Romney: Obama voters don't pay income taxes [Archive] - Page 2

boutons_deux

09-21-2012, 08:17 AM

The Biggest Gaffe is when a politician speaks the truth -- Michael Kinsey

Disdain for Workers

By now everyone knows how Mitt Romney, speaking to donors in Boca Raton, washed his hands of almost half the country - the 47 percent who don't pay income taxes - declaring, "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." By now, also, many people are aware that the great bulk of the 47 percent are hardly moochers; most are working families who pay payroll taxes, and elderly or disabled Americans make up a majority of the rest.

But here's the question: Should we imagine that Mr. Romney and his party would think better of the 47 percent on learning that the great majority of them actually are or were hard workers, who very much have taken personal responsibility for their lives? And the answer is no.

For the fact is that the modern Republican Party just doesn't have much respect for people who work for other people, no matter how faithfully and well they do their jobs. All the party's affection is reserved for "job creators," a k a employers and investors. Leading figures in the party find it hard even to pretend to have any regard for ordinary working families - who, it goes without saying, make up the vast majority of Americans.

Am I exaggerating? Consider the Twitter message sent out by Eric Cantor, the Republican House majority leader, on Labor Day - a holiday that specifically celebrates America's workers. Here's what it said, in its entirety: "Today, we celebrate those who have taken a risk, worked hard, built a business and earned their own success." Yes, on a day set aside to honor workers, all Mr. Cantor could bring himself to do was praise their bosses.

Lest you think that this was just a personal slip, consider Mr. Romney's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. What did he have to say about American workers? Actually, nothing: the words "worker" or "workers" never passed his lips. This was in strong contrast to President Obama's convention speech a week later, which put a lot of emphasis on workers - especially, of course, but not only, workers who benefited from the auto bailout.

And when Mr. Romney waxed rhapsodic about the opportunities America offered to immigrants, he declared that they came in pursuit of "freedom to build a business." What about those who came here not to found businesses, but simply to make an honest living? Not worth mentioning.

Needless to say, the G.O.P.'s disdain for workers goes deeper than rhetoric. It's deeply embedded in the party's policy priorities. Mr. Romney's remarks spoke to a widespread belief on the right that taxes on working Americans are, if anything, too low. Indeed, The Wall Street Journal famously described low-income workers whose wages fall below the income-tax threshold as "lucky duckies."

What really needs cutting, the right believes, are taxes on corporate profits, capital gains, dividends, and very high salaries - that is, taxes that fall on investors and executives, not ordinary workers. This despite the fact that people who derive their income from investments, not wages - people like, say, Willard Mitt Romney - already pay remarkably little in taxes.

Where does this disdain for workers come from? Some of it, obviously, reflects the influence of money in politics: big-money donors, like the ones Mr. Romney was speaking to when he went off on half the nation, don't live paycheck to paycheck. But it also reflects the extent to which the G.O.P. has been taken over by an Ayn Rand-type vision of society, in which a handful of heroic businessmen are responsible for all economic good, while the rest of us are just along for the ride.

In the eyes of those who share this vision, the wealthy deserve special treatment, and not just in the form of low taxes. They must also receive respect, indeed deference, at all times. That's why even the slightest hint from the president that the rich might not be all that - that, say, some bankers may have behaved badly, or that even "job creators" depend on government-built infrastructure - elicits frantic cries that Mr. Obama is a socialist.

Now, such sentiments aren't new; "Atlas Shrugged" was, after all, published in 1957. In the past, however, even Republican politicians who privately shared the elite's contempt for the masses knew enough to keep it to themselves and managed to fake some appreciation for ordinary workers. At this point, however, the party's contempt for the working class is apparently too complete, too pervasive to hide.

The point is that what people are now calling the Boca Moment wasn't some trivial gaffe. It was a window into the true attitudes of what has become a party of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy, a party that considers the rest of us unworthy of even a pretense of respect.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=975008&f=28&sub=Columnist

boutons_deux

09-21-2012, 10:24 AM

Gecko: '95% Of Life Is Set Up For You If You're Born In This Country'

In a less-examined portion of the recently revealed remarks Mitt Romney made during a private fundraiser in May, the presidential candidate told donors that "95 percent of life is set up for you if you're born in this country."

Romney told the donors there are people who say to him, "'Oh, you were born with a silver spoon,' you know, 'You never had to earn anything,' and so forth. And, and frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you could have, which is to get born in America. I'll tell ya, there is -- 95 percent of life is set up for you if you're born in this country."

Romney delivered his comments in the context of a story he told about observing miserable labor conditions in a Chinese factory he had visited. (Watch the remarks above, clipped from the full video courtesy of Mother Jones.)

If 95 percent of life is set up in this country, however, it certainly doesn't reach 95 percent of the people. The U.S. poverty rate has hovered at or near 15 percent for the past few years. Moreover, the same 15 percent of the population is not constantly poor. In fact, recent research suggests that only 15 percent of Americans will not experience some type of economic insecurity in their lives.

Fully 85 percent of Americans by age 60 will have experienced unemployment, sharply lower income, poverty or the use of welfare for at least a year of their adult lives, according to a 2012 longitudinal analysis by Mark R. Rank, the Herbert S. Hadley professor of social welfare at Washington University in St. Louis. For black people born in America, life is even less set up. Whites by age 60 were 43 percent less likely than blacks to have been poor and 42 percent more likely to have experienced affluence, according to Rank.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/mitt-romney-95-percent-video_n_1900608.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=092112&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

silver-spoon-up-his-ass Gecko, not EVER going to be President

( SupremeBeing, help us out here! )

boutons_deux

09-21-2012, 10:27 AM

The spoiled, imperious Queen Anne dictates to the 99%:

'Stop It' :lol

Ann Romney rebuked Republican critics of her husband in two media appearances on Thursday, telling them to "stop it."

The wife of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, during a sit-down interview with CBS 58 in Milwaukee, was asked about the second-guessing within the GOP's tent over the campaign.

"You know there is always sniping and everyone always thinks they are the best critic, and they know this and they know that," she said. "And you know what, it is really amazing to me that people forget that what this election really is about is the economy."

"Stop it. This is hard. You want to try it? Get in the ring,” she said. “This is hard and, you know, it’s an important thing that we’re doing right now and it’s an important election and it is time for all Americans to realize how significant this election is and how lucky we are to have someone with Mitt’s qualifications and experience and know-how to be able to have the opportunity to run this country."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/ann-romney-mitt-stop-it_n_1902225.html?utm_hp_ref=daily-brief?utm_source=DailyBrief&utm_campaign=092112&utm_medium=email&utm_content=NewsEntry&utm_term=Daily%20Brief

No, Queen Anne, it's not about the REPUG economy, your stupid, asshole husband has made the campaing ABOUT HIMSELF. GFY, bitch.

boutons_deux

09-21-2012, 10:48 AM

Low on Cash, Romney Tries to Rally Donors for Final Phase

Mitt Romney entered the final months of the presidential campaign with a cash balance of just $35 million, racing to find new large donors and rally low-dollar contributors in August even while he raised tens of millions of dollars for the Republican Party.

Mr. Romney's campaign took in $67 million that month but also spent about that much, twice the rate of spending as in any prior month, according to reports filed Thursday with the Federal Election Commission. More than half of what Mr. Romney raised in August was money he could not spend until after his party convention at the end of the month. And he grew so short of available cash that his campaign borrowed $20 million and sharply curtailed advertising, even while doling out post-convention bonuses to a handful of senior staff members.

The new numbers, along with disclosures filed by major "super PACs" supporting the two candidates, challenge the appearance of financial strength that had burnished Mr. Romney over the summer, and show unexpected strengths for President Obama going into the fall.

While Mr. Romney's combined fund-raising apparatus began September with $168.5 million in cash, much of it was sitting in the accounts of the Republican National Committee, which reported cash on hand of about $76.6 million. While an estimated $42 million remains in his joint account with Republican Party committees, only some of it will be available to Mr. Romney for his general election campaign.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats, by contrast, began the fall campaign with less money over all, about $125 million. But federal law guarantees candidates, not parties, the lowest available ad rate in the days leading up to a general election. Thanks in part to his army of small donors, Mr. Obama gathered more money in his own campaign account than Mr. Romney, whose advantage lies in raising large checks that primarily benefit the R.N.C.

Mr. Obama began September with a balance of $86 million, even after spending $65 million on advertising. He raised over twice as much money as Mr. Romney in checks of under $200, which donors can give repeatedly without quickly hitting federal contribution limits.

Far less money went to the Democratic National Committee, which is playing less of a role for Mr. Obama at this stage in the race. Mr. Obama did not transfer to the committee any money from their joint fund-raising committee, which holds most of the cash Mr. Obama has raised for the party. Instead, the committee borrowed $8 million.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/us/politics/cash-low-romney-striving-to-find-new-large-donors.xml;jsessionid=583692081A6F3D287E56F0458DEA 84D7?f=19

Gecko's 1%/UCA donors prefer to hide their JINO SOTUS "free speech" no SuperPAC and the fraudulent "social welfare" PACs.

Th'Pusher

09-21-2012, 10:56 AM

:lol @ giving out post convention bonuses for that pathetic RNC. I wonder if the person responsible for that Clint Eastwood clusterfuck got a bonus?

ploto

09-21-2012, 11:11 AM

Anne Romney is not helping him. She keeps talking about how he does not even need the job, and we should be so grateful he is even offering to be President!

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 11:45 AM

First off- you do not know this. Maybe I used my capital gains to invest more and earn more capital gains.

Secondly, it does not matter to the conversation. That money is not being taxed again - only the capital gains are.

This is what happens when people talk about things they don't really understand. You know what determines your capital gains? How well the company is performing..the previous quarters earnings AFTER 35% taxes. So yes, it is double taxation. It's the same money, your capital gains are absolutely derived from income after taxes earned by the company.

CosmicCowboy

09-21-2012, 12:08 PM

This is what happens when people talk about things they don't really understand. You know what determines your capital gains? How well the company is performing..the previous quarters earnings AFTER 35% taxes. So yes, it is double taxation. It's the same money, your capital gains are absolutely derived from income after taxes earned by the company.

Sorry, gotta correct you on that one. Capital gains are personal, not corporate.

Corps get all income taxed at the corporate rate (after credits and deductions of course.)

Cap gains are on personal investments. Now the personal investment may be in the form of a corp or LLC, (example a LLC or S-Corp that buys and sells real estate) but it is not the same as normal corporate earnings from an ongoing business.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2012, 12:11 PM

Lol finance major

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 12:14 PM

Sorry, gotta correct you on that one. Capital gains are personal, not corporate.

Corps get all income taxed at the corporate rate (after credits and deductions of course.)

Cap gains are on personal investments. Now the personal investment may be in the form of a corp or LLC, (example a LLC or S-Corp that buys and sells real estate) but it is not the same as normal corporate earnings from an ongoing business.

