funforall on Jan 18, 2012 22:43:30 GMT -5
Come are u kidding, so far the field of hopefuls................well...................Hope and Full of it..thats my take
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 18, 2012 23:14:46 GMT -5
...explain that his income was taxed twice. First, it was taxed as corporate income at 35%, and then it was taxed AGAIN at the 15% rate. Am I wrong? you might be. you have no idea what his corporate tax rate is.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 18, 2012 23:18:15 GMT -5
...explain that his income was taxed twice. First, it was taxed as corporate income at 35%, and then it was taxed AGAIN at the 15% rate. Am I wrong? I understand there's some question about the "carried interest loophole"-- does this preclude the corporation paying the 35% corporate income tax rate? But that is true of any corporate income, right? no. S-Corps, limited partnerships, and LLC's are all taxed differently than C-Corps. i don't know that Bain is a C-Corp, and i have no reason to suspect that it is. furthermore, it is entirely possible that they are based in the Caymans or something, and pay no tax whatsoever because of it. Paul doesn't know, or he wouldn't be asking.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 18, 2012 23:20:08 GMT -5
I read an interesting commentary about this issue today. I don't want to dig out the link, but the general idea was that Mitt has the stink of wealth on him. He had it before the 15% brouhaha, and he'll have it after. He can't escape it, so any explanations would be moot. Either the voters will see him as a successful businessman and admire that and value his leadership, or they'll think he is an out-of-touch elitist who couldn't possibly understand and therefore represent their needs. Public opinion... such a fickle fickle thing. this is not fickle opinion. this is discovery. if we discovered that he ate children for breakfast, that would have an impact on his popularity, as well. that doesn't mean that those that liked him before they knew that are fickle. it just means they don't like people who eat children for breakfast.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 18, 2012 23:21:19 GMT -5
Before everyone jumps on the attack on Romney and his "richness" Take a long hard look at all of Washington's wealth. Politicians are not poor.. Just look up the top wealthy.. and go from there. you are absolutely right. which is why Romney should publish his tax returns, just like every other candidate in recent memory has, and get on with life. if he is ashamed of his wealth, it says FAR MORE about him than any disclosure would.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 18, 2012 23:52:28 GMT -5
Before everyone jumps on the attack on Romney and his "richness" Take a long hard look at all of Washington's wealth. Politicians are not poor.. Just look up the top wealthy.. and go from there. I did a short stint with a client that was an international real estate investing firm (hedge fund). My eyes were opened. Here are just a few of the things that happened while on that job- I met a man who buys real estate for a small country. The development in question at the time was an enormous central American resort community that targeted rich Americans looking to retire to a tax haven. (Interesting sidebar- I was at the table when a very well-known New York real estate mogul with bad hair phoned and he was promptly hung up on amid laughter and jokes about myriad things I don't dare repeat. I've probably said too much already) I made several trips to the company "office" in Punta Cana, DR. The company was set up as a Panamanian foundation with offices everywhere but Panama. While in Punta Cana I was fascinated by the high profile people from both sides of the aisle who spent a lot of time socializing and hanging out with one another. I'll name a few names just to make it interesting- and if the information I have is wrong, which it could be-- apologies in advance. My understanding is that Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, and Hugo Chavez all have real estate investment interests as well as residences in Punta Cana within blocks of one another. The real fun of all this poking this thing with a stick is, I think, that the whole damn curtain comes down and more people start to become 'curious'. The first meeting I went to outside the US- the minute my feet touched foreign soil and all the legal crap that binds 'investment professionals' and lawyers, etc. here in the US fell away-- the scales were lifted from my eyes. I saw the US for what it really is-- a very thinly veneered economic, political, and military joke. A house of cards that will collapse suddenly, without warning, and without remedy. And the day is coming sooner than most people think.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jan 19, 2012 0:15:40 GMT -5
