Comment was removed 9/28 because of why? Truth hurts-freedom of speech!!!

Gandy -- if the free phone users identify the program with Obama -- them its his plan. Thats the reality -- he cannot have it both ways -- deny what people dont like and take credit for what they 47% does like. The reality is -- we ALL pay for those free phones regardless of who ehn and where the program was started and it matters not under which admin it started. The point being -- it needs to end -- today.

Exactly what I said.

The only part of my post that was opinion is that a mandated user fee is equivalent to a tax. All of the rest is factual.

You are free to believe what you want. That doesn`t mean it is accurate, just that you have a different view.

I checked your Factcheck link, I was curious about the "free" phones. Turns out it's just another tax and spend program, but instead of a tax we pay a user fee that is mandated by Congress and passed along by the various carriers.
Here's a quote: "Congress has mandated that all telephone companies providing interstate service must contribute to the USF. Although not required to do so by the government, many carriers choose to pass their contribution costs on to their customers in the form of a line item, often called the “Federal Universal Service Fee” or “Universal Connectivity Fee”.
In my book, a mandated fee is just another tax without the name - a wolf in sheep's clothing. And I would have no problem with the program if it were voluntary, but that's just one Libertarian's opinion. Freedom for all!
My source was a link from Factcheck: http://www.fcc.gov.akadns.net/cgb/phoneb...

"Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use "taxpayer money" to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?

A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it."
Factcheck.org
Who said I have a cell phone?

gandalf, Read the last line again. (paid for by the taxpayers). I never said it was an Obama perc, Cell phone mama did.

pharm, do you read your cell phone bill? You paid for her phone.

gandolf, I was only repeating what came out of that babes mouth. She called it her "Obama phone". You need to see what that 47% looks and sounds like. You know the ones that will not vote for Romney. sic...

"With the news this week that there’s been net job growth during President Obama’s term, Mitt Romney lost one of his favorite critiques of the presidential incumbent. Not to worry though, there’s always Obamacare to criticize, right?

Maybe not so much. Under Romney’s proposed health care plan, American families buying non-group health insurance would pay nearly double what they pay under Obamacare, according to a new study by Families USA entitled "ObamaCare versus RomneyCare versus RomneyCandidateCare." That includes both comparative insurance premium payments as well as out-of-pocket expenses."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/28...
Is this really better for the US?

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-oba...
An over 10 year old program is now Obama`s fault? Paid for by phone companies, not taxpayers.

As if the video of Romney writing off 47% as victims who feel entitled to government assistance wasn't trouble enough, Mother Jones has another video of Romney talking about Bain Capital "harvesting" companies at significant profit. You can read the transcript and watch the video at: [ http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012... ]

pharm, It is a fact that food stamp and poverty rates have gone up sharply under this administration. The sad news is because of the poor economy more and more people are ensnared into poverty and government assistance by the relaxing of qualifications to get into these programs. Once ensnared they become trapped by the low lvel existance these programs provide.
Did you see the cell phone momma extoll the virtues of how to get a free cell phone paid for by Obama.( paid for by the taxpayers)?

"Mittastrophe: Craig Robinson, former political director of the Republican Party of Iowa: “I hate to say this, but if Ryan wants to run for national office again, he’ll probably have to wash the stench of Romney off of him.”
Even without the satire, this is still funny!

Romney’s Food Stamp Stretch
Posted on September 27, 2012
Bookmark and Share

"Mitt Romney claims President Barack Obama caused a doubling of able-bodied persons on food stamps by taking “work out of the food stamps requirement.” That’s an exaggeration. All but four states had already received waivers from specific work requirements for some or all of their residents before Obama became president.

The total number of persons getting food stamps is up 46 percent since Obama took office, a big jump but far short of a doubling. Romney is referring only to single, childless adults of working age, who normally qualify for food stamps for only three months unless they work part-time or live in areas where jobs are scarce or unemployment tops 10 percent.

The number of those single adults getting food stamps did double about the same time that Obama granted a blanket suspension of that work requirement for 18 months as part of his 2009 stimulus law. But the Bush administration had already granted waivers covering some or all of 46 states and the District of Columbia, and more waiver requests were pending as the economy tanked. And despite the rise under Obama, these working-age adults without dependents still made up less than one in 10 on food stamps.

Romney made the misleading food stamp claim after standing by a false campaign ad that claimed Obama had instituted “a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements.” We found that ad to be wrong, and we even quoted a Republican who was instrumental in the 1996 legislation as saying the “gut welfare” claim was “very misleading.” But Romney stood by that ad — he claimed the campaign had been “absolutely spot on. And any time there’s anything that’s been amiss, we correct it or remove it.”

The campaign couldn’t give CNN an example of it correcting or removing any ads, and we can’t recall that happening either."
Factcheck.org
Mitt still playing fast and loose with the truth.