I know that capital gains are personal..you're missing the point. When you own shares in a company, you literally own that company. So you're getting taxed at the corporate level on your earnings (35%) and then whatever your income after taxes is determines any capital gains (or losses) which are again taxed at 15%. It's double taxation.

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 12:15 PM

Manny..just for laughs, what do you think determines the value of your stock? Where do you get your gains or losses from, what determines that?

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 12:20 PM

Don't just sit there with your thumb in your ass refreshing the page waiting for someone to save you before you respond son, answer the damn question :lol

CosmicCowboy

09-21-2012, 12:20 PM

I know that capital gains are personal..you're missing the point. When you own shares in a company, you literally own that company. So you're getting taxed at the corporate level on your earnings (35%) and then whatever your income after taxes is determines any capital gains (or losses) which are again taxed at 15%. It's double taxation.

Wrong again.

Lets say you bought $100,000 of Apple at $400 and sold them at $500.

Yes, apple probably paid some taxes during that time but you didn't.

You sell the shares for $125,000 and pay 15% on the 25K profit.

TeyshaBlue

09-21-2012, 12:22 PM

I own some shares in a few small companies. I've yet to write out a tax payment for the piece of the business I "own".

TeyshaBlue

09-21-2012, 12:23 PM

So no. I'm not being taxed 2x.

ChumpDumper

09-21-2012, 12:24 PM

Just for laughs, show me a publicly traded company that paid 35% in corporate taxes.

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 12:25 PM

So no. I'm not being taxed 2x.

if the business weren't taxed at 35%, the discounted cash flows would have been higher, and therefore your capital gains would have been higher and you'd have more money in your pocket. the 35% came out of earnings that you never saw, they were harvested before it ever got to you like withholdings :lol

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 12:25 PM

Just for laughs, show me a publicly traded company that paid 35% in corporate taxes.

at least you get it, and took the argument in a different direction.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2012, 12:25 PM

Finance major logic: I get taxed on income therefore sales taxes are double taxation.

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 12:26 PM

Wrong again.

Lets say you bought $100,000 of Apple at $400 and sold them at $500.

Yes, apple probably paid some taxes during that time but you didn't.

You sell the shares for $125,000 and pay 15% on the 25K profit.

Wrong. If apple weren't taxed at 35%, you would have sold those shares for 550 instead. Just because it isn't literally handed to you then immediately taken away doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

TeyshaBlue

09-21-2012, 12:26 PM

Like I said. I never paid those taxes.

You can make the argument that the money is taxed twice, but that's a big "Duh".

ChumpDumper

09-21-2012, 12:27 PM

at least you get it, and took the argument in a different direction.Sales tax, tax on interest bearing accounts -- it's not like the non-investor is getting a free ride.

TeyshaBlue

09-21-2012, 12:27 PM

Like I said. I never paid those taxes.

You can make the argument that the money is taxed twice, but that's a big "Duh".

Plus, it's not really "my" money.

ChumpDumper

09-21-2012, 12:28 PM

Plus, it's not really "my" money.Dude, you own Apple?

:wow

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 12:28 PM

Like I said. I never paid those taxes.

You can make the argument that the money is taxed twice, but that's a big "Duh".

It's a big duh that some people here obviously don't get.

TeyshaBlue

09-21-2012, 12:28 PM

Dude, you own Apple?

:wow

lol. I sure as fuck wouldn't be here if I did.:lol

TeyshaBlue

09-21-2012, 12:29 PM

It's a big duh that some people here obviously don't get.

That's because you couched it within the context of personal money. It's not.

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 12:31 PM

That's because you couched it within the context of personal money. It's not.

So if the company goes bankrupt, who gets the remaining assets after the creditors are paid off? Is cash not an asset?

coyotes_geek

09-21-2012, 12:32 PM

Manny..just for laughs, what do you think determines the value of your stock? Where do you get your gains or losses from, what determines that?

Care to take a stab at answering your own questions? Because based on your comments so far in this thread, I don't think the actual answers to are going to match what you think the answers are.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2012, 12:32 PM

It's a big duh that some people here obviously don't get.

People get it but don't try to act like that was your argument.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2012, 12:33 PM

A bankrupt company having assets when creditors are paid off? LOL!

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 12:34 PM

Care to take a stab at answering your own questions? Because based on your comments so far in this thread, I don't think the actual answers to are going to match what you think the answers are.

The value of the stock is simply determined by the value of discounted cash flows aka earnings AFTER TAXES

DUNCANownsKOBE

09-21-2012, 12:34 PM

So if the company goes bankrupt, who gets the remaining assets after the creditors are paid off? Is cash not an asset?
If a company goes bankrupt, there probably aren't any remaining assets left after all creditors are paid off.

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 12:34 PM

If a company goes bankrupt, there probably aren't any remaining assets left after all creditors are paid off.

true, but who would get them in the event there were any? who are the lawful owners of the company assets?

TeyshaBlue

09-21-2012, 12:37 PM

So if the company goes bankrupt, who gets the remaining assets after the creditors are paid off? Is cash not an asset?

It's a ledger balance. Nothing more. It's not liquid until it's converted. That's when I own the tax liability for the stock.

DUNCANownsKOBE

09-21-2012, 12:38 PM

true, but who would get them in the event there were any? who are the lawful owners of the company assets?
Shareholders.

Paying taxes on capital assets gaining value and paying taxes on income are two different things.

TeyshaBlue

09-21-2012, 12:38 PM

Srsly. This is not rocket science.

coyotes_geek

09-21-2012, 12:41 PM

The value of the stock is simply determined by the value of discounted cash flows aka earnings AFTER TAXES

False. The value of the stock is determined by what someone would be willing to pay you for it. Your capital gains and losses are determined by what you bought the stock for and what you sold it for. Earnings & financials may affect what someone thinks the stock is worth, but earnings aren't the only thing that will move a stock price. Whether or not an individual recognized personal capital gains or losses is not simply a function of whether the company had positive or negative earnings.

CosmicCowboy

09-21-2012, 12:44 PM

Wrong. If apple weren't taxed at 35%, you would have sold those shares for 550 instead. Just because it isn't literally handed to you then immediately taken away doesn't mean that it didn't exist.

I'm trying to help you but you just keep digging deeper.

If I bought $100,000 of GE @ 15 last year and sold this year at 20 I made $33,000 but GE didn't pay a fucking penny in taxes.

If I bought $100,000 of a new startup biotech company @ $1 and 5 years later they announce FDA approval of a new cancer drug and I sell @ $20 I just made a cool 2 million, but the company never made a fucking dime or paid a penny in taxes.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2012, 12:44 PM

The value of the stock is simply determined by the value of discounted cash flows aka earnings AFTER TAXES

The value for capital gains are the purchase and sale prices.

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 12:46 PM

False. The value of the stock is determined by what someone would be willing to pay you for it.

Which is based on discounted cash flows

coyotes_geek

09-21-2012, 12:47 PM

lol. I sure as fuck wouldn't be here if I did.:lol

As owner of 0.00000384% of Apple, I can assure you that you can own Apple and still need to be here. :)

DUNCANownsKOBE

09-21-2012, 12:47 PM

False. The value of the stock is determined by what someone would be willing to pay you for it. Your capital gains and losses are determined by what you bought the stock for and what you sold it for. Earnings & financials may affect what someone thinks the stock is worth, but earnings aren't the only thing that will move a stock price.
This.

DCF might be a widely used valuation method but that doesn't make capital gains tax double taxation. You own a share of the company's assets and you're paying taxes on those assets appreciating in value. Even though this isn't something anyone reports, the same tax law applies to more simple things. If I bought a TV for $2000 and sold it for $3000, I'm liable for $1000 in cap gains. It's the same concept.

This is also beside the point, but DCF valuation is based off expected future cash flows, so share value going up has a lot more to do with income that hasn't been earned yet.

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 12:48 PM

I'm trying to help you but you just keep digging deeper.

If I bought $100,000 of GE @ 15 last year and sold this year at 20 I made $33,000 but GE didn't pay a fucking penny in taxes.

If I bought $100,000 of a new startup biotech company @ $1 and 5 years later they announce FDA approval of a new cancer drug and I sell @ $20 I just made a cool 2 million, but the company never made a fucking dime or paid a penny in taxes.

GE is a rare exception who doesn't pay any taxes because they are in bed with Obama. You are taking cases which are not the norm and citing them.

I'm saying that if you invest in a company like walmart, walmart is taxed at the corporate level, and those earnings after taxes are what determine the value of the stock and therefore any capital gains or losses. And what do you, the investor do on those capital gains? pay another 15%

TeyshaBlue

09-21-2012, 12:51 PM

As owner of 0.00000384% of Apple, I can assure you that you can own Apple and still need to be here. :)

Elitist!:ihit

DUNCANownsKOBE

09-21-2012, 12:52 PM

If you wanna gripe about double taxation, dividends provide a much, much stronger argument than cap gains do.

coyotes_geek

09-21-2012, 12:52 PM

Which is based on discounted cash flows

It can be based on anything the person wanting to buy the shares wants it to be.

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 12:53 PM

If you wanna gripe about double taxation, dividends provide a much, much stronger argument than cap gains do.

i'm talking about both

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 12:53 PM

It can be based on anything the person wanting to buy the shares wants it to be.

but none of those others would be fundamentally sound and you'd lose all your money pretty quick

boutons_deux

09-21-2012, 12:54 PM

GE is a rare exception who doesn't pay any taxes because they are in bed with Obama.

dumbfuck, GE has had a 1000-person tax dept from way before Barry.

The biggest welfare moochers in the nation are the Fortune 500, who use $100Ms of the avoided/evaded taxes to convince dumbfucks like all y'all that they must have more tax expenditures, suffer horribly from unfair double taxation, and that it's all the govt fault for "over spending".

coyotes_geek

09-21-2012, 12:56 PM

but none of those others would be fundamentally sound and you'd lose all your money pretty quick

Maybe. Maybe not. Someone who thought the iPod was super cool and used that as their sole reason for buying Apple back in 2006 has done really well for themselves. Someone who was crunching cash flow numbers and invested in AIG back in 2006 probably got killed.

CosmicCowboy

09-21-2012, 01:01 PM

GE is a rare exception who doesn't pay any taxes because they are in bed with Obama. You are taking cases which are not the norm and citing them.

I'm saying that if you invest in a company like walmart, walmart is taxed at the corporate level, and those earnings after taxes are what determine the value of the stock and therefore any capital gains or losses. And what do you, the investory do on those capital gains? pay another 15%

That is just such a gross oversimplification. BTW, if the stock pays dividends (distributes profits) that is taxed at your ordinary income tax rate, and the examples I gave you were not exceptions. There are thousands of growth stocks whose stock price is high but earnings are low...stocks are priced on expectations of future earnings, not present and past earnings.