Before everyone jumps on the attack on Romney and his "richness" Take a long hard look at all of Washington's wealth. Politicians are not poor.. Just look up the top wealthy.. and go from there. I did a short stint with a client that was an international real estate investing firm (hedge fund). My eyes were opened. Here are just a few of the things that happened while on that job- I met a man who buys real estate for a small country. The development in question at the time was an enormous central American resort community that targeted rich Americans looking to retire to a tax haven. (Interesting sidebar- I was at the table when a very well-known New York real estate mogul with bad hair phoned and he was promptly hung up on amid laughter and jokes about myriad things I don't dare repeat. I've probably said too much already) I made several trips to the company "office" in Punta Cana, DR. The company was set up as a Panamanian foundation with offices everywhere but Panama. While in Punta Cana I was fascinated by the high profile people from both sides of the aisle who spent a lot of time socializing and hanging out with one another. I'll name a few names just to make it interesting- and if the information I have is wrong, which it could be-- apologies in advance. My understanding is that Dick Cheney, Bill Clinton, and Hugo Chavez all have real estate investment interests as well as residences in Punta Cana within blocks of one another. The real fun of all this poking this thing with a stick is, I think, that the whole damn curtain comes down and more people start to become 'curious'. The first meeting I went to outside the US- the minute my feet touched foreign soil and all the legal crap that binds 'investment professionals' and lawyers, etc. here in the US fell away-- the scales were lifted from my eyes. I saw the US for what it really is-- a very thinly veneered economic, political, and military joke. A house of cards that will collapse suddenly, without warning, and without remedy. And the day is coming sooner than most people think. indeed. the elite are very well prepared for it. everyone else will just have to deal with the aftermath.
|
|
gavinsnana
Senior Member
If we forget we are One Nation Under God, then we are a Nation gone under. Ronald Reagan
Joined: Oct 13, 2011 11:02:40 GMT -5
Posts: 3,201
|
Post by gavinsnana on Jan 19, 2012 9:16:35 GMT -5
I'm not attacking him - I take every exemption and deduction I can to lower my tax rate. In his shoes, I'd do the same. He is rich though. And not just politician rich, but rich rich. And that can be a liability with the general public (see: Kerry, John) I understand where you are coming from. But my point is, if the left are going to attack the right for being "rich" it is not only laughable but hypercritcal. This "he only pays 15%" on his taxes is not true.. First and foremost its about 35%..on his income.. the 15% is his "earnings" on those investments that he already paid 35% for.. Buffett is a baffoon and a liar. This is misleading to the people to say this. Hey, I am for a flat tax.. everyone pays a flat out rate.. now watch them scream over this one.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jan 19, 2012 9:24:47 GMT -5
First off, I have no problem with Romney using legal tax avoidence tatics.It is a time honored American pastime.... As I understand it, the carried interest loophole allows hedge fund and private equity managers to treat their wages from the company for handeling clients money as capital gains. If the other candidates have a problem with it, they should address the tax code, not the person following it.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jan 19, 2012 9:29:54 GMT -5
Looks like a lot of people here disagree with Reagan----Reagan , talking about his TERFA, which raised taxes on the wealthy, because, as he claimed many of them were paying less than bus drivers------------<<<"And what about fairness for families? It's in our families that America's most important work gets done: raising our next generation. But over the last 40 years, as inflation has shrunk the personal exemption, families with children have had to shoulder more and more of the tax burden. With inflation and bracket-creep also eroding incomes, many spouses who would rather stay home with their children have been forced to go looking for jobs. And what of America's promise of hope and opportunity, that with hard work even the poorest among us can gain the security and happiness that is the due of all Americans? You can't put a price tag on the American dream. That dream is the heart and soul of America; it's the promise that keeps our nation forever good and generous, a model and hope to the world.