The Obama campaign has already conceded next Wednesday's debate to Romney . Isn't that golden?

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-team-tries-l...

The Romney campaign has already conceded next Wednesday's debate to President Obama. Isn't that golden? [ http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/201... ]

I won't even get into the skewed polls, because it is BEYOND laughable. The faux boys are running around in FULL DAMAGE CONTROL now, completely grasping at straws. The last resort staw is ALWAYS to say the polls are wrong-biased, YAWN. Believe me, I have been in this game a long time, and I can tell you that all you have to do is FOLLOW THE $$$$. I told you guys to cash in MONTHS ago, when Obama was a pick (around $5.00 a share on Intrade) and everyone was saying he could never win with an economy so bad.
.
He has EXPLODED up in price. I can guarantee you the insiders in both campaigns are HAMMERING Obama. If all you Mittens backers think he will win, then LOAD up, because you can now make a TOTAL FORTUNE, making 5x your money on the big stiff now.

"QE3-QE4-QE5-QE6...where does it end? For a glimpse to the future look at Spain and Greece. The other approach, sticking your head in the sand is good for what exactly?"
.
RAF, the comparison is apples and oranges, for the simple reason that Spain and Greece are part of the EU, and it's currency union. They can not by them-self print Euro's. It is why they go begging to Germany, France, and the big powers of the EU everytime they need to be bailed out. Of course everytime a bailout is agreed to by the EU, the markets go wild. Much the same as they do when we create more $$'s (QE1-2-3, and soon 4-5-6-7-8-9.....) from thin air. Eventually what will happen is the Germans will be sick of supporting all the weak EU countries with NON STOP bailouts, and the whole EU and currency (Euro)will implode. An apples to apples comparison to the US would be a state going bankrupt, and the US government agrees to bail them out, but with huge austerity measures. The state refuses, and denounces the dollar, and the people vote for their own currency. Essentially secedes from the union; as the dollar is truly what holds the states as 'united'.
.
My prediction is you will eventually see these exact scenarios come to fruition in the very near future.

Says the poster who "claims" she/he will not vote for Obama...

All of the doom and gloom pandering and talk about skewed polls is going to come back to haunt the doomsayers on November 6th when America turns its back on the Romney/Ryan agenda of voodoo economics and chooses to give Obama a second term.

And the terrible national economic news continues. The Q2 GDP rate was just downgraded from 1.7% to 1.3% and the durable goods dropped over 13%, the largest drop in over 4 years.

As the deflectors continue to ignore, the record debt, the record deficit(s), the shrinking of median income, the shrinking of the job pool, the unemployment rate over 8% even with the shrinking job pool, the average unemployment lasting longer now then when Obama took office, the dem led senate and administration failing to pass a budget for the last three years, and the record number of people collecting government aide.

Instead of discussing these terrible things, as they should in an election year, the deflector circus would rather talk about ANYTHING else.

LOL, interesting how the left wing fringe put all the blame on the last presidents but contend the current one is blameless...hysterical.

donnaw, if you want to know who to blame for the trajectory this country's debt crisis has been on for the last 30+ years, take a look at what twelve years of Reagan/Bush voodoo economics (trickle down tax cuts for the wealthy and reckless spending) did to the debt as a percentage of GDP in this chart: [ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co... ] Then take a look at Clinton halting and starting to reverse the damage done by Reagan/Bush. And then along comes George "The Decider" Bush and company. His daddy must be proud that his boy followed in his footsteps of reckless spending and even more reckless tax cuts for the wealthy.

You can draw a line from 1981 to 2010 and see the clear trajectory that the Reagan/Bush/Bush voodoo economics set for this country. ATTENTION FOX NEWS VIEWERS who blindly follow what you're told: DO NOT draw a line on your computer display! First print the chart and then draw the line on the printed chart.

Gamdie....yeah sure, blame Bush. Poor Obama! Just think, if he wins the election think what a mess he will have inherited from the last four years. Oh that's right, he helped create that mess! Who will he blame then?

No No No mousykoch. Obama said in 2009 the recession is over. Then he made the economy much worse. Nice try - you stick to the marching blogs in the basement as the rest of us fight to save America from total collapse under that bozo.

donnaw...'...it may have started before Obama took office but it has gotten worse." I completely agree with you and yes people are poorer since Obama came into office and yes there is more unemployment. The belief that Obama caused it is erroneous. The afore mentioned problems will continue to get worse no matter what party is in office. The only way for the economy to get better is repeal of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, repeal of Citizens United and repeal of the Bush tax cuts and return to the tax rates under Clinton and the reinstatement of the Glass Steagal Act. Until these actions are taken everything will continue to get worse. As far as wages being less, that is simply because corporate America is doing everything they can to drive wages down. I'm a perfect example. I'm a college graduate who is making to the penny what I made 25 years ago, right out of college with no experience. When I made that point to my employer they simply said "well, that's all we're offering and if you don't want the job at that wage we'll offer it to someone else." I had been unemployed for 2 years and I was 56 years old. I thought I was fortunate to even be offered a job, so I accepted the 60% pay cut. IMO it was simply corporate greed taking advantage of the job market in this area. I work for a multi-billion dollar, international corporation they could easily afford to pay the going wage for my position and experience. I don't think Obama had anything to do with it and to blame him for the reduction in wages is ridiculous. I do not consider myself a victim but the situtation was taken advantage of by the company.

thatwaseasy - poverty is on the rise -fallout from the Great Recession caused by several factors over many years.

