Romney 2012

[Daisy]

Obama will be reelcted. WE do not have a credible candidate.

[Daisy]

Obama will be reelcted. WE do not have a credible candidate.

[luknikfan]

Originally Posted by Daisy

Obama will be reelcted. WE do not have a credible candidate.

I think even Hannity and Rush are beginning to worry about this possibility.

Hannity today said this back and forth between Newt and Romney is hurting GOP chances and he wants it to stop.

Several callers said they would not for for Newt as the nominee if he is the nomiee. So feeling are hardening in the base. There seems to be visceral anti-Newt and anti-Mitt feelings soidifying among some of the base.

Both of these guys are unelectable IMO.

Romney visited a group of homeowners yesterday who were unable to get re-fis from local banks. He is so tone deaf he neded up defending the banks and saying corporations are people too. It's hard to beleive he could be so out of touch and living in a bubble but he clearly is.

It'sRomney

[Mad_Dog]

Hannity and Rush's shows are not reliable sources. Both are marching lockstep with the GOP elite, because the GOP elite are their buddies.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

No - I never said that.

I know. It is like most things "government", they will call it a "fee" instead of a "tax", and that gets them around the law.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

The income earned was paid by the bank and the bank paid the tax (forgetting the argument that customers actually pay the tax). That income is the same money used to pay dividends. The employer sells a product/service - the cost of that product includes employee salaries and taxes. You are paying your taxes on your income. The company pays taxes on the NET after deducting the cost of the salaries. The company was not taxed on your income distribution as it was deduction to the employer. The income tax was only paid once by you. Cavuto was correct.

So when you win the Lottery neither the state nor the feds take part of your winnings because all of those Lottery tickets were purchased with money that the purchasers had already paid income tax on? Same for your winnings at a casino. The feds aren't' there to share your winning with you? If you give some bum $100,000, he doesn't have to pay tax on it because you already paid income that on that money? It is semantics. Income is income. It is all the garbage that is the IRS Code that differentiates.

If you buy a home, you pay tax based on the purchase price. When you sell it, the new buyer will pay tax on that same property. How can that be? Double taxation? And if you sold it for more than you bought it for, IRS will be there with their hand out, right?

So while you and Cavuto may be technically right on what is, that doesn't mean you are right about what should be. Income is income.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by luknikfan

Both of these guys are unelectable IMO.

And we know your track record. Looks like nothing to worry about. Obama is history.

[luknikfan]

Originally Posted by jtdc

And we know your track record. Looks like nothing to worry about. Obama is history.

I'm looking at the polls. Right now Obama defeats Mitt (w/in the margin of error) and trounces Newt.

Despite the fact Obama's numbers are at a near low.

The economy is improving - slowly to be sure. But unemployment claims are at a 4 year low. The trend says that the unemplyment rate will be about 8% or slightly less come fall. Corporate profits are up, the stock market has had a great January.

If this continues I'd expect Obama's numbers will grow by next fall. All of you who think this is a cakewalk for the GOP are assuming too much.

Cadell said a while back the Dems might recapture the House. He was an outlier. But Rush says GOP insiders believe, sans Romney, they could loose the House. And Coulter has now mentioned this. Last I saw Cook had the Dems picking up a few seats which is how I think it will turn out. No turnover of the House (despite the ineptness of Boehner and the GOP House) but that some on the right/GOP side are broaching this is interesting. Maybe it's just a ploy to get/scare folks to vote for Romney.

[luknikfan]

Originally Posted by Daisy

Obama will be reelcted. WE do not have a credible candidate.

Daisy, I think you'll appreciate this quote from the paleo-con magazine Chronicles. In their current issue.

The front page has a photo of Romney, Newt and Cain with a bold title:

"Is this the best we can do? The stupid party rides again"

In any case, here is a quote from Thomas Fleming in this issue:

"In the current crop of Republican candidates, only Ron Paul speaks for the tax paying and law abiding citizens whose efforts and sacrifices keep this nation of scam artists and loafers afloat. The others have their strings pulled by a variety of special interests. Mitt Romney by big business interests, particularly the defense industry: Rick Perry by the Hispanic lobby: Michelle Backman by the Christian Zionist zombies who gave George W. Bush eight years in which to ruin the US economy; and finally, Newt Gingrich who has sold himself to any lobby that would buy his services".

How true - Chronilces is one of the few conservtive publications that is saying the Emperor has no clothes when it comes to the current crop of candidates. Check out their site - I think you'd appreciate the comments/observations of this admittedly small band of conservatives: www.chroniclesmagazine.org

[schaabdl]

Originally Posted by jtdc

I know. It is like most things "government", they will call it a "fee" instead of a "tax", and that gets them around the law.

So when you win the Lottery neither the state nor the feds take part of your winnings because all of those Lottery tickets were purchased with money that the purchasers had already paid income tax on? Same for your winnings at a casino. The feds aren't' there to share your winning with you? If you give some bum $100,000, he doesn't have to pay tax on it because you already paid income that on that money? It is semantics. Income is income. It is all the garbage that is the IRS Code that differentiates.

If you buy a home, you pay tax based on the purchase price. When you sell it, the new buyer will pay tax on that same property. How can that be? Double taxation? And if you sold it for more than you bought it for, IRS will be there with their hand out, right?

So while you and Cavuto may be technically right on what is, that doesn't mean you are right about what should be. Income is income.

No you don't - you pay tax on the gain, hence income, on the house not on the principle. You keep trying but keep coming up with wrong scenarios. Cavuto, probably smarter than either of us, was correct.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

No you don't - you pay tax on the gain, hence income, on the house not on the principle.

