Romney: Obama voters don't pay income taxes

[boutons_deux]

8 Very Bad Things That Happened to Mitt Romney...Just This Morning

Yesterday was a no good, very bad day for the Romney’s campaign, who had to mop up the mess their candidate created when he said that “47 percent” of Americans are “dependent on government” and “believe they are victims.” But the bad news hasn’t stopped today.

From poll numbers to Republican politicians throwing Romney under the bus, the campaign’s woes continue.

1. Ryan Says Romney Was ‘Inarticulate’

Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential candidate called the “47 percent” comments “inarticulate” in an interview [1] with a local news station in Nevada. “He was obviously inarticulate in making this point,” said Paul Ryan. Asked by a reporter if Romney regrets his comments, Ryan said, “I think he would have said it differently, that’s for sure.”

2. GOP New Mexico Governor Rejects Romney’s Comments

Governor Susana Martinez may be a Republican, but she’s running as fast as she can away from Romney’s comments writing off half the country. Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall picks up [2] on Martinez’s comments that add to the “pile on.”

“We have a lot of people that are at the poverty level in New Mexico, but they count just as much as anybody else,” Martinez said. “I think, certainly the fact that New Mexico provides that safety net is a good thing.”

3. Peggy Noonan’s Verdict on the Romney Campaign: ‘An Intervention is in Order’

It’s not just Martinez who is hitting Romney’s comments that were captured in video published by Mother Jones. Conservative columnist Peggy Noonan has joined in.

“This is not how big leaders talk, it’s how shallow campaign operatives talk: They slice and dice the electorate like that, they see everything as determined by this interest or that,” Noonan wrote in a blog post. [3] “You know what Romney sounded like? Like a kid new to politics who thinks he got the inside lowdown on how it works from some operative. But those old operatives, they never know how it works.”

4. GOP Candidate Linda McMahon: ‘I Disagree With Governor Romney’

Yet another Republican candidate wants nothing to do with Romney’s “47 percent” comments. Linda McMahon, the GOP candidate for Senate in Connecticut, wrote on her Facebook page: “I disagree with Governor Romney’s insinuation that 47% of Americans believe they are victims who must depend on the government for their care. I know that the vast majority of those who rely on government are not in that situation because they want to be.”

5. Polls Show Obama’s in Command

New polls show that President Obama has gained ground on Romney nationally and in swing states.

Obama is up by 5 points nationally, according to a NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll--and the survey was taken before Romney’s infamous comments. [4] NBC notes [5] that their data shows increased optimism among voters about the economy. “Forty-two percent of voters also believe the economy will improve in the next 12 months, which is a 6-point jump from August, and a 15-point rise from July.”

In swing states, the story’s the same. The Hill reports [6] on swing state polls:

President Obama leads Mitt Romney in three key swing states, according to a series of new polls.

Obama leads Romney by 51 to 45 percent in Wisconsin, 50 to 46 percent in Virginia and 47 to 46 percent in Colorado, according to polls conducted by Quinnipiac University for CBS and The New York Times.

The figures in Virginia are particularly notable, as this is the sixth poll in a row showing Romney slipping behind Obama in the critical state. Another from WeAskAmerica out Wednesday morning showed a similar 3-point Obama lead.

6. Obama Keeps Calm on David Letterman’s Show

The contrast between Mitt Romney’s floundering campaign and President Obama can’t be more striking. Obama appeared on the “Late Show With David Letterman” [7] last night, and he looked relaxed and calm. Obama also took the opportunity to criticize Romney’s comments.

“My expectation is that if you're president, you've got to work for everyone, not just some,” said Obama. [8]

7. Ann Romney Makes It Worse

AlterNet’s Adele Stan notes that Mitt Romney’s wife attempted some damage control last night in an interview with a local Fox affiliate. But she may have made things worse.

Stan writes: [9]

After assuring the anchor who conducted the interview that Mitt had no "disdain for the poor," in interview Eli Stokol's phrase, Ann Romney explained why women, especially, should vote for her husband. As a woman, Mrs. Romney said, "I want to know what motivates the person that I would be voting for, and I would say what motivates Mitt is that he cares. This is a guy that obviously doesn’t need to do this for a job." HOLY !

Wow. I feel better already. So, apparently the reason that Barack Obama is running for the presidency is because of the big bucks that come from that government salary -- a job he won, according to Mitt Romney, because a bunch of moochers thinks Obama will fill their coffers with more of that government dough.