People like Mittens have done ok - and haven't even had to work, or help the economy. Over 3.5 million income, Mitten grossed from foreign lands. That's odd.

What do the poor have? Same as they had when Obama took office. Only there are more of them.

Corporate taxes are a very small part of the tax pie (at historic lows vs GDP actually, in spite of record profits). So this concept of double-taxation is pretty ridiculous.

If someone earns a wage - they pay tax -at least soc sec medicare. If poor they need to spend all that money to live. So they are taxed on most their spending. Then taxes on property comes out that wage. So it goes.

People like Mitten's on the other hand, they have investment income, and get favored tax treatment. They make more than they can spend, even with stupid costly hobbies like Dressage etc, so they have excess dough that just gets single taxed. Unlike the regular person. So it goes.

The utility of a dollar in the hand of a lower income person is more valuable to the economy than in the hands of Mittens.

But the poor don't have PACs and lobbyists.

whz-bang - I think you are mixing things up. The "double tax" myth has been attributed to Dividends - not Capital Gains (there are exceptions though). Corps do not deduct dividends.

The purpose of lower rates for capital gains has historically been a fairness thing during periods of rampant inflation. i.e. buy stock for $100 and sell it 2 years later for $200. $100 gain, but if inflation was 10% for 2 years, then the true economic gain would be about $80. Hence the lower rate.

Inflation is low, so we don't need to be favoring stock gambling in the tax code now, with our deficit and all. Reagan's economic guy, David Stockman -basically jibes with what I just wrote.

gandalf, However as of now Cap Gains rate are only 15%. Simplistic enough. That is all that we are required to pay on investments made with our already taxed dollars. Your stating that cap gains should be taxed as ordinary income would cut most the investments needed to grow the economy. Labor is different from investments.

poobah, what a load of crock. The left hasn't had a budget in over 3 years and refused to balance the nations budget. The tea party just wants responsible government. After all Obama promised us to cut the debt in half saying it was unPatriotic. 43 Presidents and 10 t was his inheritance. Now Romney will have to deal with Obama's extra 6 tril.
The media can try and try all they might to protect him with tax stories and false polls but America as a nation is not stupid. With the exception of cellphone woman.

krabworth - No one said Bush was conservative. You only mention Solyndra.
..what about all the other losers that contributed to Obama campaign and then got our money to go bankrupt?
Ener 1, Beacon Power, Abound Solar, Amonix Solar, Specta Watt, Eastern Eng.

Obama phone...that's funny! That is very typical of liberal markist.

Ezoner said, "the facts of economic reality just dont register with most far left loons..... They all must have lost the front pages of theri checkbooks where you track how much money you have and how much you spend......"

No, Ezoner, the far left loons are just emulating our founding fathers and the first 92 Congresses (184 years). You know, those times that tea party patriots long for a return to that operated with little or no regard to how much money government had and how much money government spent. The far left loons are true patriots -- just like our founding fathers and the first 92 Congresses. Polish the fifes, tighten the drums and don the tricornes!

"Throughout most of our national history, there has been no official budget of the UnitedStates whatsoever. When money had been needed, tax acts were passed; and when programs needed funding, appropriations acts were passed individually. Practically no attention was paid in general to the overall effect of either money-raising or money-spending bills." From "The Budgetary Process" by Marc A. Triebwasser

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...

Obama says there are no victims so why pass other people's hard earned money around?
Is she 47% of Obama's victims or 47% of Obama's voting base??? No wonder he cancelled the education vouchers for minority children.

Libyagate just before elections. Liar in chief

Oh brother, Obama caught in Libya cover up in flat out lie to the American people. Now what hapless lefties?

Stupid Mitch McConnell told the world - the GOP is not interested in the US economy recovering - but in gaining power. No plans - other than more trickle down economics, Same ole stuff that caused the meltdown in the first place.

Maybe if ole GWB would teach Mittens some aw-shucks machismo-cuteness Mittens could sell the snake oil to America - instead of just using it in his hair.

brother -- keep blathering falsehoods, and garbage -- the facts of economic reality just dont register with most far left loons..... They all must have lost the front pages of theri checkbooks where you track how much money you have and how much you spend......