DUNCANownsKOBE

09-21-2012, 01:04 PM

Yes, it's an old example I've seen over the years with slight variations. People just don't realize that the rich can move away easily and stop paying for others.

Are you libtards listening?
:lol if paying taxes makes being a rich American sooooooooooooo miserable, why haven't any left yet?

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 01:06 PM

:lol and then that growth stock is going to get bought up by a bigger company, who will then pay the 35% and their investors then another 15% in capital gains/dividends :rollin

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 01:07 PM

Maybe. Maybe not. Someone who thought the iPod was super cool and used that as their sole reason for buying Apple back in 2006 has done really well for themselves. Someone who was crunching cash flow numbers and invested in AIG back in 2006 probably got killed.

you're free to go do that with your money

SnakeBoy

09-21-2012, 01:08 PM

The value of the stock is simply determined by the value of discounted cash flows aka earnings AFTER TAXES

I wish it was that simple.

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 01:12 PM

it's theoretical, not an exact science by any means but you don't have to explain that to me, i can consistently earn a solid return on the market even in a down market

CosmicCowboy

09-21-2012, 01:18 PM

you're free to go do that with your money

I thought it was a great example.

Maybe. Maybe not. Someone who thought the iPod was super cool and used that as their sole reason for buying Apple back in 2006 has done really well for themselves. Someone who was crunching cash flow numbers and invested in AIG back in 2006 probably got killed.

AIG and GM were freaking blue chip before they suddenly weren't.

And yeah, buying a stock because you see a cool new tech product isn't that dumb.

I was an early adapter of google. Before that Yahoo was pretty much the only browser in town and their stock was crazy high. My parents stock advisor had gotten them in on Yahoo midway up and they had made a tidy profit on it.

When google came out it was so clearly superior to Yahoo I suggested they get their advisor to sell the yahoo and buy google and they then got to ride google on the way up. I didn't make the decision on earnings, I made it on superiority of product.

SnakeBoy

09-21-2012, 01:21 PM

i can consistently earn a solid return on the market even in a down market

It's not that hard, nothing to beat your chest about.

What are you calling a solid return?

coyotes_geek

09-21-2012, 01:27 PM

it's theoretical, not an exact science by any means but you don't have to explain that to me, i can consistently earn a solid return on the market even in a down market

If you can, good for you.

TeyshaBlue

09-21-2012, 01:29 PM

I've got a lock on a new product. All aboard!

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/UnlimitedPower_zpsd5d1e9b4.jpg

boutons_deux

09-21-2012, 01:36 PM

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. companies and 68% of foreign corporations do not pay federal income taxes

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) examined samples of corporate tax returns filed between 1998 and 2005. In that time period, an annual average of 1.3 million U.S. companies and 39,000 foreign companies doing business in the United States paid no income taxes - despite having a combined $2.5 trillion in revenue.

The study showed that 28% of foreign companies and 25% of U.S. corporations with more than $250 million in assets or $50 million in sales paid no federal income taxes in 2005. Those companies totaled a combined $372 billion in sales for the largest foreign companies and $1.1 trillion in revenue for the biggest U.S. companies.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/12/news/economy/corporate_taxes/

Many Fortune 500 cos. paid $0 taxes

Advocates for reducing U.S. corporate tax rates argue that lower corporate rates charged in other countries impede American competitiveness. Yet a new study finds that many of the nation's top companies are already paying less in U.S. taxes on their pretax profits than they do overseas.

In a study comprising more than half of the Fortune 500 list of the largest U.S. corporations, a quarter of those examined paid little or nothing in federal income taxes during the 2008-2010 period, despite registering profits in all three years.

Of those 280 companies, 78 corporations had at least one year during which their U.S. federal tax was zero or less, and many had more than one year paying no tax, despite recording profits; many of these companies also received tax rebates. In 2009 alone, 49 companies earned combined profits of $78.6 billion, yet paid no taxes - and collected tax rebates totaling $10.8 billion.

The study also disputes claims that the U.S. charges excessive corporate tax rates compared to other countries: Two-thirds of the corporations studied which earned significant foreign AND U.S. profits over the same three-year period paid higher tax rates to foreign governments on their foreign profits than they paid to the U.S. government on their domestic profits.

The study, conducted by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy and published Thursday, examined the tax payments of 280 companies from the Fortune 500 - those that recorded profits in 2008, 2009 and 2010. (Companies that registered a loss for at least one year were not included in the study.) These companies reported total pre-tax U.S. profits of $1.4 trillion, and many of the companies examined did pay close to the official corporate tax rate of 35 percent.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-20129155/study-many-fortune-500-cos-paid-$0-taxes/

The fortunate 400

Six American families paid no federal income taxes in 2009 while making something on the order of $200 million each. This is one of many stunning revelations in new IRS data that deserves a thorough airing in this year’s election campaign.

The data, posted on the IRS website last week, brings into sharp focus the debate over whether the rich need more tax cuts (Mitt Romney and congressional Republicans) or should pay higher rates (President Obama and most Democrats).

The annual report, which the IRS typically releases with a two-year delay, covers the 400 tax returns reporting the highest incomes in 2009. These families reported an average income of $202.4 million, down for the second year as the Great Recession slashed their capital gains.

In addition to the six who paid no tax, another 110 families paid 15 percent or less in federal income taxes. That’s the same federal tax rate as a single worker who made $61,500 in 2009.

Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/files/2012/06/US_INCOMETX0612_SC.jpg

http://blogs.reuters.com/david-cay-johnston/2012/06/06/the-fortunate-400/

Companies Desperately Fleeing Super-Low U.S. Tax Rates: Report

The 10 most profitable companies in the U.S., including Apple and Exxon Mobil, paid an average tax rate of just 9 percent last year, according to a study by the site NerdWallet.

If you want to get technical about it, many large companies essentially turn a profit on taxes, according to a recent Citizens for Tax Justice study.

And even as Obama was coming up with his proposal to cut corporate tax rates, the Congressional Budget Office pointed out that corporate tax receipts as a percentage of corporate profits tumbled to just 12.1 percent in fiscal 2011, the lowest rate since 1972.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/corporate-tax-rate-us-2012_n_1839693.html

coyotes_geek

09-21-2012, 01:39 PM

I've got a lock on a new product. All aboard!

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/UnlimitedPower_zpsd5d1e9b4.jpg

:tu

Energy independence! Middle east, GFY!!!

boutons_deux

09-21-2012, 01:43 PM

5 Most Ridiculously Offensive Quotes From Ann Romney

1. What, Me Rich?

“We can be poor in spirit, and I don’t even consider myself wealthy, which is an interesting thing,” said Ann Romney to Fox News [3]. "It can be here today and gone tomorrow."

Hmm. Interesting indeed, considering that her husband is worth about $200 million. If elected, he would be among the richest presidents ever to occupy the White House, topping both the Roosevelts and the Bushes [4], who were no slouches. In fact, he’s wealthier than the last eight presidents combined.

Ann Romney’s favorite fancy dressage horse, Rafalca, costs more to feed and shelter [5] than your whole family. How wealthy does that make you feel?

2. It’s Great That Some Women Don’t Have a Choice

Back in April, Ann Romney spoke to the Connecticut Republican Party’s Prescott Bush Awards Dinner in Stamford, where she waxed personal on the rigors of raising kids while Mitt was off destroying jobs.

Mrs. Romney said she likes to see what women are up to on the campaign trail, asking “Why are you here? What made you come out of your house today to this event? And what do you think about the future?”

Not all women have the luxury of staying at home, she conceded: “I love the fact that there are women out there who don’t have a choice and they must go to work and they still have to raise the kids. Thank goodness that we value those people too. And sometimes life isn’t easy for any of us.”

If you’re one those people, you can wrap yourself in Ann Romney love while you ponder why her horse gets a $77,000 tax credit [6] when your kid gets $1,000.

3. College, Wall Street-Style

When newlyweds Ann and Mitt Romney were living together while attending Brigham Young, things were pretty swell. "We were happy, studying hard,” Romney said in an infamous Boston Globe interview back in 1994 [7], when Mittens was running for the senate. “Neither one of us had a job, because Mitt had enough of an investment from stock that we could sell off a little at a time,” she explained.

How awesome is that?!? The stock came courtesy of Mitt's papa, who had invested Mitt’s “birthday money” every year. Ann looks back fondly on this time as a period when she and Mitt were really roughing it. For realz.

4. Unzip Mitt

In an interview with a Baltimore radio station, Ann Romney pressed the audience [8] to believe that despite her husband’s stiff demeanor and penchant for human and canine bullying, Mitt was really full of chuckles. She opined that “we better unzip him and let the real Mitt Romney out.”

Stiff or not stiff? We’re not sure we want to unzip Mr. Romney to find out.

5. Enough of You People

You people. You’re always asking annoying questions and daring to insinuate that there’s something wrong with all those Romney tax havens and offshore accounts.

Why don’t you stick to clipping coupons or whatever it is you people do to stay busy?

In an interview with ABC’s "Good Morning America [9]" that quickly went viral, Mrs. Romney got huffy when asked why American voters would not be vouchsafed a look at Mitt’s latest tax returns.

“We’ve given all you people need to know,” she sniffed.

http://www.alternet.org/print/election-2012/5-most-ridiculously-offensive-quotes-ann-romney

CosmicCowboy

09-21-2012, 01:45 PM

Overall, the top 400 paid an average income tax rate of 19.9 percent, the same rate paid by a single worker who made $110,000 in 2009. The top 400 earned five times that much every day.

So if they made 200 million and paid 19.9% in taxes that means that taxpayer paid almost 40 million in taxes. Fucking greedy cheater!

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 01:46 PM

If you can, good for you.

crofl yeah i took portfolio management this summer while the market was in the gutter and still managed to come out with a 2.5% return over a 1.5 month period..which if you annualize that is about 20% return yearly which i didn't think was bad for my first try, especially considering the market was down several % over that same period. interactive broker has a pretty good trading program with tools you can use, and they offer a free trial where you can test the market in real time but with fake money before adding your own cash. i just pretty much trade on the news, but also use a combination of fundamental and technical analysis as well. just looked for over and underreactions to market news and respond accordingly.

boutons_deux

09-21-2012, 01:47 PM

So if they made 200 million and paid 19.9% in taxes that means that taxpayer paid almost 40 million in taxes. Fucking greedy cheater!

asshole, the typical 1%er bullshit, taking the absolute number rather than the percentage of the total. Try to do better next time.

boutons_deux

09-21-2012, 01:48 PM

A Letter from Ann Romney

Dear Fellow-Republican,

I’m not a happy camper.

Over the past few days, some so-called Republicans have taken it upon themselves to lob some pretty harsh words in the direction of my husband. Now, it’s one thing when Mitt gets criticized by the forty-seven per cent of Americans who are parasites sucking at capitalism’s teat. But when former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan calls his campaign “a rolling calamity,” it’s time for Ann Romney to kick some ass.

