Without a job, Romney made $57,000.00 a DAY for last two years.

[rdean]

$57,000.00 a day without a job. Less than 14% in taxes.

I'm envious. That I don't have enough money to buy Republican politicians to make sure what is unethical is NOT illegal. Who cares about "ethics". I'm with the Republicans. I want money. And if that means we screw everyone else, so be it. I have a "constitutional" right to look out for Number one. I don't care about the rest of America. Only I'm important. And besides, I gave 12 cans of creamed corn I found on the back shelf in the pantry to charity. See?

 

[Gadawg73]

What you should want as your President is a statesman, not a multi-millionaire who is a successful financial schemer. But your values have been so distorted by the brainwash which has affected so many of your political contemporaries that what I've said makes no sense to you. And that's a goddam shame because you're obviously intelligent.

do you know where one of them guys are?....

I believe Bernie Sanders, Dennis Kucinich, Ralph Nader and Elizabeth Warren fit the statesman profile. Problem is the System is so utterly corrupted by money that those with true statesman-like character are impeded by their unwillingness to shake hands with the devil.

Dennis Kucinich's psychiatrist believes he is a statesman.
I would too if someone laid on my couch and paid me $400 an hour 4 days a week.

 

[Gadawg73]

Capital gains tax isn't applied to the already-taxed income he invests. Capital gains tax is applied to the money earned from investing his already-taxed income.

yeah no kidding..........and?

If I use my income to buy some rental equipment, and go into business renting it, and make money at it,

they tax my new income, right? Even though the money I used to buy the equipment had already been taxed.

NO, you get to write off ALL of that as a business expense buying that equipment and pay NO tax on it.

Do yourself a favor and hire a CPA, someone that understands the tax law.
No offense to you but you have NO clue.

 

[Gadawg73]

Romney's income is from capital gains.
He already paid the highest tax rate on ALL OF THAT INVESTED $$$ when he earned it as earned income.
He should owe NO tax.
He could have lost ALL of that investment income.
And made liberals happy as that way he would be on government assistance where they want the entire nation.

Capital gains tax isn't applied to the already-taxed income he invests. Capital gains tax is applied to the money earned from investing his already-taxed income.

ALL capital gains are from the $$$ he already paid tax on.
How does one make ANY $$$ unless they invest their capital?

 

[gallantwarrior]

Capital gains tax isn't applied to the already-taxed income he invests. Capital gains tax is applied to the money earned from investing his already-taxed income.

yeah no kidding..........and?

If I use my income to buy some rental equipment, and go into business renting it, and make money at it,

they tax my new income, right? Even though the money I used to buy the equipment had already been taxed.

Only if you are too stupid to amortize your investment.

 

[alan1]

$57,000.00 a day without a job. Less than 14% in taxes.

I think everybody should pay less than 14% in taxes.

 

[rdean]

$57,000.00 a day without a job. Less than 14% in taxes.

I think everybody should pay less than 14% in taxes.

Then who would pay for your disability check?

 

[xotoxi]

Without a job, Romney made $57,000.00 a DAY for last two years.

Newt Gingrich stole his debate points from rdean.

 

[Unkotare]

You've got to be kidding me. We know millions of jobs moved to China from 2001 to 2008.

Feel free to move to China for a job if you can't find one here in the USA.

I find it interesting that people sniveling about jobs "going to China" aren't willing to move to China for those coveted jobs they speak of.

I hope this was supposed to be a joke.

 

[MikeK]

Romney did NOT inherit his money and unlike Kerry, he didn't marry it either. He WORKED FOR IT.

So did Bernie Madoff. So did Ken Lay. So did Jeffrey Skilling. So did Jack Abramoff. So did a lot more of the One Percenters, some of whom got caught, many of whom didn't. Please tell us what kind of "work" must one do to acquire twenty million dollars in a year, every year?

You need to find a different word when talking about how people like Mitt Romney made their money. Because the ordinary American has been conditioned to think of "work" as a means of bringing about something worthwhile within ordinary boundaries. And there is nothing ordinary about a twenty million dollars a year income.

In case you tend to flinch a bit at the word ordinary in relation to the One Percent, whom you seem to have a peculiar reverence for, please remember that this Nation was built with the blood, sweat, tears and the grinding labor of ordinary people.

Ordinary people are acutely aware of the real meaning of the word, "work" as a means of sustaining themselves. People like Mitt Romney aren't.

 

[Unkotare]

More empty, wannabe commie bellyachin'...

 

[chanel]

I think it's funny when people bring up Bernie Madoff. Isn't he in jail?

The thieves who stole our social security are still bilking the public for more money. Are people that stupid?

 

[editec]

yeah no kidding..........and?

If I use my income to buy some rental equipment, and go into business renting it, and make money at it,

they tax my new income, right? Even though the money I used to buy the equipment had already been taxed.