Let us stop pretending...everyone here remembers that the GOP (at least the strategic Rove/Norquist devotees, of which many of you patriot bloggers are) were perfectly fine with Obama winning in 2008. We all knew the economic meltdown was epic and the upcoming years were going to be statistically brutal. It was 30 year mess in the making...and whoever was president had impossible task for a 4 year fix.
.........

The alternative of more GWB under McPalin...come on, you know how bad that would have been. Besides, it was better for GOP to spend 4 years rebranding and milking the wealthy, fake christian crowd, and racial hatreds, while throwing sand in any efforts towards recovery.

Now the GOP knows the tide is turning demographically against them, and this is the last election they can market a wealthy white patriarch system. They are trying to make a go of Wealthy Knows Best_classism, and hate and fear while they still clan.

GOP solution = More tax cuts for the wealthy. Less regulation of wall street. More defense spending (to protect against Russia?)

Gandy -- I agree to a point -- the point being that Obama has increased the divide and refuses to work with republicans. Clinton -- even as he was being attacked by the GOP managed to work out issues and solutions accross the isle. Obama will not and cannot.Obama isnt a leader , where the CLintons (both of them) are born leaders. You (I) may disagree with the side of the issues where the Clintons may fall, but both are natural leaders and Obama is not. If the election would have been Hilary vs McCain -- I would have had a difficult decision to make. Although I may have disagreed with Hilary on issues and solutions, I looked at her as a qualified , competent, leader. Someone that would find a way to reach across the isle and work on solutions. Obama is a fake president and a terrible leader.

"As we’ve discussed on various occasions, the Gallup Poll has consistently been slightly more favorable to Mitt Romney than most other premium polls.

We can’t say why Gallup is moving. But we can say that a dramatic new move for Obama coincides pretty much exactly with the release of the 47% remarks on September 17th.

Today’s number, where Obama ballooned to a 6 point lead, is the first day the entire sample is after September 17th." [ http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/20... ]

Gandalf, not only are many of the ten Republican talking points remnants of Bush, but the summary incorrectly characterizes the data or the data itself is just plain inaccurate as previously shown. They can't quote accurate data even after being pointed to the accurate data.

And the disciples bite on it...hook, line and sinker. How about you, donnaw...want to point out the issues with the list of ten Republican talking points? Take your pick...1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10?

RetiredAirForce originally said, "7)Historic debt level. First time in national history that the US debt is LARGER than GDP."

Then, after being informed of the inaccuracy, he said, "7)Historic debt level. Second time in national history, last time over 75 years ago, that the US debt is LARGER than GDP."

Now it's the "Second time?" Still not accurate. Clue #1: It happened AT LEAST three other times. How about one more guess?

Did anyone notice the other issues about the ten Republican talking points that went unmentioned or inaccurately stated? Here's clue #2: The first 92 Congresses operated without an official budget for the first 184 years of our history.

gandie....still no addressing of Obama's failures. Read RetiredAirForce's last post and tell me Obama hasn't been a failure.

Wow still ignoring the real issues surrounding this country...some things never change as the deflection tactics of the left fringe continue.

1)For the second time in US history and the second time under Obama's leadership the US bond rating has been downgraded.

2)Labor Force Statistics Employment Level Labor force status: Employed Type of data, Number in thousands, Age 16 years and over
Jan 2009 142187
Aug 2012 142101
Results = Less people working now than when he took office.

3)Series title: Average Weeks Unemployed, Labor force status Unemployed, Type of data Number of weeks, Age 16 years and over
Jan 2009 19.8
Aug 2012 39.2
Results = People out of work 2 times longer now than when he took office.

4)Series title: Labor Force Participation Rate, Labor force status Civilian labor force, participation rate, Type of data Percent or rate, Age 16 years and over
Jan 2009 65.7
Aug 2012 63.5
Results = More people left the labor force since he has taken office.

5)No national budget for OVER three years.

6)Record levels of deficit spending, over 3 times the evil Bush numbers.

7)Historic debt level. Second time in national history, last time over 75 years ago, that the US debt is LARGER than GDP.

8)Record number of people collecting federal assistance.

9)A new entitlement program was created while existing entitlement programs are causing crippling budget problems.

10)Since he couldn't fix the problem he found during his first four years and now things are worse than before, there is no clear way to say he can somehow now fix things (that are worse) when he couldn't deliver his hope and change the first time.

The left only wants to fixate on Romney's taxes while our country is going to h..l in a hand basket. None of them will address Obama's failures and broken promises. He is an abysmal failure and they will vote for him again! You can't fix stupid!

pharm
Sep 26, 2012 at 7:36 a.m.
Suggest removal

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/091......
Funny yesterday, just as funny today. Reportedly, Ryan calls Romney "Stench", while he is known as "Gilligan."

Lefties duped again!