Which brings me to you. This is not a fundraising appeal. Lord knows this campaign has all the money it needs, especially since Mitt went to Vegas and promised Sheldon Adelson he’d bomb Tehran on Day One. As Mitt’s wife, I’m asking you to pledge something far more valuable:

Your silence.

By signing the pledge form below, you become an official member of Ann Romney’s Circle of Silence, an élite tier of the Romney for President Campaign. As a member of the C.O.S., you will receive priority ticketing to the Inauguration, as well as a collectible “Loose Lips Sink Mitt” ball gag. All you have to do is shut the freak up until Election Day.

That’s right, for the next forty-six days, I’m asking you to bite your tongue every time Mitt says or does something idiotic. If you think that sounds difficult, welcome to my world.

And Peggy Noonan, if you’re reading this: you want a piece of Ann Romney? Then get in the ring, girlfriend, and I’ll mess you up good. :lol

Vote for Mitt,

Ann

Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2012/09/a-letter-from-ann-romney.html#ixzz278DcsDCW

TeyshaBlue

09-21-2012, 01:51 PM

The fuckin bot has gone nuts.

Th'Pusher

09-21-2012, 01:54 PM

So if they made 200 million and paid 19.9% in taxes that means that taxpayer paid almost 40 million in taxes. Fucking greedy cheater!

Leaving them only $160M while the guy making 110k is left with 89k. Tell me, which of the two is more likely to spend a greater share of that income? Which one is the job creator?

SnakeBoy

09-21-2012, 01:55 PM

asshole, the typical 1%er bullshit, taking the absolute number rather than the percentage of the total. Try to do better next time.

You commonly mix tax rate % with effective tax rate % to make it seem as though median income folks are paying more than people like Romney.

TeyshaBlue

09-21-2012, 01:55 PM

It's likely the 110k guy will spend all of his income.

The 160M guy, not so much.

boutons_deux

09-21-2012, 02:11 PM

The fuckin bot has gone nuts.

TB :lol

Wild Cobra

09-21-2012, 04:16 PM

lol. I sure as fuck wouldn't be here if I did.:lol
Where would you be then?

ElitistTalk dot com?

TeyshaBlue

09-21-2012, 04:18 PM

Where would you be then?

ElitistTalk dot com?

Hells yeah with my flask of chilled blood of peasant children.

boutons_deux

09-21-2012, 04:54 PM

You commonly mix tax rate % with effective tax rate % to make it seem as though median income folks are paying more than people like Romney.

"paying more" in %age or more in $$ volume?

Wild Cobra

09-21-2012, 04:56 PM

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 04:58 PM

"paying more" in %age or more in $$ volume?

romney pays more taxes than you both in percentage and volume. i guess you missed the article, he's averaged 20% effective rate over the past 20 years. you gonna change your vote now? you must be butt-devastated.

boutons_deux

09-21-2012, 07:55 PM

He said 47% rely on the government, didn't he? It wasn't paying no taxes alone, but in the form of food stamps as well. I'll bet he also meant things like Pell grants.

The 47% number does coincide with the 47% who pay no federal income tax, but I think that wasn't intended as I think about this.

"47% rely on the government, didn't he?"

in his mouth, it's a lie, as serious people have pointed out.

Does he have any hard evidence, research to back up that 47%, or is just WC taking/supporting it in blind faith.

And of course, he didn't say how many $100Bs the Fortune 500 pocket in tax expenditures and fat govt contracts, nor that large corps create "small" subsidiaries to steal govt contracts and loans targeted at truly small businesses, of which he claims to be a champion.

boutons_deux

09-21-2012, 07:56 PM

his taped talk and all his other gaffes and mistakes are causing him all kinds of troubles with other Repugs.

Sniping from within GOP adds to Romney's struggles

Mitt Romney struggled to steady his presidential campaign on Friday, buffeted by an outbreak of sniping among frustrated Republicans, fresh evidence of a slide in battleground state polls and President Barack Obama's accusation that he was writing off "half the country" in pursuit of the White House.

Republican running mate Paul Ryan drew boos at an AARP convention in New Orleans when he said Romney would repeal Obama's health care law, which closed a gap in coverage for seniors' prescription drugs. The Wisconsin congressman accused the administration of weakening Medicare and flinching from tough measures needed to stabilize Social Security's finances, adding that the president has "put his own job security over your retirement security."

Obama rebutted Ryan's charges point by point in a video appearance to the same audience. He said the Republican prescription for Medicare would mean "billions in new profits for insurance companies" and replacing guaranteed benefits with a voucher that would bring higher out of pocket costs for seniors.

Romney campaigned in Nevada as aides released a 2011 federal income tax return showing he and his wife, Ann, paid $1.94 million in federal taxes last year on income of $13.7 million. Their effective tax rate was 14.1 per cent, lower than many families pay because most of the couple's earnings come from investments.

The campaign also released a letter from Romney's doctor saying the 65-year-old former Massachusetts governor is healthy and physically up to the demands of the presidency.

Republicans tried to yank the campaign focus back to the economy.

"While President Obama and Democrats will try to distract voters, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are focused on fixing the economy, getting Americans back to work and ensuring a better future for our children and grandchildren," Sen. John McCain, the Republicans' 2008 presidential candidate, said in a statement.

In an interview taped for broadcast Sunday on CBS' "60 Minutes," Romney said of his campaign: "It doesn't need a turnaround. We've got a campaign which is tied with an incumbent president to the United States."

But there seemed no letup in the bad political news for Romney, hit by a barrage of it since he was seen on videotape saying that his job as a candidate is not to worry about the 47 percent of Americans whom he said pay no income taxes and see themselves as victims.

Obama, for sure, was eager to keep the controversy alive. Campaigning in Woodbridge, Va., he defended himself against Romney's jabs at his own statement that change is impossible from the inside in Washington. "It can't happen if you write off half the nation before you even took office," he said.

He also drew laughter and applause from his audience when he mocked his rival. "He stood up at a rally, proudly declared, 'I'll get the job done from the inside.' What kind of inside job is he talking about? Is it the job of rubberstamping the top-down, you're-on-your-own agenda of this Republican Congress? Because if it is, we don't want it."

According to Wall Street Journal/NBC News/Marist Poll surveys, the president has opened leads among likely voters of eight percentage points in Iowa, with 6 electoral votes, and margins of five percentage points each in Colorado (9 electoral votes) and Wisconsin (10.)

Earlier surveys published this week pointed to leads for Obama in both Virginia, with 13 electoral votes, and Ohio, with 18.

National polls have been far closer, including an AP-GfK survey this week that had it a statistical tie among likely voters. They have also suggested progress for Obama in terms of his handling of the economy, the No. 1 issue in the race.

Despite Romney's difficulties, recent soundings on employment have not been encouraging for the president's re-election. Newly released figures show joblessness ticked up in five swing states in August, fell in two and was unchanged in two others.

Romney's allies also point to a series of presidential debates beginning Oct. 3 as a chance to shake up the race.

But for now, Romney's troubles have sent shudders down ballot, where Republicans are in tough races that will settle the outcome for the struggle for control of the Senate this fall. Tommy Thompson, dropping in the polls in Wisconsin, said "the presidential thing is bound to have an impact on every election."

That produced a quick retort from John Sununu, a top Romney surrogate. "My good friend Tommy Thompson sounds like Barack Obama, blaming it on somebody else," he said on CNN.

But Thompson wasn't alone. Rep. Rick Berg, running for the Senate in a closer-than-expected race in North Dakota, became the latest in a string of Republican candidates to say they disagreed with Romney's 47 percent remarks.

Apart from his self-inflicted political wounds, Romney has been under pressure from fellow Republicans to draw clearer distinctions with Obama on the economy, and say more clearly what he would do to bring down the nation's 8.1 percent unemployment rate.

Asked to point to new policy proposals that Romney has made since early August, aides referred to one speech on energy independence and a set of remarks on veterans.

But he has generally been unwilling to flesh out his plans for balancing the budget or enacting tax reform, refusing, for example, to name a tax break he would eliminate except for a small one that subsidizes producers of wind power.

He criticized Obama's handling of anti-American demonstrations around U.S. embassies in the Middle East earlier in the month, but declined to say what approach he would have taken instead. And while he has repeatedly tagged Obama for not being more forceful in trying to arrange the downfall of Syrian President Bashar Assad, aides have refused for nearly a month to say whether the Republican challenger supports arming rebels fighting the regime.

Ryan provided no new policy details in his appearance before the AARP, although he renewed Romney's support for a gradual increase in the Social Security retirement age and slowing the growth of benefits for those at higher incomes. Republicans have yet to provide details.

He told seniors that Republicans "respect you enough to level with you," and said Obama's health care legislation had cut $716 billion out of Medicare over a decade and set up a board of unelected bureaucrats with authority to make future reductions so severe they could eventually jeopardize seniors' access to medical care.

"You know President Obama's slogan, right? Forward." he said, then added, mockingly, "Forward into a future where seniors are denied the care they earned because a bureaucrat decided it wasn't worth the money."

Obama answered via video hookup and a television commercial that began airing in Florida, Colorado and Iowa. It argued that under the Republican plan, seniors' health costs could go up by $6,400 a year.

Obama has said he would consider raising payroll taxes on upper-income wage earners to shore up the trust fund that pays for Social Security benefits. Workers currently pay a 4.2 percent tax on income up to $110,100 annually, although the rate is scheduled to revert to a previous 6.2 percent at the first of the year.

http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_41688/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=4zUUlIJA&full=true#display

Mikesatx

09-21-2012, 10:23 PM

He is already paying more in volume. Do you think he should also pay more in %? Do you realize that one of the most common techniques for reducing tax liablility is by annual gifting. When he and Ann die based on what the estate tax rates will adjust to in 2013 is 55% of everything over 2 million.

Now assume he doesn't invest and pays an effective tax rate 20%. Over his lifetime he earns 250 million and spends 30% over his lifetime:

Income Tax $50,000,000
Sales and/or State Tax $4,500,000
Estate Tax $67,650,000

Total Taxes $122,150,000

A little less than half the guys income gone to taxes. Is that Fair?

That still remains the question no one has answered or volunteered an opinion. At what amount would you change your tune and say that isn't fair?

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 10:26 PM

thread title should be "romney pays more taxes than obama voters"

MannyIsGod

09-21-2012, 10:32 PM

Thread title should actually be M>S shows how little he knows in his chosen field, again, TBH

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 10:33 PM

stupid throwaway line

MannyIsGod

09-21-2012, 10:38 PM

stupid throwaway line

And yet you responded, right?

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 10:41 PM

you're not very good at this

MannyIsGod

09-21-2012, 10:43 PM

you're not very good at this

I'm pretty awesome at getting under your skin, TBH. Not that its hard though.

