General Election 2012 Thread - page 126

by Tweety

67,278 Views | 2842 Comments

It's horribly early, but I'm going there anyway.... Read More


  1. 0
    Quote from tntrn
    Tweety, perhaps you can pm me and tell what the violation is.....I would like to know. I just skimmed over the TOS and didn't find anything I would consider a no-no. As far as being self-righteous, that would be opinion....imho. Thanks.
    I didn't that you were engaged in a TOS violation, I meant that I was would have engaged in a TOS violation had I said what I really thought of that silly paragraph you right because personal attacks aren't allowed, but I was tempted rather than zip it.

    I find it rather immature that when we're talking about how much the candidates pay in taxes you skip that subject and start being catty about Biden's charitable donations and self-righteous of you to brag that your donations were bigger, and frankly much of your post didn't make sense. That's how I took it, that's how it appears, but to Jolie of course you were being respectful so I'm sure you don't care what I think.
  2. 0
    The "Buffet Rule" really doesn't accomplish a lot, and I support it, but acknowledge it's mainly a political ploy by Obama at this point.

    I'll admit to being busy yesterday and missing watching only local news so I missed that it was "all over the news" about Obama's camp wanting 10 years of returns. One would think the one has supplied would serve their purposes.

    What some people call "envy", "class warefare", "attacks on the rich", I call desiring fairness and equality.
    Last edit by Tweety on Apr 14, '12
  3. 0
    Quote from Tweety
    I didn't that you were engaged in a TOS violation, I meant that I was would have engaged in a TOS violation had I said what I really thought of that silly paragraph you right because personal attacks aren't allowed, but I was tempted rather than zip it.

    I find it rather immature that when we're talking about how much the candidates pay in taxes you skip that subject and start being catty about Biden's charitable donations and self-righteous of you to brag that your donations were bigger, and frankly much of your post didn't make sense. That's how I took it, that's how it appears, but to Jolie of course you were being respectful so I'm sure you don't care what I think.


    Okay. then.

    I went to the chariatble donations because our President continues to ask that the wealthy "GIVE their fair share." Giving to me is as voluntary thing, not mandatory. Taxes are mandatory. My point was that Mr. Biden didn't "give" as much as people in his income bracket "should" be able to give, according to people who think they can control such things. His taxes are not given, but taken, just as are yours and mine. My further point is that if taxes were not so high, more charitable giving could be done, because those who might want to give more now, but can't (because of high taxes) would be able to do so. I wasn't bragging about how much I give, and didn't give a dollar amount on either that or our total income.....but I suspect that many people who are not in the bracket of the Bidens did and do give way more, dollars to dollars, that did they. To me, it's another example of "do what I say, not what I do." We can leave it at that.
  4. 0
    Quote from tntrn
    Okay. then.

    I went to the chariatble donations because our President continues to ask that the wealthy "GIVE their fair share." Giving to me is as voluntary thing, not mandatory. Taxes are mandatory. My point was that Mr. Biden didn't "give" as much as people in his income bracket "should" be able to give, according to people who think they can control such things. His taxes are not given, but taken, just as are yours and mine. My further point is that if taxes were not so high, more charitable giving could be done, because those who might want to give more now, but can't (because of high taxes) would be able to do so. I wasn't bragging about how much I give, and didn't give a dollar amount on either that or our total income.....but I suspect that many people who are not in the bracket of the Bidens did and do give way more, dollars to dollars, that did they. To me, it's another example of "do what I say, not what I do." We can leave it at that.
    Okay then. That spin still doesn't make sense to me but thanks for trying to explain it. We'll leave it at that because it seems crystal clear to me that we're talking taxes when we say "paying their fair share" and I can't understand your spin that Biden is a hypocrite, but I know I spin things completely differently and I can be as self-righteous as the next guy.
    Last edit by Tweety on Apr 14, '12
  5. 4
    STAFF REMINDER......

    If you see something that you feel is a TOS violation, please use the report function and let staff handle it rather than engaging on the board. It is hard enough to keep the political threads on track.
    tewdles, azhiker96, herring_RN, and 1 other like this.
  6. 1
    Quote from tnbutterfly
    STAFF REMINDER......

    If you see something that you feel is a TOS violation, please use the report function and let staff handle it rather than engaging on the board. It is hard enough to keep the political threads on track.
    By all means......and thanks for the reminder, but let me be clear that I wasn't accusing anyone of a TOS violation...I rather poorly was communicating that I would commit a TOS violation had I inserted what I meant in the spot that said "TOS violation".

    I suppose when I self-censor, I'll just continue with my "zip it" or


    Believe it or not, I acctually attempt to self-censor and attack a posters thoughts and post, not them personally. If I fail, I hope the mods do their job and get rid of me.
    Last edit by Tweety on Apr 14, '12
    herring_RN likes this.
  7. 1
    [color=#333333]president obama's so-called buffett rule is supposed to make certain that top-earning americans don't pay taxes at lower rates than their assistants.
    [color=#333333]but there are still ways for the country's wealthiest to escape their tax share under the measure, according to bloomberg. yes, the new rule would tax millionaires at higher minimum rates of up to 30 percent while eliminating many loopholes. but savvy taxpayers could focus a larger percentage of their portfolios on tax-free investments, such as municipal bonds and employer-based health insurance, neither of which require taxes on subsequent interest. they could also reportedly time the sale of their assets to get bigger tax breaks.
    millionaires can rest easy, buffett rule still has loopholes to exploit
    herring_RN likes this.
  8. 2
    Quote from Jolie
    At risk of being accused of TOS violation, I'll address my response to tnt.