Pundits punk'd by satirical claims Ryan dissed Romney
"
Memo to the media: Clearly mark political satire, especially if it makes Republicans look bad. Otherwise, you might fool a Nobel prize-winning New York Times columnist.

Columnist Paul Krugman and other commentators were apparently duped Wednesday after Politico ran a satire piece that included what -- if true -- would have been an inflammatory comment by Republican running mate Paul Ryan."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/...

Just another Obama campaign "squirrel" moment.

The ten years of Romney taxes are safe....they are hidden under the pile of Obama college records and the Fast and Furious files.

Let us stop pretending...everyone here remembers that the GOP (at least the strategic Rove/Norquist devotees, of which many of you patriot bloggers are) preferred Obama to win in 2008. We all knew the economic meltdown was epic and the upcoming years were going to be statistically brutal. It was 30 year mess on the making...and president had impossible task for a 4 year fix.
.........

The alternative of more GWB under McPalin...come on, you know how bad that would have been. Besides, it was better for GOP to spend 4 years rebranding and milking the wealthy, fake christian crowd, and racial hatreds, while throwing sand in any efforts towards recovery.

Now the GOP knows the tide is turning demographically against them, and this is the last election they can market a wealthy white patriarch system. They are trying to make a go of Wealthy Knows Best_classism, and hate and fear while they still clan.

" pandered to the emotion of people without first having read or comprehended what the I article cited had stated about the human toll of war. "
-
LOL LOL LOL. Wow!

Calling you out for ignoring the true cost of war (human life not dollars), is pandering to emotions of others?

As I said, more than once, if that part of the article was so signifficant you would have quoted it. The fact you didn't is something only you know for sure why...regardless of the deflections.

Deflecting from something you failed to quote is again only something you can answer for. All the while ignoring the FACTS of the problem with our current economy under Obama and the best you can come up with was I was wrong about the historic level of our national debt being larger than the size of nation's economy, once before in our nation's history. Oh no.

RetiredAirFirce, you've now stated inaccurate information in at least one of your 10 points (#7) and pandered to the emotion of people without first having read or comprehended what the I article cited had stated about the human toll of war. You can try blaming me for not quoting every section of every article I cite, but you can't blame me for your failure to read or comprehend the article I cited and that's not going to get you out of the hole you've dug yourself over the last few comments you've made.

Speaking of 8%...our national unemployment has been above 8% every month with the current president, except Obama's first month when it was 7.8%. Of course the reason it is ONLY ~8% is due to all the people that have fell out of the labor pool.

More sadness in the details of the state of our nation's economic problems; "Since the economic recovery started in June 2009, household incomes are down 5.7%...and they are down more than 8% since Obama took office."

http://news.investors.com/092512-626958-...

The fact you never quoted that portion of the article, in your post, is obvious. Trying to deflect from that says much of you.

RetiredAirForce said, "Comparitive cost...while ignoring the human loss of life."

Typical pandering, made particularly pathetic by virtue it is raised by someone who purports by their username to be a retired military person. You apparently didn't take the time to read the article I cited or you failed to comprehend it if you did.

The fourth paragraph in the article I cited states, "Tragically, beside the financial cost, there is the human toll. The war in Iraq has resulted in some 4,480 US troops killed and more than 32,000 wounded. (The Iraqis have suffered far more fatalities, about 654,965, according to the British medical journal The Lancet.) Thus, ongoing medical and disability claims and treatment of US veterans will boost the costs of the Iraq war even more." [ http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-ec... ]

Comparitive cost...while ignoring the human loss of life.

kiowamohican, I think you are overlooking the comparative costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the cost of WW2. The cost of the war in Iraq alone has already exceeded what we spent during WW2 (in today's dollars). One article, of many, that discusses this issue can be found at: [ http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/new-ec... ]

In general, I heartily agree with the rest of your assessment.

QE3-QE4-QE5-QE6...where does it end? For a glimpse to the future look at Spain and Greece. The other approach, sticking your head in the sand is good for what exactly?

The HUGE difference was that in 1946, you had to fund a massive war effort of the past 5 years, and after we won that war you had a MASSIVE economic and population boom, that consequently generated tons of revenues to expire much of that debt which was run up. Today you have no such growth (or ANY signs of growth) whatsoever. A cynic would say that the best way to improve the economy would be to wage a huge war. For the most part war is good for an economy, as long as your country doesn't get bombed to smithereens. It's the reason we continue to try and dupe the public into believing that Iran and the like are the next Nazi regime. That if we don't act now, somehow they will be taking over the world. If we didn't have the mega corporate welfare that supports the defense industry (and the millions of jobs in it), imagine how much worse off the economy would be now?
.

There is also ZERO sign that federal budgets will EVER be in surplus. We are spending so far in the red now to run government, that debt to GDP will WAY surpass levels of 46 in the very near future. Of course it's all just numbers, and means very little now when you have a system that can create $$ from thin air to expire debt.