8. North Carolina Republican Disavows Romney in Debate

As you can see, a host of Republican candidates have disavowed Romney’s “47 percent” comments in an effort to distance themselves from what is fast becoming a toxic Romney brand. A North Carolina Republican running for a Congressional seat is running away from Romney as well.

Last night, during a televised debate, Mark Meadows criticized Romney’s comments.

“It might come as a surprise, but Mitt Romney didn’t call me before he made those comments and ask for my advice,” Meadows said, according to an Asheville-based paper. [10] The paper notes that “Meadows said voters in the 11th Congressional District are not as easy to define as Romney’s comments seemed to try to do.”

“I’m concerned about all 750,000 people,” said Meadows.

http://www.alternet.org/print/hot-ne...eyjust-morning

[CosmicCowboy]

alternet

A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll of Swing States, completed Monday night, shows Romney lagging President Obama by only 2 percentage points, 48%-46%, well within the survey's margin of error and a point closer than their contest last month. Nationwide, Obama's bounce from the Democratic National Convention is dissipating: The president now leads across the country in the Gallup Poll by a single point, 47%-46%.

The full Swing State tracking update offers Rasmussen Reader subscribers a combined view of the results from 11 key states won by President Obama in 2008 and thought to be compe ive in 2012. The states collectively hold 146 Electoral College votes and include Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. If you do not already have a Rasmussen Reader account, subscribe now.

Platinum Members have access to detailed demographic information.

In the 11 swing states, Mitt Romney earns 47% of the vote, and the president is supported by 46%. Three percent (3%) are not sure, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

In 2008, Obama won these states by a combined margin of 53% to 46%, virtually identical to his national margin.

This is the fourth day in a row that Romney has posted a slight lead after the president’s convention bounce put him ahead for several days. The race in the swing states is now back to where it was at the beginning of the month.

When “leaners” are factored in, Romney receives 48% of the vote to Obama's 47%. Leaners are those who are initially uncommitted to the two leading candidates but lean towards one of them when asked a follow-up question.

[boutons_deux]

CC

your 1%er's gonna get his privileged, wooden, dumb , broom-up-his-ass stomped by the cool ass n!gg@.

[boutons_deux]

Tax Moochers: Banks

There is one perhaps surprising group you can put in the latter category: the nation's banks. Sure, banks pay taxes, but they pay a lot less thanks to a giant and underappreciated distortion in our nation's tax code. Moreover, this tax code distortion makes the financial system and the economy more fragile, prone to bankruptcies and runs. Banks profit, and the economy teeters. Great bargain, huh?

It's the tax code's favoring of debt over equity.

For businesses, debt interest payments are tax deductible; equity payments, like when a company pays out a dividend, are not. At the margin, this encourages en ies to take on more debt than they otherwise would, as Steven M. Davidoff noted in a Deal Professor column earlier this year. More debt not only makes companies more vulnerable to bankruptcy but also makes investors more susceptible to panics, when they withdraw their capital en masse. More equity would make the world more stable.

"The worst thing the tax code can do," says Victor Fleischer, a tax specialist at the University of Colorado, "is to make it harder to use a sensible capital structure." Mr. Fleisher, a contributor to The New York Times DealBook, testified in front of Congress last year about this problem.

This distortion is well known. President Obama, in his tax reform proposal, mentioned it, though he didn't make any specific proposal about what to do about it. The Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, is proposing substantial tax cuts with the loss of revenue made up with the closing of loopholes. He has yet to specify any of those loopholes, but corporate debt interest deductibility hasn't been in the conversation.

What isn't well appreciated is how much the debt deduction helps the banks. The first way is direct: Banking is a highly leveraged industry. Banks use more debt than equity to finance their activities. The tax break makes the debt cheaper and encourages banks, at the margin, to gorge on more.

Financing techniques that have become more popular in recent decades benefit from this distortion. Bundling of debt, like credit card receivables or mortgage debt, called securitization, turns out to give banks a tax bonanza. For accounting purposes, banks are typically able to treat their bundling of this debt as a sale. But for tax purposes, banks often get to call it debt. Those payments to the buyers of the securitizations' bonds are therefore tax deductible to the bank.

More important, there's an indirect and unremarked benefit. Banks help companies raise money in two main ways: through the sale of stock (equity) and debt, either through loans or the sale of bonds. When a company goes public, selling stock for the first time, the underwriting banks make more money than they do for a comparable debt offering. But banks make it up on volume with debt. Bonds expire. Companies issue more of them all the time.