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 10:45 PM

:lol MonkeyIsBe@ner thinks he has the ability to get under anyone's skin. you're the forum whipping boy son, why don't you lecture us on something you actually know about like online dating

Wild Cobra

09-21-2012, 10:48 PM

thread title should be "romney pays more taxes than obama voters"
LOL...

Wouldn't it be funny if he did?

How may Obama voters pay negative taxes (get more money back than paid.) Add that to those who actually pay taxes, and it's possible that Romney still pays more in taxes than all Obama voters combined.

MannyIsGod

09-21-2012, 10:56 PM

:lol MonkeyIsBe@ner thinks he has the ability to get under anyone's skin. you're the forum whipping boy son, why don't you lecture us on something you actually know about like online dating

Why don't you lecture us on something you know about like finance? Oh wait! :lol Bragging about fake returns.

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 10:59 PM

Brah what I did was pretty genius, I saw that in the pizza industry papa johns was making all kinds of gains while the market was underrating domino's for some reason which actually had the more solid fundamentals. Bet on domino's and shorted papa johns and made like 3k on a 20k investment in 1 week. you couldn't beat that shit monkey boy

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 11:03 PM

This one also made me a lot of money.

https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:GDI

bought that shit on July 16th RIGHT at it's low point and flipped that shit on July 27th where it spiked up.

Mikesatx

09-21-2012, 11:07 PM

No offense mavs, but your basing your investment prowess on a good week? You continue to earn 15% each week after a year let me know and I'll give you my money to play with.

CosmicCowboy

09-21-2012, 11:10 PM

LOL...

Wouldn't it be funny if he did?

How may Obama voters pay negative taxes (get more money back than paid.) Add that to those who actually pay taxes, and it's possible that Romney still pays more in taxes than all Obama voters combined.

That was just bum fucking stupid. Lots of wealthy Obama supporters.

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 11:11 PM

No offense mavs, but your basing your investment prowess on a good week? You continue to earn 15% each week after a year let me know and I'll give you my money to play with.

those were just a couple of highlights of some nice moves i made over a 2 month period in a down market this past summer..my first try ever dabbling in stocks. the market was down like 5% over the period while i was significantly ahead. haven't fucked with them since..but i plan to again soon.

CosmicCowboy

09-21-2012, 11:11 PM

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 11:12 PM

LOL playing fantasy wall street.

it's an exact clone of the real market complete with fees and all..it's completely realistic. had i transferred cash to the account it would have been the exact same thing.

CosmicCowboy

09-21-2012, 11:16 PM

I get it, but playing with monopoly money ain't the same thing.

It's the difference between playing Texas Holdem for fun or playing with a $1000 ante. It makes it a hell of a lot harder to go all in.

Mikesatx

09-21-2012, 11:16 PM

those were just a couple of highlights of some nice moves i made over a 2 month period in a down market this past summer..my first try ever dabbling in stocks. the market was down like 5% over the period while i was significantly ahead. haven't fucked with them since..but i plan to again soon.

All I would suggest is be careful. Looks like you are doing your homework but the markets will take all the facts and figures your are using and eventually slap you with them. Put your focus on consistently putting money away and less on the magic formula of the market.

CosmicCowboy

09-21-2012, 11:19 PM

All I would suggest is be careful. Looks like you are doing your homework but the markets will take all the facts and figures your are using and eventually slap you with them. Put your focus on consistently putting money away and less on the magic formula of the market.

He's playing fantasy wall street with monopoly money.

Wild Cobra

09-21-2012, 11:19 PM

That was just bum fucking stupid. Lots of wealthy Obama supporters.
Sure, thousands. But for every one of them, how many get earned income credit, child credits, food stamps, subsidized utilities, etc. that make them a net receiver of tax dollars?

I agree the net flow of money is likely to the government coffers from Obama supporters, but I can see it as possible being otherwise. What numbers do you have to to disprove the possibility?

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 11:19 PM

I get it, but playing with monopoly money ain't the same thing.

It's the difference between playing Texas Holdem for fun or playing for a $1000 ante. It makes it a hell of a lot harder to go all in.

it is when you're a stone cold motherfucker and don't invest with your emotions. download interactive broker and let us know how badly you get your ass waxed if you think it's easy.

and stop calling it fantasy wall street lol. the option is there to upload your money..nothing actually changes once you do. it's the real life stock exchange in real time. for all your talk, you'd lose money if you tried it.

Mikesatx

09-21-2012, 11:23 PM

it is when you're a stone cold motherfucker and don't invest with your emotions. download interactive broker and let us know how badly you get your ass waxed if you think it's easy.

and stop calling it fantasy wall street lol. the option is there to upload your money..nothing actually changes once you do. it's the real life stock exchange in real time. for all your talk, you'd lose money if you tried it.

So was the 20k your cash or play money? I used to play hold em on party poker and was up to about 60 million before they took my play money away.

mavs>spurs

09-21-2012, 11:24 PM

crofl it's nothing at all like that

ElNono

09-22-2012, 12:18 AM

There's simply a much larger problem than just taxing when it comes to encouraging investment: the US and it's standard of living just isn't competitive with other nations, and no amount of tax wiggling will fix that. You could lower taxes to zero and companies will still invest their money and create jobs somewhere else simply because they can pay cents per hour of work, and people are willing (or made to be willing, see: China) to live with that. The US has evolved to a services/specialized economy to combat that, and moved aggressively with the protection of such specialization and/or innovation (IP) to artificially keep a stronghold in that area, but eventually other countries catch up, and what was once new or special becomes something other countries can do and for cheap.

So, while I agree that a cleaner, less convoluted tax code would be beneficial (unless you're an accountant) just on removing complexity, it doesn't necessarily address the big elephant in the room.

LnGrrrR

09-22-2012, 12:22 AM

Winehole23

09-22-2012, 03:18 AM

The fuckin bot has gone nuts.Nuts to start with, tbh.

boutons_deux

09-22-2012, 05:28 AM

moocher Corporate-Americans can afford to avoid/evade taxes, 99% Human-Americans can't.

Microsoft Used Offshore Subsidiaries To Avoid $6.5 Billion In American Taxes

The report, released in advance of a 2 p.m. hearing in Washington today, said Microsoft used transactions with subsidiaries in Puerto Rico, Ireland, Singapore and Bermuda to save at least $6.5 billion in taxes. In 2008, Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) created a series of short-term internal loans that allowed the company to tap its offshore cash for domestic operations without paying taxes, according to the report.

Apple, one of Microsoft’s chief competitors, used its own schemes to avoid more than $2.4 billion in American taxes last year. “The high-tech industry is probably the number-one user of these offshore entities to transfer intellectual property,”

In 2009, offshore tax havens cost the average individual taxpayer $434, according to the California Public Interest Research Group. Citizens for Tax Justice, meanwhile, found that making up the lost revenue would have required an extra $2,116 from each American small business.

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/20/883301/microsoft-used-offshore-subsidiaries-to-avoid-65-billion-in-american-taxes-senate-memo-says/

boutons_deux

09-22-2012, 05:35 AM

Apple, Google, Microsoft Sitting on 58 Billion in Overseas Profits, Blackmailing Us to Avoid Taxes

These corporations claim that if we reduce their tax rate on that cash from 35 percent to 5.25 percent (which is less than the rest of us pay in sales taxes), they will bring the money home and invest it in creating badly needed jobs. They claim that for every billion invested, 15,000 to 20,000 jobs will be created directly and indirectly, which means such a tax holiday could create up to 30 million jobs – more than enough to bring us back to full employment and then some!

1. Companies that got the tax breaks last time didn’t create jobs.

After the Bush administration and Congress passed the Homeland Investment Act of 2004, 800 corporations repatriated $312 billion, but didn’t create jobs, according to an in-depth study by the nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research ( PDF). “Congressmen argued that it would create more than 500,000 jobs over two years by raising investment in the United States,” the report states.

Here’s what actually happened:

“Rather than being associated with increased expenditures on domestic investment or employment, repatriations were associated with significantly higher levels of shareholder payouts, mainly through share repurchases.... A $1 increase in repatriations was associated with a $0.79 increase in share repurchases and a $0.15 increase in dividends…. [I]t is clear that they were able to reallocate funds internally to bypass the publicly stated goals of the Act.”

In plain English that means that 94 cents of every tax break dollar enriched the shareholders. That leaves six cents on the dollar for investment in research, development and jobs.

http://www.alternet.org/story/151413/apple%2C_google%2C_microsoft_sitting_on_58_billion _in_overseas_profits%2C_blackmailing_us_to_avoid_t axes

boutons_deux

09-22-2012, 05:38 AM

Apple Used Low-Tax States, Foreign Tax Havens To Dodge $2.4 Billion In Taxes Last Year

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/applechart.png

Apple’s headquarters are in Cupertino, Calif. By putting an office in Reno, just 200 miles away, to collect and invest the company’s profits, Apple sidesteps state income taxes on some of those gains.

California’s corporate tax rate is 8.84 percent. Nevada’s? Zero. [...]

Apple was a pioneer of an accounting technique known as the “Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich,” which reduces taxes by routing profits through Irish subsidiaries and the Netherlands and then to the Caribbean. [...]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/04/30/473256/apple-tax-dodging/

boutons_deux

09-22-2012, 06:30 AM

Nuts to start with, tbh.

TBitch, Wasshole :lol

boutons_deux

09-22-2012, 06:37 AM

Romney's "Charity" to the Church is Just More Corporate Greed and Tax Evasion

Let's take a look at what Mitt's charitable giving goes to, shall we?

Reuters looked into it a while back: [1]

If the Mormon church were a business, wealthy adherents like Mitt Romney would count as its dominant revenue stream.

Its investment strategy would be viewed as risk-averse.

It would also likely attract corporate gadflies protesting a lack of transparency. They would call for less spending on real estate and more on charitable causes to improve membership growth - the Mormons' return on investment.

Those are a few of the conclusions that can be drawn from an analysis of the church's finances by Reuters and University of Tampa sociologist Ryan Cragun.

Relying heavily on church records in countries that require far more disclosure than the United States, Cragun and Reuters estimate that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints brings in some $7 billion annually in tithes and other donations.

It owns about $35 billion worth of temples and meeting houses around the world, and controls farms, ranches, shopping malls and other commercial ventures worth many billions more.

So Romney is giving huge sums of money to a church which runs commercial ventures and has no obligatin to pay taxes on them. Sounds perfect.

"Most of the revenue of the religion is from the U.S., and a large percentage comes from an elite cadre of wealthy donors, like Mitt Romney," said Cragun. " is a religion that appeals to economically successful men by rewarding their financial acuity with respect and positions of prestige within the religion."