RetiredAirForce said, "Historic debt level. First time in national history that the US debt is LARGER than GDP."

Not true. In 1946 gross debt as a percentage of GDP rose to 121.7% and debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP rose to 108.7%. You may want to consult the Congressional Research Service report on this subject for more information: [ http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34712.... ]

Have you ever seen a squirrel with its pants on fire?

Wow still ignoring the real issues surrounding this country...some things never change as the deflaction tactics of the left fringe continues.

1)For the second time in US history and the second time under Obama's leadership the US bond rating has been downgraded.

2)Labor Force Statistics Employment Level Labor force status: Employed Type of data, Number in thousands, Age 16 years and over
Jan 2009 142187
Aug 2012 142101
Results = Less people working now than when he took office.

3)Series title: Average Weeks Unemployed, Labor force status Unemployed, Type of data Number of weeks, Age 16 years and over
Jan 2009 19.8
Aug 2012 39.2
Results = People out of work 2 times longer now than when he took office.

4)Series title: Labor Force Participation Rate, Labor force status Civilian labor force, participation rate, Type of data Percent or rate, Age 16 years and over
Jan 2009 65.7
Aug 2012 63.5
Results = More people left the labor force since he has taken office.

5)No national budget for OVER three years.

6)Record levels of deficit spending, over 3 times the evil Bush numbers.

7)Historic debt level. First time in national history that the US debt is LARGER than GDP.

8)Record number of people collecting federal assistance.

9)A new entitlement program was created while existing entitlement programs are causing crippling budget problems.

10)Since he couldn't fix the problem he found during his first four years and now things are worse than before, there is no clear way to say he can somehow now fix things (that are worse) when he couldn't deliver his hope and change the first time.

"Mitt Romney pointed to the health care law he signed as governor of Massachusetts one of his signature achievements Wednesday, a move that has drawn swift and strong rebuke from conservatives in the past.

Romney pointed to the Massachusetts health care law — the foundation for the national healthcare reform law Romney promises to dismantle if elected — as a key highlight of his record in an interview with NBC News.

“[D]on’t forget — I got everybody in my state insured,” Romney told NBC. “One hundred percent of the kids in our state had health insurance. I don’t think there’s anything that shows more empathy and care about the people of this country than that kind of record.”" [ http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/0... ]

From "Are Capital Gains Taxed Twice?" by Michael Morrison [ http://www.decisionsonevidence.com/2012/... ]

"To frame a news story or analysis only in the context of double taxation would be incomplete and misleading."

"Previously, I have posted studies demonstrating that the corporate effective tax rate is not close to the mentioned 35% statutory rate."

"In Romney’s particular tax case, there is more still to consider. Much more. Until now, we have been exploring the quarter of his income that is indisputably capital gains. Another nearly 30 percent of his income—$7.4 million—was in so-called “carried interest,” according to Romney campaign chief counsel Benjamin Ginsberg in a conference call with reporters. Carried interest is taxed like a capital gain but is a very different type of income altogether. It has almost no ties to corporate profits and thus is not subject to a double-taxation claim."

“The second issue has to do with the concept of double taxation itself — a concept that is highly disputed. For example, almost all of us who earn salaries are hit by double taxation. Our employers match our payroll taxes. Most economists agree that this “employer half” is effectively subtracted by companies from the wages they pay us, in effectively the same way that corporate taxes are subtracted from the profits distributed to investors."

The reason Romney paid a tax rate of 13% is because he did not have W2 income as most working people do. The effetive tax rate for capital gains is 15% to begin with because it is a tax on money that has been already been taxed once. You cannot compare Cap rates to W2 rates. So keep hammering away at Mitts taxes and sound stupid.

MooShoo, I think you may have just wrested the title of GazetteXtra Poet Laureate from garyprimer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...

Hey! In CO the county election workers are only registering Romney voters. Look! Over here, Republicans...this is called election fraud. I know it's difficult to understand since it it means that the entire process spent on voter ID bills was just a feign to not only block democratic voters, but also to take the focus away from illegal activity perpetrated by Republicans themselves.

Obama is very good at what he does. He's the best liar I've ever seen.

That's not trickle down economics; it's urophilia.

I have to laugh - Brotherkoch again - your markist views mirror the downfall of the Obama failures. Crony capitalism of obama giving our tax dollars to: Solyndra, Ener 1, Beacon Power, Abound Solar, Amonix Solar, Specta Watt, Eastern Eng.
..all by the way were huge (those evil) corporation that donated to Obama.
..Contributors that get tax dollars who are now bankrupt.

brotherkoch? Where are you coming from? The rich hoarding? So you do believe that if the "rich" (job creators) had less to worry about with obamacare and regulations and tax explosion on the 1st of 2013 they would feel more confident in opening their investments and resources? Double talk brother. Liberal blog site double talk repeat without thought.