NO, you get to write off ALL of that as a business expense buying that equipment and pay NO tax on it.

Do yourself a favor and hire a CPA, someone that understands the tax law.
No offense to you but you have NO clue.

NY...he is right AND you are right.

You are addressing an issue his post did not address.

Do yourself a favor and hire somebody to help you with reading comprehension.

No offense, but you clearly need somebody to help to understand rhetorical logic.

 

[Bern80]

I believe that equitable distribution of this Nation's exceptional wealth is the way to maintain its strength and stability. What you believe in is the formula for its ultimate demise. And by equitable I don't mean equal. I mean fair and sensible -- as it was throughout the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, the most prosperous decades in our history.

And the simple fact is your belief is 100% false. You can not focus solely on creating outcomes and completely ignore human behavior. What do you suppose would happen when people learn that taking responsibility for generating your own income is no longer necessary? When they learn that when you reach a low enough income level some government beauracrat will deem you poor and will take from someone else to even things out, how well do you suppose society will function then?

 

[kwc57]

$57,000.00 a day without a job. Less than 14% in taxes.

I'm envious. That I don't have enough money to buy Republican politicians to make sure what is unethical is NOT illegal. Who cares about "ethics". I'm with the Republicans. I want money. And if that means we screw everyone else, so be it. I have a "constitutional" right to look out for Number one. I don't care about the rest of America. Only I'm important. And besides, I gave 12 cans of creamed corn I found on the back shelf in the pantry to charity. See?

Hey jackwagon, Romney pays about $3,000,000 per year in taxes with that 14% rate. How much did you pay last year? How many more millions from him would you consider a "fair share"? And for the 47% of Americans who are paying no taxes, do you support them giving their "fair share"?

 

[kwc57]

$57,000.00 a day without a job. Less than 14% in taxes.

I think everybody should pay less than 14% in taxes.

Then who would pay for your disability check?

The same person who has to wipe your poor pitiful helpless ass?

 

[peach174]

$ 57,000.00 a day without a job?
He did have a job and made the money to invest it. Was taxed at 50% for that money as income in 1984
Then invested it and now pays taxes for it at 15%.
When the rich risk their capital they should be taxed at a lower rate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The idea that poor people should pay the same rate of tax as rich people is only 'fair' by someone's arbitrary made-up definition of what 'fair' is.

Actually the opposite of true. The notion that fair distribution of tax burden has anything to do with a person's ability to pay it is what fits no definition of fair.

It doesn't? Who appointed you master definer?

Who appointed YOU?

If you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you'll have to agree that the idea that rich people should pay a higer tax rate than poor people is only 'fair' by someone's arbitrary made-up definition of what 'fair' is.

Thus far, you have yet to exhibit that honesty.
I for one am not surprised.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Good. Then, since Romney has already said he won't cut defense, he needs to tell the truth.

Tell the People that he wants to pay for a tax cut for himself and his comparably wealthy fellow Americans by cutting

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, education, environmental protection, health and safety, etc.

Run on that. Run on the Truth.

If he said he'd do all that, I might actually vote for him.
If he -actually- did all that, he'd save the country.

The American people, for all their imperfections, are at least collectively civilized enough to overwhelmingly disagree with you,
on that I can safely step out and speak for others.

You can only barely speak for yourself - any thought that you have the ability to speak for anyone else is, at best, laughable.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So your response is to issue a personal insult and totally ignore my question, which is not at all surprising. In fact it is typical of those who serve the interests of the One Percent by parroting the nonsense pumped into their one-dimensional minds by propagandists like Rush Limbaugh.

I don't know if your taxes will be raised or not because I don't know what your income bracket is. But if your tax rate is increased the cause is not Obama's spending but Bush's spending. Obama didn't commence two ruinously costly military operations without budgeting for either one. Obama didn't patronize the pharmaceutical industry by attaching Part D, an enormous expense, to Medicare. Nor did Obama reduce taxes on the One Percent after having punched those two massive holes in the revenue base.

So if you think Obama's spending is responsible for our economic troubles you need to give some more thought to who the idiot is in this discussion.

Yes... Bush spent heavily... but to think that Obama is not doing worse in spending, is unfathomably ignorant... if taxes raise, it is because of the new spending he has brought about.. as well as any increased spending the congress is bringing about...

The key is electing persons in both the executive and the legislature that will do what is necessary and fucking CUT the spending DRASTICALLY

I have referred specifically to the wasteful and wholly unnecessary nature of Bush's spending, which is what brought our economy down.

This is absurdly idiotic.
The economy fell because a number of things - but to argue that it fell because of Federal spending that you disagree with denotes a indescribeable ignorance of the issue and an overwhelming sense of partisan bigotry.