The church is full of successful businessmen, including chemical billionaire Jon Huntsman Sr., the father of the former presidential candidate, J.W. "Bill" Marriott Jr. and his hotel-owning family, and even entertainer Donny Osmond.
[...]
The Mormon church has no hospitals and only a handful of primary schools. Its university system is limited to widely respected Brigham Young, which has campuses in Utah, Idaho and Hawaii, and LDS Business College. Seminaries and institutes for high school students and single adults offer religious studies for hundreds of thousands.

It counts more than 55,000 in its missionary forces, primarily youths focused on converting new members but also seniors who volunteer for its non-profits, such as the Polynesian Cultural Center, which bills itself as Hawaii's No. 1 tourist attraction, and for-profit businesses owned by the church.

The church has plowed resources into a multi-billion-dollar global network of for-profit enterprises: it is the largest rancher in the United States, a church official told Nebraska's Lincoln Journal Star in 2004, with other ranches and farms in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Australia and Great Britain, according to financial documents reviewed by Reuters.

Ranching and farm industry sources say they are well-run operations.

It also has a small media empire, an investment fund, and is developing a mall across from its Salt Lake City headquarters, which it calls an attempt to help revitalize the city rather than to make money. These enterprises are also part of a vast nest egg for tough times. The church expects wars and natural disasters before Christ returns to earth in the Second Coming, and members are encouraged to prepare by laying in stores of food. Farms and ranches are part of the church's own preparation.

"The church teaches its members to live within their means and put a little money aside for life's unexpected events. As a church, we live by the same principle," Purdy said. The rainy-day fund and operating budget rarely mix, officials say.

And what does Mitt think about this form of "charity"?

Romney himself focuses on the act of giving, not the result. As he told Fox News Sunday, "Hopefully, as people look at various individuals running for president, they'd be pleased with someone who made a promise to God and kept that promise."

Right. That's all that matters.

If I didn't know better I'd have to assume that this charitable giving to a church that primarily operates highly successful commercial businesses is just another tax dodge.

http://www.alternet.org/print/hot-news-views/romneys-charity-church-just-more-corporate-greed-and-tax-evasion

So the hyper-wealthy Mormon BUSINESS operates no charity hospitals like other "religions", Catholic, Protestant, Jewish?

MannyIsGod

09-22-2012, 10:33 AM

Lol striving so hard for fantasy wall street validation.

MannyIsGod

09-22-2012, 10:34 AM

Lol acting like you don't get emotional when you spend so much time trying to prove yourself to strangers.

boutons_deux

09-22-2012, 11:23 AM

Cowboys and millionaires are in Mitt Romney's income-tax-free 47%

http://www.trbimg.com/img-5059efe9/turbine/la-na-tt-cowboys-20120918-002/600

In the imaginary universe of Mitt Romney, the 47% of Americans who pay no income tax are loafers, shiftless bums and welfare queens who will all vote for President Obama in November. In the real world, that 47% includes the working poor, the newly unemployed, handicapped people, the elderly, veterans, 4,000 millionaires and the nation's greatest icon, the American cowboy.

A few years ago, I helped move a herd of cattle with some honest-to-God cowboys on a big ranch near White Sulphur Springs, Mont. At the end of the morning as the cows and calves mothered up, the cowboys told me how they loved the life they lived -- the broad land, the wide sky, the days tending animals, even the hard and endless work in all kinds of weather.

One of the cowboys said he knew he would never get rich; he and his wife lived with their kids in a tiny rental house and they would probably never have much more than that. But it was enough for him. He had no interest in being an entrepreneur, a venture capitalist or a king of Wall Street.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average yearly income of a cowboy is around $25,000. Tax laws that were passed under President Reagan aimed to help Americans of modest means by giving them an income tax break. As a result, working people in the income strata below $30,000 a year are likely to pay little or no income tax. That covers a lot of cowboys.

Are they slackers? No, there is no one with a stronger work ethic than cowboys. A willingness to work does not guarantee affluence, though. Among the 47% that Romney disdains are millions of hardworking, poorly compensated people and other millions of retired folk who labored all their lives. But, in a speech to wealthy donors last May, Romney said he would not even try to win the votes of this 47% because they were "dependent on the government" and felt "entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you-name-it."

With these comments revealed, it becomes even more obvious that Romney has vast gaps in his understanding of the people he aspires to lead. He speaks as though he is being fed lines by a staff made up of Ayn Rand zealots and Rush Limbaugh dittoheads and has no clue how they are misleading him.

This latest evidence of Romney’s obtuseness appalled credible conservative commentators, such as David Brooks and Bill Kristol. Limbaugh, of course, was ecstatic to have the Republican presidential nominee join him in a world without facts.

The sad reality is that Romney is wrong about one other thing: There are plenty of folks among the 47% who will vote for him -- and not just the millionaires who have found ways to evade the income tax. Working-class men, in particular, have fallen for the Republican call to "take back America" from gays, illegal immigrants, baby-killing feminists, tax-crazy liberals and a president who is just not truly American. They feel embattled and hope Romney will be on their side. But how can he be their champion when he does not even know who they are or how they live?

If Mitt Romney saw a real cowboy, he'd think it was costume night at the country club.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/topoftheticket/lat-na-tt-cowboys-20120918,0,3473584.story

boutons_deux

09-22-2012, 03:40 PM

The Big, Fat Lie Behind Romney's Absurd 47% Argument

According to studies by the Tax Policy Center , six in 10 households that pay no income taxes are working families having a tough year or two. The authors note, “most of these working households... pay federal income tax in other years, when their incomes are higher.” Many take advantage of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), originally a Republican policy that offers a tax break to low-income working parents. According to the authors, “the majority of households that receive the EITC get it for only one or two years at a time, such as when their income drops due to a temporary layoff, and pay federal income tax in most other years.” We have a social safety net, albeit one of the flimsiest in the developed world, and it is doing what it is designed to do – keeping people's heads above water (before the crash, 39.9 percent of households paid no federal income taxes).

Eighty-two percent of households paid federal payroll taxes last year, which also yield about a fifth of our nation's overall tax revenues (income taxes account for 42 percent of federal revenues and payroll taxes represent 40 percent – same thing).

In 2010, the only year for which Mitt Romney has released tax returns, he and Ann Romney paid around 17.1 percent of their income in federal, state and local taxes combined. According to the Tax Policy Center, in 2011, the poorest 5th of American households paid about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average, and the second poorest 5th paid 21 percent of their incomes – a significantly higher share than the Romneys forked over on over $21 million in income. That the poor don't have enough “skin in the game” – another popular myth on the right – is also just a lie.

There are a good number of rich people among the 47 percent of households that pay no federal income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center, 18,000 households with incomes over $500,000 – and 4,000 households bringing in over $1 million – paid no federal income taxes in 2011.

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/large/public/redstate47.jpeg

http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/47share.jpeg

Most Americans understand that half the country isn't indolent and doesn't see themselves of victims of anything but the depression in which we find ourselves today. And that's why, according to a Gallup poll released on Wednesday , only 20 percent of registered voters say that Romney's sneering remarks make them more likely to vote for him, while 36 percent say they're turned off by them.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2012/big-fat-lie-behind-romneys-absurd-47-argument?akid=9439.187590.vTFqZL&rd=1&src=newsletter715062&t=17

LnGrrrR

09-22-2012, 05:52 PM

The Polynesian Cultural Center is pretty cool.

MannyIsGod

09-23-2012, 12:18 AM

This stupid motherfucker is insitant on showing how much money was wasted on his degree. Man, with the type of financial knowledge this kid as shown its amazing he's not working for some huge firm just tearing it up.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6118640&posted=1#post6118640

mavs>spurs

09-23-2012, 12:20 AM

Capital gains is not determined by stock value.

lmfao this is the funniest shit i've heard all day

MannyIsGod

09-23-2012, 12:20 AM

How much capital gains tax do you pay when the value of your stock goes up?

mavs>spurs

09-23-2012, 12:23 AM

you don't pay tax until you sell it stupid

MannyIsGod

09-23-2012, 12:25 AM

Oh, so then the tax isn't determined by the value then?

MannyIsGod

09-23-2012, 12:26 AM

lmfao this is the funniest shit i've heard all day

you don't pay tax until you sell it stupid

lmao this is the funniest shit i've read all day.

MannyIsGod

09-23-2012, 12:26 AM

Gee, why would I be smug when talking to you?

:lmao

mavs>spurs

09-23-2012, 12:26 AM

Oh, so then the tax isn't determined by the value then?

it's determined by the value at the time of sale stupid :lmao

are you really this dumb, or is just an elaborate troll job? you're quite the unlikable internet character imo

mavs>spurs

09-23-2012, 12:28 AM

lmfao "capital gains have nothing to do with the value of the asset"

pretty sure the % "gain" is calculated by: new value - old value/ old value

and total gain is simply new - old

not sure how one calculates a capital gain without the value of the asset :lmao

MannyIsGod

09-23-2012, 12:30 AM

it's determined by the value at the time of sale stupid :lmao

are you really this dumb, or is just an elaborate troll job? you're quite the unlikable internet character imo

Its actually determined by the sell price and the price at the time of purchase either of which may be different form the stock valuation. I know that this is a difficult concept for you to master but the stock valuation may or may not be the price at the time of purchase or sale as there may be other factors involved within the sale such as quantity of stock being purchased and how quickly the money for the purchase is paid. These and other additional factors can cause the price to be different than the actual valuation.

Jesus fucking Chirst UTA needs to be fucking shut down if this is the kind of education they're handing out.

MannyIsGod

09-23-2012, 12:31 AM

Valuation of the asset =! sell or buy price

SMH such a simple fucking concept and a person with a finance degree has trouble with it.

MannyIsGod

09-23-2012, 12:32 AM

Oh, and of course you don't like me. You can't even fucking argue with me and win when its your own chosen field. Thats fucking sad but that says more about you than it does about me.

mavs>spurs

09-23-2012, 12:32 AM

OMG you are stupid :lmao

lol babbling

damn son, you'd better master such basic common sense things such as capital gains before you even think about setting foot in the science department of a graduate school

MannyIsGod

09-23-2012, 12:33 AM

omg you are stupid :lmao

lol babbling

damn son, you'd better master such basic common sense things such as capital gains before you even think about setting foot in the science department of a graduate school

k

mavs>spurs

09-23-2012, 12:33 AM

Valuation of the asset =! sell or buy price

SMH such a simple fucking concept and a person with a finance degree has trouble with it.

value of the asset is always changing, the value at the time of the sale is the sale price. why are you making this hard on yourself?

mavs>spurs

09-23-2012, 12:35 AM

who is your handler son, Jane Goodall? she should have never made the leap from sign language to typing on the computer, you weren't ready for that imo

MannyIsGod

09-23-2012, 12:36 AM

who is your handler son, Jane Goodall? she should have never made the leap from sign language to typing on the computer, you weren't ready for that imo

Yeah I'm going to ask her to trade this computer for some more bananas. I get more bananas and I don't get made a fool of by you.