In July of 2008 then Senator Obama called the debt at 9 trillion unpatriotic (brotherkoch) and irresponsible. It is now 16 trillion. Does that still make a president in charge unpatriotic and more importantly irresponsible?
Remember left wingers Obama could do anything he wanted for the first two years with super majority.

Careful Patriots, with blaming Obama for all that ails ye. You are starting to sound entitled, like you depend on Obama for everything.

The Economy simply does not work the way you simpletons envision. Corporate America has more control over the job and wage situation than Obama.

Corporate taxes are way down (as % of GDP), worker productivity is up, Corp profits have soared ....You'd think jobs and raises would be busting out all over....but once again -the warped capitalism driven by monopolistic corps has failed us.

The rich are hoarding their wealth. Jobs are sent offshore. They don't believe in America enough to put it back into the US economy. They'd rather spend it on buying politicians and government, so they can keep hoarding.

If only McPalin could have continued the recession-causing tactics of George W Bush and prior admins. Lol. Prosperity would be raining -YouBetcha!

..well if we get Romney in there, we can see that Bush McPalin all over again. Maybe an unfunded war or two. More taxcuts for the wealthy. Screw the environment. Deregulate Wall Street even more...happy days are here again. Beautiful.

And median household incomes have fallen 8.2 % since Obama took office and continue to fall. Promises? What promises!

Bowlgal...love your post!

Trickle down? Hasn't Obama been peeing on my leg and telling me it's raining for the past 4 years? Now that's real trickle down. Higher poverty, higher unemployment, higher gas prices, higher foreclosures, higher taxes - No I guess trickle down isn't the word for Obama's massive failures. Old Faithful doesn't spew this high in measured up chucks of misery.

oneday...it may have started before Obama took office but it has gotten worse. Remember all Obama' s promises? He didnt say he would "try" but rather he made promises he hasn't kept and has proven to be more concerned about campaigning than trying to make things better. Oh that's right...."It's just a bump in the road."

Midnight and donna...what we are experiencing is not failed Obama policies. It is the result of 30 years of failed trickle down economics. David Stockmam, who originally came up with the theory under Reagan has himself said it was a complete failure. The upper 10% has seen an increase of 392% in their wealth, while the middle class has seen a 40% decline. It is the middle class that stimulates the economy. It is a vicious circle,if the middle class has no money there is no demand. No demand = no need for jobs to produce items that no one has the money to buy. The mess the economy is in took much more than 4 years.

midnight, the poor are important drivers in the economy and jobs - and have the most untapped potential for doing more to help the economy.

Giving Mittens and the corps piles of more money to sit on and hoard in their on and offshore accounts does little to stimulate our economy (except jobs for lawyers, tax accountants etc).

...How an economy operates is clearly above your intelligence level.

brotherkoch and the poor are all able to provide jobs and boost economy? Why are so many people less off under Obama?

At least with Romney's tax release we find out he is giving with his own money and not ours.

Gandy -- Mitts taxes didnt cause anyone to die... Obamas administtration did.... Border agent, fort hood denials, ambassador, and on and on....

Obama is a failed president.... Mitts taxes -- well he was able to donate more money... so what. At least he was able to chose how the money was spent, not redistributed.

Romney's taxes are all too relevant. They are a magnified case study on the failure of the Bush Tax Cuts (and trickle down economics).

gandie....diversionary tactic on your part ....you still don't address the issues of Obama's failed presidency.

RAF, you don't know what the hetl your talking about with taxes. Capital Gains rates, prior to Bush were more in line with regular tax rates.

The whole point of capital gains at lower rates was a fairness thing (taxation of phantom non-economic gains) -during the years of rampant inflation. Even REAGAN's economic guy, David Stockman - views the capital gains tax cuts as archaic and that they need to be raised.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/05...

(i can find this same David Stockman content in business journals , if you are averse to this website)

I throw that 28% rate around, because that's the capital gain rate prior to the myth-building about the power of capital gains in job creation or whatever.

A two income family making in the mid to upper 100,000s might have that rate now. Mitt's is much lower rate. Why can't you figure this out?

gandie...so fine, it's not just a lefty issue. So MOVE ON! We have bigger issues. How do you like Obama's new flag? How about his not meeting with the top leaders of the mid east when they were all in NY? And he was there too, only doing an entertainment show. How about the debt? You know all the issues. if you focused on Obama's failures as much as you focused on Romney's taxes it might open your eyes.

LOL, I agree gandalf, to you that might be lacking logic; hardly surprising. The fact the nations finances are in disarray while Obama, his campaign, leaders of the dem party, dem party members, and members of the left fringe focus a spotlight in another area (Mitts finances), for distraction, is itself lacking logic...wonder why they do it then. Regardless, the fact you disagree is hardly a new thing.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/091...
Funny yesterday, just as funny today. Reportedly, Ryan calls Romney "Stench", while he is known as "Gilligan."