Are you dense or just trying to be? That's what I have been saying all along. And as you say "hence income". Income Tax?

[Daisy]

Thanks for the link, but the article you spoke of no longer there, but will keep
the link for future read.

I am listening to RedEye they are discussing the topic as well, especially who should come in and "save the day". Surely a new face can emerge, tired of the same old people coming back. We can start with a republican committee that thinks.

[schaabdl]

Not being dense - your house example is NOT the same as your argument on interests. If I sell my house - I pay an income tax (capital gain) on the gain - ONCE - no one else pays on that income. If I own a business - I pay tax on the net income (profit) - and if I distribute a portion of that profit to you (shareholder) - you pay a tax on the distribution - HENCE - double taxation. Even Romney got it right in an interview yesterday.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Not being dense - your house example is NOT the same as your argument on interests. If I sell my house - I pay an income tax (capital gain) on the gain - ONCE - no one else pays on that income.

It's a matter of favoritism in the IRS Code.
If you earn $100,000 working you pay income tax on it ONCE.
If you Sell a house for $100,000 more than you bought it for you pay income tax on it ONCE.
If you Win $100,000 gambling you pay income tax on it ONCE.
If you earn $100,000 in interest/dividends on savings or investments you pay income tax on it ONCE.

The difference is the rate. And that is based on who you get the money from, much like paying 30% income tax if you are an employee of Ford and 15% income tax if you work for GM.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

If I own a business - I pay tax on the net income (profit) - and if I distribute a portion of that profit to you (shareholder) - you pay a tax on the distribution - HENCE - double taxation. Even Romney got it right in an interview yesterday.

I'm not a CPA, but presuming this is an incorporated business, you only pay income tax on the amount you take as pay. And that will be the same for you and any other stockholders taking dividends, except that same "pay" is taxed at 15%. But the business pays corporate taxes, which you would like to call double taxation. It is not. It is additional taxes. As you (I'm sure) and others have argued, businesses pay no taxes, their customers pick that up.

Also, your business model with stockholders is bogus. If you are unincorporated, you will pay income tax on all the profit. But any money payed to a "stockholder" is deductible. It is not the same as you giving that bum money out of your own pocket, although if he registers as a non-profit entity, you can probably take a deduction for charity.

[Bemused]

Originally Posted by Daisy

Obama will be reelcted. WE do not have a credible candidate.

Months ago, in a different thread, I stated that any republican candidate who embraced Tea Party values and the Tea party agenda, that person would run away with victory. Well, I was wrong. Bachmann failed. Sigh.

I still believe that the key agenda is the Tea Party agenda. It is a winner. But it requires a hero, and I dont see a hero anyplace on the field of battle.

I am still hesitant to declare Obama a winner. IMHO his re-election depends upon continued good economic news, and I'm not sure that the trickle of good economic news we are currently seeing is enough.

But I will say this: I dont see a Republican who is articulating the MAJOR issue we are living - that we are at a crossroads, and we need to choose the right path. Otherwise we will be on the road to socialism and beyond.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Bemused

Months ago, in a different thread, I stated that any republican candidate who embraced Tea Party values and the Tea party agenda, that person would run away with victory. Well, I was wrong. Bachmann failed. Sigh.

I don't think that was the factor that brought her down.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I still believe that the key agenda is the Tea Party agenda. It is a winner. But it requires a hero, and I dont see a hero anyplace on the field of battle.

Sarah! Sarah! Sarah!

[schaabdl]

The GOP is doing everything to defeat the tea party effort and that will lead to Obama's re-election, the death of the GOP as the conservative vehicle. Sadly, it will take years to develop a true conservative party.

[FastEddy]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

You are missing the point on double taxation.
a) Put money into the bank - you were taxed on it (the principle) when you earned it
b) Bank invests the money and earns income - that income is taxed
c) Profit of bank income AFTER taxes is given to you as interest - you are taxed on that. That money was the same money in the second bullet.
No one said the principle was double taxed - it is interest, dividends, and capital gains distribution that is double (and in some cases, tripled taxed)

Correct. And most homeowners know this. That is why home sales are currently tied to interest rates and tax deductibility on home mortgage interest. ... BUT the Bank is still taxed on their profits from the interest collected on these loans (and only g'ment entities don't pay taxes on this = Foney & Fraudy).

Aside: it turns out that many Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac employees have been dodging their full personal income taxes from these fancy financial manipulations ... Some g'ment employees and consultants are even taking commissions, kickbacks, bribes, tithes and tributes from mortgage peddler middlemen, tax free

[Daisy]

Bemused, I liked Bachman at FIRST, then she got on my nerves, she repeated the same mantra over and over, I am an attorney"" I am a foster parent" She went after Rick Perry way to hard on the fact of his agreeing to giving young girls a vaccination, it was not mandatory, he was not going to take them to the woodshed if the parents did not allow. She started a decline in my eyes then she just would not let go. Her mantra turned me off.

[David]

Mitt Romney fares better than Gingrich against Obama in Florida, poll shows

SOURCE

[etex211]

Originally Posted by Daisy

Bemused, I liked Bachman at FIRST, then she got on my nerves, she repeated the same mantra over and over, I am an attorney"" I am a foster parent" She went after Rick Perry way to hard on the fact of his agreeing to giving young girls a vaccination, it was not mandatory, he was not going to take them to the woodshed if the parents did not allow. She started a decline in my eyes then she just would not let go. Her mantra turned me off.

Rick Perry's executive order would have made the gardasil vaccine mandatory for all school girls. That's why the state legislature shot him down.