Its win win.

Latarian Milton

09-23-2012, 09:30 AM

Mikesatx

09-23-2012, 10:03 PM

Its actually determined by the sell price and the price at the time of purchase either of which may be different form the stock valuation. I know that this is a difficult concept for you to master but the stock valuation may or may not be the price at the time of purchase or sale as there may be other factors involved within the sale such as quantity of stock being purchased and how quickly the money for the purchase is paid. These and other additional factors can cause the price to be different than the actual valuation.

Jesus fucking Chirst UTA needs to be fucking shut down if this is the kind of education they're handing out.

Manny has you on this one. If stock picking were simply applying a model learned in school everyone would make big bucks. individual stocks and the markets in general are heavily influenced by investor sentiment. Many stocks are trading well below their break up value and many others are trading well above. Some companies are trading well above industry P/E and others well below. Neither guarantees the correct choice. If you are legitimately engaged in investing and doing it on a consistent basis that alone puts you ahead of most.

mavs>spurs

09-23-2012, 10:06 PM

Mikesatx

09-23-2012, 10:13 PM

nah it was this that i took issue with

"Capital gains is not determined by stock value."

the amount of gain is entirely dependent on the value of the stock at the time of sale..that shouldn't even have to be explained that's not finance that's life common sense

True. It seemed you were arguing something else?

Did you get your degree or are working toward your degree in finance?

mavs>spurs

09-23-2012, 10:16 PM

I have a degree and work in finance..not doing anything special yet though just barely graduated this summer

Mikesatx

09-23-2012, 10:24 PM

I have a degree and work in finance..not doing anything special yet though just barely graduated this summer

Good luck. It seems like you have an interest in it. Whether you just invest personally or make a career of it it will serve you well.

mavs>spurs

09-23-2012, 10:52 PM

thanks tbh..the only investing i'll be doing is on my own, that line of work is stressful. i interviewed at some of those investment companies and it's just a stressed out environment in there during turbulent times on the market.

Winehole23

09-24-2012, 03:08 AM

too stressful for you. good to know.

I'll read your subsequent posts in light of that . . .

boutons_deux

09-27-2012, 11:10 AM

now, Gecko is in cardiac distress over all those moochers

Mitt Says His Heart "Aches" For You -- Convinced?

“My heart aches for the people I’ve seen,” Mitt Romney said, on the second day of his Ohio bus tour. He’s now telling stories of economic hardship among the people he’s met.

Up until now, Romney’s stories on the campaign trail have been about business successes – people who started businesses in garages and grew their companies into global giants, entrepreneurs who succeeded because of grit and determination, millionaires who began poor. Horatio Alger updated.

Curiously absent from these narratives have been the stories of ordinary Americans caught in an economy over which they have no control. That is, most of us.

At least until now.

“I was yesterday with a woman who was emotional,” Romney recounts, “and she said, ‘Look, I’ve been out of work since May.’ She was in her 50s. She said, ‘I don’t see any prospects. Can you help me?’”

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/mitt-says-his-heart-aches-you-convinced

fucking 1%, greedy, elitist, religious-cult extremist asshole

boutons_deux

09-27-2012, 12:34 PM

Tax Loophole Benefiting Romney’s Estate Costs U.S. $1 Trillion Over Ten Years

According to administration figures, this loophole costs the government $1 trillion over a ten-year budget window:

In January 1999, a trust set up by Mitt Romney for his children and grandchildren reaped a 1,000 percent return on the sale of shares in Internet advertising firm DoubleClick Inc.

If Romney had given the cash directly, he could have owed a gift tax at a rate as high as 55 percent. He avoided gift and estate taxes by using a type of generation-skipping trust known to tax planners by the nickname: “I Dig It.” [...]

While Romney’s tax avoidance is both legal and common among high-net-worth individuals, it has become increasingly awkward for his candidacy since the disclosure of his remarks at a May fundraiser. He said that the nearly one-half of Americans who pay no income taxes are “dependent upon government” and “believe that they are victims.” [...]

The Obama administration estimates that closing the loophole Romney used would bring the federal government almost $1 trillion in the coming decade.

One analyst said that $1 trillion is a “laughable” under-estimate of the loophole’s effect, as “a single billionaire could pay $500 million more in estate taxes if these trusts are shut down.”

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/27/919601/romney-loophole-trillion/

boutons_deux

09-27-2012, 01:07 PM

More Gecko touching heart news.

Ohio Gets the Love

Then Nicklaus introduced Mitt Romney. "What you heard from the Golden Bear ... the words he spoke, he touched my heart," said the candidate. He then gave his stump speech, and the Already Committed cheered lustily.

The rest is all up to you, Undecided Voters. Although it looks as if in Ohio, the Romney camp will need some Changed My Mind recruits, too.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/article;jsessionid=197FD16D360C0ECE7D14AC09E9E0B3F 8?a=977303&f=28&sub=Columnist

:lol

boutons_deux

09-27-2012, 01:44 PM

47% Moocher Alert!

Red States Outpace Blue States in Income Growth — Thanks to Food Stamps

Americans love nothing more than a good Red-State-Vs.-Blue-State argument, especially during election time.

So a new story in USA Today , looking at the changes in income, state by state, since the beginning of the Great Recession, of course breaks down the results into “red,” “blue” and “swing” states. It declares that red states have seen incomes grow 4.6 percent since 2007, adjusted for inflation, while blue states have only seen incomes grow 0.5 percent. In swing states? A little more than the blue states, about 1.4 percent.

But here's the kicker: that income growth in those red states? It comes, at least in the South, in large part to government benefits payments, like the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps. You know, the ones that Republicans like Newt Gingrich attempt to use as a club to beat Obama and Democrats with. They go mainly to people living under or close to the poverty line, which means that income growth thanks to public benefits is the government making life more bearable for those hit hardest by the recession, not exactly economic growth caused by the “low taxes and business-friendly regulation” that the right-wing ALEC representative the article quotes claims. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes, “The record-setting SNAP participation levels are consistent with the extraordinarily deep and prolonged nature of the recession and the weak, lagging recovery.”

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/red-states-outpace-blue-states-income-growth-thanks-food-stamps?akid=9454.187590.jiENDU&rd=1&src=newsletter717829&t=7

TeyshaBlue

09-27-2012, 03:02 PM

This is why moonbat cites like alternet and thinkprogress are fucking jokes.

But here's the kicker: that income growth in those red states? It comes, at least in the South, in large part to government benefits payments, like the Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps.

Now, here's what the USA story actually said
The big drivers of red state income growth: energy and government benefit payments such as food stamps.

Notice anything missing from the moonbat link? Aside from what comprises their self-styled "large part"?

Also
North Dakota, a red state, tops the nation in income growth thanks to an oil boom. Other major energy states — Alaska, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas — are solidly Republican, polls show. Poor, southern red states depend heavily on government transfers for income and benefited from increases in Medicaid and other federal programs.

Shocker. Not all red states even. Only the poor red states. Wow. This is really hard hitting analysis. http://homerecording.com/bbs/images/smilies/facepalm.gif

Oh, and SNAP assistance was up 20% in Mississippi. It was also up 15% in New York. You won't find that on moonbat.net

CosmicCowboy

09-28-2012, 02:46 PM

tpAOwJvTOio

boutons_deux

09-28-2012, 02:49 PM

TB :lol

boutons_deux

09-28-2012, 02:50 PM

tpAOwJvTOio

St Ronnie started the "obamaphone" giveaway.

So call it what it is:

St RonniePhone

CosmicCowboy

09-28-2012, 03:27 PM

St Ronnie started the "obamaphone" giveaway.

So call it what it is:

St RonniePhone

actually, the landline program started under Clinton. The cellphone program didn't start until 2008.

Homeland Security

09-28-2012, 03:33 PM

actually, the landline program started under Clinton. The cellphone program didn't start until 2008.

FYI -- that screamy quality to her voice is the result of vocal cord scarring that comes from smoking crack cocaine over a long period of time.

Homeland Security

09-28-2012, 03:34 PM

If Romney made an ad out of that it could be 2012's Willie Horton.

Th'Pusher

09-28-2012, 03:42 PM

The State and Federal government has a program that provides free cellphones and free talk time to people with low income as well as senior citizens. This subsidized program is called Lifeline phones assistance program. But Obama hasn’t initiated it; it started few decades back and got its current format after going through several changes within this time. Safelink Wireless, the largest cellphone provider of the Lifeline program and a subsidiary of Tracfone, was created under the administration of George William Bush which received grants from a company that was launched during the Bill Clinton’s time and it was done because of an act passed by President Franklin Roosevelt which in turn was influenced because of an agreement between President Woodrow Wilson’s administration and some telecom service providers. So you can realize that this free cellphone service has a pretty long history and the claim about the Obama phone is nothing but a false rumor

boutons_deux

09-28-2012, 03:52 PM

"the Obama phone is nothing but a false rumor"

goshdarnit, I was so hoping it was true :lol

CosmicCowboy

09-28-2012, 04:19 PM

"the Obama phone is nothing but a false rumor"

goshdarnit, I was so hoping it was true :lol

Might not be true, but hell, why not take credit for it?

http://obamaphone.net/obama-phone

http://obamaphone.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/obama-phone-apply.jpg

boutons_deux

09-28-2012, 04:38 PM

Might not be true, but hell, why not take credit for it?

http://obamaphone.net/obama-phone

http://obamaphone.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/obama-phone-apply.jpg

Repugs and VRWC have NOTHING BUT LIES against Obama.

esp, try to get somebody to list all the alleged horrible failures that justify denying him another 4 years.

and then get them to list why Gecko/Ryan would be so much better.

CosmicCowboy

09-28-2012, 04:48 PM

Repugs and VRWC have NOTHING BUT LIES against Obama.

esp, try to get somebody to list all the alleged horrible failures that justify denying him another 4 years.

and then get them to list why Gecko/Ryan would be so much better.

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

did you go to the link dumbass?

This isn't Republican propaganda...

It's the actual fucking website to apply for your free phone...

CosmicCowboy

09-28-2012, 04:53 PM

Boutox:lol

TeyshaBlue

09-28-2012, 04:58 PM

I don't have the ability to critcally examine any link.

CosmicCowboy

09-28-2012, 07:58 PM

ttt

So nobody cares that they really are being advertised as obama phones?

C'mon blue team. This isn't exactly your proudest moment.

clambake

09-28-2012, 08:05 PM

these phones are needed..........so we can call the authorities about the gop voter fraud!

boutons_deux

09-28-2012, 08:05 PM

the conservative/Fox propaganda machine has jumped all over the "ObamaPhone"

http://now.msn.com/obama-phone-video-attracts-criticism-from-conservatives

http://www.rightbias.com/

etc, etc, etc

clambake

09-28-2012, 08:07 PM

actually, i hadn't heard of this free phone thing.

its pretty stupid.