Partly because of the tax code distortion, corporate debt is underpriced and overconsumed by the bank's corporate customers. Indeed, the debt business dominates the world of investment banking these days. When corporations raise more debt compared with equity, that fattens bank profits.

http://www.propublica.org/thetrade/i...moochers-banks

[Clipper Nation]

Neocons reduced to spamming Rasmussen polls as if we don't all know that they're a GOP shill poll

[MannyIsGod]

Rasmussen has had a GOP bias for a ton of election cycles now. But more over, I don't understand why people keep running to national polls. National polls are pretty much damn near meaningless. If you want to know who's "winning" then look at state polls in the swing states. Obama is still doing extremely well there although he has lost some of the bounce (which is why I said wait a few weeks). Obama isn't the one who has to make up ground though.

[CosmicCowboy]

Rasmussen has had a GOP bias for a ton of election cycles now. But more over, I don't understand why people keep running to national polls. National polls are pretty much damn near meaningless. If you want to know who's "winning" then look at state polls in the swing states. Obama is still doing extremely well there although he has lost some of the bounce (which is why I said wait a few weeks). Obama isn't the one who has to make up ground though.

I posted the most recent swing state polls today. The latest are USA Today and Rasmussen. Both are within the margin of error. USA has O up 2 , Ras has R up 1.

Admittedly the results I saw were averaged out so if you take it state by state your mileage may vary.

[boutons_deux]

Pew has Barry up 8 points on a poll before Romneys "I don't GAF about 47% of Americans" gaffe. Much bigger lead in mid-Sep than the previous several winners.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...ks-young-voter

[Borat Sagyidev]

I think it's sort of funny for anyone to say this.

A small sample of the most outspoken conservatives on this board will almost always yield pure losers. Most of the worthwhile posts come from Agloco, Scott and Manny..who by coincidence dislike the GOP.

[Borat Sagyidev]

Pew has Barry up 8 points on a poll before Romneys "I don't GAF about 47% of Americans" gaffe. Much bigger lead in mid-Sep than the previous several winners.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...ks-young-voter

"@mittromney You know that lead Obama Has? You built that."

[boutons_deux]

lol..it's unsurprising you can't see grey.

TB

I see the whole spectrum.

Repugs are 100% BLACK.

When the BEST they can nominiate are criminals dubya/ head,

clueless, hopeless assholes like McLiar/pitbull ,

and sociopathic 1%er assholes like gecko/Ryan (beating stinkier assholes like Gingrich, InSantorum ),

the Repugs are totally without redeeming values.

[Mikesatx]

Has anyone done the math on the taxes? What is your fair share? Unless it is clarified from both partiies how can it not be anything other than class warfare? If married jackass 1 makes 75k a year and married jackass 2 makes 10 million dollarrs a year assuming it is all earned income (not dividends or investment income) and there are no credits, deductions, charitable giving or other breaks hear is the math:

Jackass 1
$75,00
x .25
= $18,750

Forecast over 10 years taxes paid $187,500.

Jackass 2
$10,000,000
x .35
= $3,500,000

Forecast over 10 years taxes paid $35,000,000

Now assume jackass 1 needed every cent to support the family after taxes. Nothing invested just continuing on the current course.

Assume jackass 2 was able to survive on $3,000,000 a year and invested the rest. After 10 years jackass two with a modest growth rate of 5% would have ac ulated a little more than $44,000,000. Now assume jackass 2 walks away and decides to live on the income and dividends generated by that $44,000,0000 million. At a rate of 4% that would be $1.7 million. Assuming the majority is either dividends or long term capital gains he/she would be taxed at 15%. That tax is approx. 264k per year.

Jackass 2 retired after 10 years and lived off his investments for the next 10 years. His total taxes paid over that 20 year stretch was approx. $37.6 million.

The tax liability for jackass 1 over that same period was $387,500

Which jackass paid their fair share? If Jackass 2 didn't what should that share have been? If Jackass 1 paid too much or too little what should their amount have been?

I understand there are loopholes and deductions for both jackasses. The assumption is that each jackass is a smart jackass and using every trick within the confines of the tax code.

[Wild Cobra]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...hy-it-matters/

One possible problem with the numbers in this article is it is using percentage of the population. there is another set of numbers that uses a percenatge of tax filers. these will be different.