For all these reasons, this tax bill is less a freedom—or a reform, I should say, than a revolution. Millions of working poor will be dropped from the tax rolls altogether, and families will get a long-overdue break with lower rates and an almost doubled personal exemption. We're going to make it economical to raise children again. Flatter rates will mean more reward for that extra effort, and vanishing loopholes and a minimum tax will mean that everybody and every corporation pay their fair share. And that's why I'm certain that the bill I'm signing today is not only an historic overhaul of our tax code and a sweeping victory for fairness, it's also the best antipoverty bill, the best profamily measure, and the best job-creation program ever to come out of the Congress .. "
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 9:20:43 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 19, 2012 10:12:37 GMT -5
I'm not attacking him - I take every exemption and deduction I can to lower my tax rate. In his shoes, I'd do the same. He is rich though. And not just politician rich, but rich rich. And that can be a liability with the general public (see: Kerry, John) I understand where you are coming from. But my point is, if the left are going to attack the right for being "rich" it is not only laughable but hypercritcal. This "he only pays 15%" on his taxes is not true.. First and foremost its about 35%..on his income.. the 15% is his "earnings" on those investments that he already paid 35% for.. Buffett is a baffoon and a liar. This is misleading to the people to say this. Hey, I am for a flat tax.. everyone pays a flat out rate.. now watch them scream over this one. Who is this "left" you speak of? They hardly have one voice. Personally, I don't have an issue with Romney's wealth. Heck, had I still lived in Boston when he was running for Governor. I probably would have voted for him. (Maybe not - his Republican predecessor was such an idiot, I may not have trusted anyone from the GOP after Swift) But, Massachussetts Romney was way more liberal than the guy running for President - I liked him better before. But I digress... This situation is equal parts hypocricy from the "left" and "right." Leading up to the 2004 election, the right jumped all over Kerry for windsurfing and rolling around in giant piles of ketchup money, suggesting that he was an out-of-touch elitist. And the left got their panties all in a bunch. Leading up to the 2012 election, the left is jumping all over Romney for making ridiculous wagers and rolling around in giant piles of Bain Capital money, suggesting that he is an out-of-touch elitist. And the right has got their panties all in a bunch. Turnabout is fair play, my friend.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 19, 2012 10:15:31 GMT -5
First off, I have no problem with Romney using legal tax avoidence tatics.It is a time honored American pastime.... As I understand it, the carried interest loophole allows hedge fund and private equity managers to treat their wages from the company for handeling clients money as capital gains. If the other candidates have a problem with it, they should address the tax code, not the person following it. Exactly. I heard some TV anchor for the Obama Mania Media ask, "How does he 'get away' with that" as if he'd done something illegal and was somehow 'getting away' with something. No one is accusing him of breaking the law. Newt seems stuck on this as a 'character issue', but I quite disagree. I think if he was in the porn business which is just a front for exploitation you would have a 'moral values' argument. But making money flipping a company is not morally reprehensible to me. However, I think a valid question to ask Romney is this: what do you really know about running a company and employing people? It's one thing to say he flipped companies and made money for his investors. That's a little different proposition from starting and/or running a main street small business, a start up, or other business that involves the sales and marketing of products and services. My property management, inspection, appraisal (next project), and property claims businesses are far different from my old days of flipping houses. The former involve actual work, whereas the latter is almost pure negotiation. I could make the esoteric argument that I indirectly employed people-- the end buyers I did the negotiating for-- but that's a different proposition, I think. Romney wants the image of a small business man-- the quintessential American Entrepreneurial Cowboy Myth. Fact is, that's not who he is.
|
|
|
Post by Mkitty is pro kitty on Jan 19, 2012 10:40:00 GMT -5
Everyone knows politicians are rich. It's the fact Romney is out of touch with the middle class, despite how hard he tries to show that he is. Making a $10K bet like it was nothing, saying how his speeches, which got him over $370K in about a year, wasn't much, telling people he is unemployed, saying how he was once afraid of getting a pink slip, awkwardly saying he likes to fire people that serve him, and avoiding trying to show his tax records (he better not just release last year's either) all make him look like a Richie Rich. And it's only January. So could everyone put away the "hate him because he's rich" strawman, plz? Just put it somewhere around the "Obama didn't make a budget" and "he believes there are 57 states" strawmen. George Bush Sr. got in trouble because he was amazed you can electronically scan groceries at the check-out; you know, buying groceries is what the house staff does. Also, "Santorum finished 34 votes ahead of Romney in new Iowa tally; votes from 8 precincts missing" www.washingtonpost.com/politics/report-santorum-finished-34-votes-ahead-of-romney-in-new-iowa-tally-votes-from-8-precincts-missing/2012/01/19/gIQAJGuRAQ_story.htmlAnd remember how there were votes found in that Wisconsin judge election and let's not forget Florida. I know, outrage is only for poor and minorities who don't have IDs, so nobody has to scream about it or anything.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jan 19, 2012 14:17:06 GMT -5
|
|