    It is all over the news that the Obama camp is calling for Romney to release at least 10 years of tax returns. It is a thinly-veiled attempt to cast Romney in a bad light, because those were some of his highest earning years, as if EARNING money is somehow a bad thing.
    I don't think anyone is saying that earning money is a bad thing at all. But since you bring it up, it's worth noting how Romney "earned" his money during that time. Long ago, Bain Capital's method of "earning" money was referred to as being a robber baron. The money he earned was at the expense of thousands of jobs and a decrease in GDP.

    Quote from Jolie
    The thing that galls me most about this latest attempt at class envy and attack on the rich is this absurd "Buffett Rule", which will not apply to Buffet or Obama or most wealthy individuals, because it does not apply to investment income, which is the source of most of their wealth. So they go before the public demanding that the "rich" pay their fair share, hoping full well that this attempt to rile the vast unwashed makes them look generous and enlightened, when it STILL DOESN'T APPLY TO THEM!
    Not sure what you're referring to here since the Buffet rule primarily focuses on investment income with 100% increases in capital gains and dividend income. Although still short of what "workers" pay on their income, it's still a significant increase and represents the bulk of the Buffet Rule.

    Quote from Jolie
    When pressed, Obama conceded that this proposed tax would raise fewer than $5 billion/year, having almost no impact on the deficit, accounting for less than 0.4% of it. So yet again, we have Obama proposing class envy and class warfare for the sake of envy and warfare alone, not because it will impact the solvency of the government whatsoever.
    I agree, the Buffet rule falls short and we should raise the capital gains tax more. It is just a small step in closing our deficit gap, although I'm not really getting your argument. My personal income tax makes essentially no difference in the deficit, should I argue then that it doesn't make any sense for me to pay it?


    Quote from Jolie
    It would be far more effective if those who believe that they underpay taxes simply pulled out their checkbooks and sent in a little extra. There would be no IRS time or effort, no bureaucratic costs involved in collecting the funds and applying them directly to pay down the deficit and debt. But neither of these two individuals will bother to do so. In fact, Buffett is YEARS behind in paying the taxes he already owes!

    I hate hypocracy!

    Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes[/h]Billionaire investor Warren Buffett triggered a major debate over taxes recently when he wrote in The New York Times that he should be paying more to the federal government. He called on Washington lawmakers to up tax rates on the rich.

    But it turns out that Buffettís own company, Berkshire Hathaway, has had every opportunity to pay more taxes over the last decade. Instead, itís been mired in a protracted legal battle with the Internal Revenue Service over a bill that one analyst estimates may total $1 billion.

    Yes, thatís right: while Warren Buffett complains that the rich arenít paying their fair share his own company has been fighting tooth and nail to avoid paying a larger share.


    Read more on Newsmax.com: Report: Buffett's Berkshire Owes $1 Billion In Back Taxes
    Buffet is not actually behind on taxes, his company Berkshire Hathaway is, which is a very important distinction. This is not at all unusual for large companies. Berkshire's tax return last year was 18,000 pages long. You combine a return that extensive with an overly complicated tax code and it can take years for every little piece to get finalized. Even if he wanted to, Buffet cannot legally overpay Berkshire's taxes or decide not to clarify what taxes Berkshire actually owes. Berkshire is a shareholder held company which means he has a legal responsibility to his shareholders to see the companies assets are used to the maximum benefit of the shareholders. If he just wrote a check on behalf of Berkshire out of the goodness of his heart he would be committing a felony.
    herring_RN and aknottedyarn like this.
  9. 2
    Romney does give a much higher percentage of his income to what the IRS defines as "charity" although depending on how one defines actual charity he doesn't give any more than Biden does.

    I give money to a church, although I don't consider that full amount as going to "charity" since not all the money I give is going to be used for direct charitable work. Some of it goes to pay for building maintenance, staff salaries, etc. On average, Romney gives about 10% of his income to the Mormon church, which is pretty typical since the Mormon church takes tithing very seriously. Some of that money goes to what could be considered "charitable" causes - humanitarian work. We have a very nice Mormon church near my house complete with interior and exterior marble facades. While very nice I'm not sure I'd consider cladding a building in marble to be "charity" work. According to their own data, the Mormon church spends $87 million a year on humanitarian causes (charity), or 1.5% of the churches $4.7 billion yearly income (which coincidentally is the exact same percentage Biden gave last year). If we figure that only 1.5% of the 10% of his income that he gives the church actually goes to charity in the end, then Romney only gave .15% of his income to charity (via the Mormon church).

    In the end though I don't think a ******* match over who's better at giving to charity can ever be fairly officiated. Everybody is going to argue that theirs' is the only true charity and everyone else's doesn't count whether it be what you devote your time to, what you give your money to, etc.

    (You can't say "pis$ing match" on AN?)
    tewdles and aknottedyarn like this.
  10. 0
    I ascertain how my tithing is spent. None of my monthly giving goes to general maintenance.


Top