[boutons_deux]

Stewart destroys the Repug network aka Fox News

http://www.alternet.org/hot-news-vie...tter713913&t=3

[Spurminator]

Has anyone done the math on the taxes? What is your fair share? Unless it is clarified from both partiies how can it not be anything other than class warfare? If married jackass 1 makes 75k a year and married jackass 2 makes 10 million dollarrs a year assuming it is all earned income (not dividends or investment income) and there are no credits, deductions, charitable giving or other breaks hear is the math:

Jackass 1
$75,00
x .25
= $18,750

Forecast over 10 years taxes paid $187,500.

Jackass 2
$10,000,000
x .35
= $3,500,000

Forecast over 10 years taxes paid $35,000,000

Now assume jackass 1 needed every cent to support the family after taxes. Nothing invested just continuing on the current course.

Assume jackass 2 was able to survive on $3,000,000 a year and invested the rest. After 10 years jackass two with a modest growth rate of 5% would have ac ulated a little more than $44,000,000. Now assume jackass 2 walks away and decides to live on the income and dividends generated by that $44,000,0000 million. At a rate of 4% that would be $1.7 million. Assuming the majority is either dividends or long term capital gains he/she would be taxed at 15%. That tax is approx. 264k per year.

Jackass 2 retired after 10 years and lived off his investments for the next 10 years. His total taxes paid over that 20 year stretch was approx. $37.6 million.

The tax liability for jackass 1 over that same period was $387,500

Which jackass paid their fair share? If Jackass 2 didn't what should that share have been? If Jackass 1 paid too much or too little what should their amount have been?

I understand there are loopholes and deductions for both jackasses. The assumption is that each jackass is a smart jackass and using every trick within the confines of the tax code.

Your math is wrong. That's not how tax brackets work.

[elbamba]

Someone emailed me this the other day and I thought it was funny. MMMMMMM. Beeeer.

Tax System Explained in Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7..

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

[Wild Cobra]

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 lib s listening?

[Th'Pusher]

Someone emailed me this the other day and I thought it was funny. MMMMMMM. Beeeer.

Tax System Explained in Beer

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay $1.

The sixth would pay $3.

The seventh would pay $7..

The eighth would pay $12.

The ninth would pay $18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).

The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).

The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).

The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).

The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).

The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”

“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

The bartender shouldn't be reducing their daily cost of beer when he is in debt $16T tbh. He should actually consider raising their cost until his debt is paid. They're going to show up regardless.

[TeyshaBlue]

The bartender shouldn't be reducing their daily cost of beer when he is in debt $16T tbh. He should actually consider raising their cost until his debt is paid. They're going to show up regardless.

BOOM!

[Wild Cobra]

The bartender may have reduced prices to bring in more customers, and knows if he raises his prices, he may lose customers.

[elbamba]

The bartender shouldn't be reducing their daily cost of beer when he is in debt $16T tbh. He should actually consider raising their cost until his debt is paid. They're going to show up regardless.

I agree in part and disagree in part. The bill should go up for everyone to cover the debt. However, they will not all show up, the tenth has options to spend his money elsewhere, and regardless of who is sitting in the place of the bartender, there seems to be no interest in preventing the tenth from spending elsewhere. i.e. The rich can always put there money in safe accounts offshores and although some politicians talk a tough game, there is no interest in closing loopholes for the people who can afford the lawyers and accountants to ship their money overseas.

[Th'Pusher]

The bartender may have reduced prices to bring in more customers, and knows if he raises his prices, he may lose customers.

The bartenders prices are the lowest they've been in 50 years and there is not another bar around that matches his quality and charges so little.

[Th'Pusher]

I agree in part and disagree in part. The bill should go up for everyone to cover the debt. However, they will not all show up, the tenth has options to spend his money elsewhere, and regardless of who is sitting in the place of the bartender, there seems to be no interest in preventing the tenth from spending elsewhere. i.e. The rich can always put there money in safe accounts offshores and although some politicians talk a tough game, there is no interest in closing loopholes for the people who can afford the lawyers and accountants to ship their money overseas.

Well at least we agree that reducing prices further is hogwash. Now we just need to find the price where the whole group continues to stay and drink.

[Wild Cobra]

The bartenders prices are the lowest they've been in 50 years and there is not another bar around that matches his quality and charges so little.

You mean the people who pay the $50+ a night cant go out of town to another location?

[Th'Pusher]

You mean the people who pay the $50+ a night cant go out of town to another location?

Well, the problem is they are not goin out of town. They are staying and drinking in the same bar, enjoying all the amenities, but paying the out of town bartender.