Wild Cobra

09-29-2012, 03:05 AM

ChumpDumper

09-29-2012, 03:13 AM

Might not be true, but hell, why not take credit for it?

http://obamaphone.net/obama-phone

http://obamaphone.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/obama-phone-apply.jpglol you think this is a federal government website

Wild Cobra

09-29-2012, 03:14 AM

lol you think this is a federal government website
I didn't look at the site itself, but I do know that tax payer dollars is funding phones for poorer people. I remember seeing something on the local news not long ago. There is almost no control over the program. One person was caught getting multiple accounts, then selling them to others.

ChumpDumper

09-29-2012, 03:19 AM

I didn't look at the site itselfNo shit.
but I do know that tax payer dollars is funding phones for poorer people.No shit. Been happening through decades and decaeds of Republican and Democratic presidencies and congresses and no one said shit about it until some Republican douche thought he could make it a talking point for idiots to use on message boards.

Why do you fall for these things so easily?

Wild Cobra

09-29-2012, 03:20 AM

No shit.No shit. Been happening through decades and decaeds of Republican and Democratic presidencies and congresses and no one said shit about it until some Republican douche thought he could make it a talking point for idiots to use on message boards.

Why do you fall for these things so easily?
Yes, landlines.

Cell phones are from a more recent program, and not necessary.

ChumpDumper

09-29-2012, 03:25 AM

Yes, landlines.

Cell phones are from a more recent program, and not necessary.According to whom?

And what I said still applies. Microwave faux outrage for partisan hacks.

Wild Cobra

09-29-2012, 03:36 AM

According to whom?

And what I said still applies. Microwave faux outrage for partisan hacks.
GoodBye.

I see you are being a super chump again.

ChumpDumper

09-29-2012, 03:49 AM

GoodBye.

I see you are being a super chump again.I can see you are being Wild partisan hack Cobra again.

http://babeinsoyland.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/microwave_ad.jpg

FuzzyLumpkins

09-29-2012, 03:50 AM

FYI -- that screamy quality to her voice is the result of vocal cord scarring that comes from smoking crack cocaine over a long period of time.

You tell crack smokers or most powder users for that matter by their teeth.

Wild Cobra

09-29-2012, 03:58 AM

I can see you are being Wild partisan hack Cobra again.

http://babeinsoyland.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/microwave_ad.jpg
LifeNet has been around for about 25 years. Adding cell phones to the program is a recent addition. Do you disagree?

FuzzyLumpkins

09-29-2012, 04:15 AM

Might not be true, but hell, why not take credit for it?

http://obamaphone.net/obama-phone

http://obamaphone.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/obama-phone-apply.jpg

Yeah because someone made a banner and named their site something that means that the president or his office is seeking credit.

The site even says:

The State and Federal government has a program that provides free cellphones and free talk time to people with low income as well as senior citizens. This subsidized program is called Lifeline phones assistance program. But Obama hasn’t initiated it; it started few decades back and got its current format after going through several changes within this time. Safelink Wireless, the largest cellphone provider of the Lifeline program and a subsidiary of Tracfone, was created under the administration of George William Bush which received grants from a company that was launched during the Bill Clinton’s time and it was done because of an act passed by President Franklin Roosevelt which in turn was influenced because of an agreement between President Woodrow Wilson’s administration and some telecom service providers. So you can realize that this free cellphone service has a pretty long history and the claim about the Obama phone is nothing but a false rumor.

boutons_deux

09-29-2012, 04:16 AM

Where's the Limbaugh/Repug/conservative outrage over "socialistic" confiscation of taxes to subsidize/REGULATE, for decades, TX rural phone landlines so the bubbas pay only $5/month vs $30/month in non-rural areas?

TeyshaBlue

09-29-2012, 08:53 AM

CosmicCowboy

09-29-2012, 09:09 AM

lol you think this is a federal government website

LOL @ stupid Chumps strawmen.

i never said it was an official US government website.

I seriously doubt the Romney campaign put it up, though.

CosmicCowboy

09-29-2012, 09:23 AM

Serious question...cite for those rates?

They don't pay "cheap" rates, but technically their hard wire service is subsidized to a certain extent. The point was that in rural areas the cost per unit to provide service can be extremely high...in some cases the phone company may have to run miles of wire just to serve one customer. These rural phone companies do get some federal assistance which comes from the taxes/fees everyone pays on their phone bills.

hitmanyr2k

09-29-2012, 08:13 PM

Might not be true, but hell, why not take credit for it?

http://obamaphone.net/obama-phone

http://obamaphone.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/obama-phone-apply.jpg

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

did you go to the link dumbass?

This isn't Republican propaganda...

It's the actual fucking website to apply for your free phone...

ttt

So nobody cares that they really are being advertised as obama phones?

C'mon blue team. This isn't exactly your proudest moment.

Yep.

Buying the poor people's vote using redistribution of wealth.

Typical liberal/progressive tactics.

I can't fathom how stupid anyone must be to be fooled by a URL called Obamaphone.net and a banner that a 10 year old could make. Goddamn :rollin Just when I think the people on this forum can't get any dumber there's always you two idiots to raise the bar.

ChumpDumper

09-30-2012, 11:21 AM

LOL @ stupid Chumps strawmen.

i never said it was an official US government website.

I seriously doubt the Romney campaign put it up, though.Oh, so you think it's an Obama campaign website then.

You said Obama is taking credit for it. I guess you'll want to walk back from that one too.

boutons_deux

09-30-2012, 12:38 PM

I was told by a rural telephone company that their coop members pay only $5/month (and sometimes get a disbursement of excess coop funds, coops not allowed to have excesses).

What I find is that in the last year or so, TX rural rates have gone up a couple $, and are now $6 to $7, confirming what I heard. Plus yearly increases of about $2.5 until the rates are mostly equal to non-rural rates.

Most rural telephone companies would be broke in a few months if they weren't subsidized by re-distributive/socialistic USF.

CosmicCowboy

10-01-2012, 07:45 AM

Oh, so you think it's an Obama campaign website then.

You said Obama is taking credit for it. I guess you'll want to walk back from that one too.

GFY Chump. I have no idea who put it up and did not say that the Obama campaign did it. However, it's pretty damn obvious they haven't made them take it down.

Clipper Nation

10-01-2012, 07:51 AM

Holy shit, people.... it's a fucking default Wordpress blog, tbh.... I could make a "Willard Phone" website that looks the exact same in like five minutes tops....

:lol Neocons

CosmicCowboy

10-01-2012, 08:20 AM

Holy shit, people.... it's a fucking default Wordpress blog, tbh.... I could make a "Willard Phone" website that looks the exact same in like five minutes tops....

:lol Neocons

I understand that dumbass. It's not a particularly professional job but if you google search Obama phone that's what comes up and it clearly calls it the obama phone, clearly explains who qualifies, and clearly links to applications. It's not just a fucking masthead. If the Obama campaign didn't want the site to be up, they could get it shut down in a heartbeat.

ChumpDumper

10-01-2012, 10:17 AM

GFY Chump. I have no idea who put it up and did not say that the Obama campaign did it. However, it's pretty damn obvious they haven't made them take it down. What law would they use to make the owners take it down, counselor?

boutons_deux

10-05-2012, 08:07 AM

:lol What a fuckin asshole jerk. Now Gecko says he was wrong about the 47% ( BECAUSE HE GOT CAUGHT! AND IT'S SEVERAL NAILS IN HIS CAMPAIGN'S COFFIN)

It was just a GAFFE! :lol

It was not how the Repugs, conservatives, conservative stink tanks, VRWC, ALEC, 1%ers REALLY think about the 47%. JUST A GAFFE! WHAT A LAFFE! :lol

Mitt Romney says his '47%' remarks were 'completely wrong'

Mitt Romney disavowed his much-criticized statement that the 47% of Americans who supported President Obama paid no taxes, considered themselves "victims" and refused to take responsibility for their lives, saying in a Thursday night interview that he had been “completely wrong.”

“Clearly in a campaign with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you say something [that] doesn’t come out right," the Republican presidential nominee said on Fox News. "In this case, I said something that’s just completely wrong."

Romney spoke in an interview with Sean Hannity, who asked what he'd have said if Obama had brought up the 47% remark during their Wednesday night debate. Democrats have used the line in campaign ads.

For more than two weeks, Romney has faced a backlash after the covertly taped video of him speaking to donors was published online by Mother Jones magazine. In that video, from a Florida fundraiser in May, the candidate described the 47% of Americans who paid no federal income tax last year as being Obama supporters who are dependent on government, believing they are "victims." He said they were “unwilling to take responsibility for their lives.”

After the video came to light, Romney stood by his remarks but said that his point was "not elegantly stated." He has also strived to emphasize that he cares for all Americans, and continued that defense Thursday.

“I absolutely believe my life has shown that I care about 100%, and that has been demonstrated throughout my life, and this whole campaign is about the 100%,” he said.

Political experts had expected Obama to raise the 47% comment during the first presidential debate Wednesday evening, but he did not. Obama disappointed many Democrats when he turned in what many agree was a lackluster performance.

Romney told Fox that he was glad the debate had focused on issues rather than gaffes, calling it “an evening of substance.”

“I was pleased that I had a chance to talk about my vision for America, and the president was able to answer some questions that I posed that I think Americans across the country wanted to have answered,” he said, adding that he appreciated the moderation by Jim Lehrer, which was widely panned. “It was not a big 'gotcha' night coming from the moderator but instead was a chance for the president and I to go toe-to-toe on the important issues that people care about.”

Romney also previewed his criticism of Obama’s handling of foreign policy, which will be the subject of a future debate.

He highlighted the crisis in Libya that resulted in the deaths of an American ambassador and three other Americans. Describing the attack at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazias a “tragic failure,” Romney said:

“There had been warnings of possible attacks, there had been requests … to have additional security forces. They were turned down. And then following the tragedy we saw, well, misleading information coming from the administration. In fact, the president didn’t acknowledge this was a terrorist attack for a week or two? I mean, this was a terrorist attack, lives were lost, this happened on 9/11. We expect candor and transparency from the president and from the administration. We didn’t get it.”
When the Benghazi attack happened last month, Romney accused the administration of having sympathy for Mideast demonstrators angered by a YouTube trailer of a movie depicting the prophet Muhammad as a child molester and womanizer. At the time, some fellow Republicans criticized Romney's quick comments, especially after it became apparent that one of the four dead was the American ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens.
http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?m=b&a=rp&id=2816846&postId=2816846&postUserId=7&sessionToken=&catId=7716&curAbsIndex=0&resultsUrl=DID%3D6%26DFCL%3D1000%26DSB%3Drank%2523 desc%26DBFQ%3DuserId%253A7%26DL.w%3D%26DL.d%3D10%2 6DQ%3DsectionId%253A7716%26DPS%3D0%26DPL%3D3