Release his 2000-2009 tax returns and FBARs. He backed himself into this corner by stating he never paid less than a 13% tax rate, when in fact, he just would have if not for deferring write-offs. Note that the statement said he was "deferring" the write-offs. So it's just more smoke and mirrors from Mitt.

Obama likes the number 47. 47 million people dependent on government. What happens to these safety net programs when 30% plus don't really need it. It's doesn't stay insolvant on "tax the rich" and if there are 47 million people who really need government help what does that say about Obama's failed economy and his failure to the American people? Either way we all lose with that guy.

So all you lefties....what would have Romney do? Write out a check for say $1 million more to the IRS? Would that make you happy? How about $2 million? Or $3 million? Even tho he paid what he legally had to pay....actually more than he legally had to, you complain. He already paid income taxes on the amount he invested to get a return and then paid taxes on what he made but that isn't enough. Funny, I don't remember any lefties complain when John Kerry was a candidate who is at least as wealthy as Romney or maybe wealthier. It doesn't matter. Would we set a limit on wealthy someone can be before we let them run for office? And also, you lefties are like a dog chewing a bone on the tax issue and ignore the bigger issues that affect all of our lives. The tax issue is a non issue IMO.

Typical poo, inserting your comments without grasping all the information.

What gandalf, and you by echoing, did was take a partial sentence I provided that had nothing to say about hypocrisy and try to declare it was not hypocritical; ignoring the fact I never stated it was.

I guess only the left fringe needs to cut pieces up and argue parts never stated and then try to argue they didn't do it, while also trying to say others are doing it so it's okay.

Look squirrel...while ignoring the decay in our economy during the past four years.

That's hilarious, RetiredAirForce! It means that almost every single one of your comments, including the one just prior to this comment, in which you only partially quoted people is inaccurate. Unless, of course, you want to admit to being a Democrat, which according to your logic, would make it accurate. :-)

Gandalf your claim, "I directly quoted your Sep 25, 2012 at 12:54 a.m. post", is accurate only if you are a dem, since you took only partial what was stated, while ignoring the needed ending.

Your statement "your example of 'allowing the country to operate without a national budget for three years while wanting to discuss tax returns is a great example' is not an example of hypocrisy." lacks the ending that stated "of being out of touch". If you want to discuss what I did say about hypocrisy this was the quote, again, for you, "For the president, and his supporters, to ignore the real national debt levels while echoing private citizens financial information is indeed hypocritical."

The weird idea that you want to discuss logic, an oxymoron for you, while ignoring facts is indeed a conundrum only you can correct.

fake koch, please provide the name of a person that has paid an effective tax rate of 28% then list thier gross income. I'll wait....

Crickets...crickets ...crickets

Mormon Church (the primary charitable benefactor of Mittens) finances are murky, but by all accounts - it is loaded. It likes to save up, fortify, and secure their spots on Judgement Day. Only part of the donations go to their "welfare distribution system." much of it goes to building the big temples.

Anyway, I wonder how "charitable" Mittens would be considered if he were tithing to legal charity like Planned Parenthood, or a Muslim temple?

leaving the definition of "rich" open to be tailored to suit the moment

At least we know the definition of middle class is 200-250K per year.

30% to charity? Check again.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/waiting-roo...
This is Romney`s idea of health care, now that he is courting the right-wing vote.

billnewbie said, "So, it seems that the Democrats are trying to say that Romney being rich disqualifies him to be president."

"I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president." - Mitt Romney

Quite to the contrary, billnewbie. Romney disqualified himself by paying more taxes than were due. [ http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/en... ]

It seems that the Democrats' strategy for many years now is to demonize anyone who is "rich" (leaving the definition of "rich" open to be tailored to suit the moment), painting them all as greedy and their riches ill-gotten. Sanctimonious isn't fully descriptive enough of that strategy. That strategy then encourages and justifies the envy of folks such as many of the posters below, leading them to condemn "the greedy rich" while rationalizing their envy as a just response to that greed.

It's interesting to note that many that decry the greed of the "rich" seem not to be able to detect it in the demands of unions, particularly public servant unions that demand more for themselves no matter how conditions are for the folks who have to bear the taxes to satisfy those demands. It's also interesting to note that those who defend union greed are quick to condemn as envious any who oppose it.

So, it seems that the Democrats are trying to say that Romney being rich disqualifies him to be president. I guess they don't want anyone to notice how rich Obama is. He's not as rich as Romney, so he's OK, I guess.

I saw that Romney donated 30% of his income to charity. That doesn't matter to the Democrats, though. Romney's still greedy since he's a rich guy, you know. I guess they think he should have donated that much money to the Treasury too. I wonder, in percentages, did Obama and Biden pay as much in taxes and contributions combined as Romney did? They're rich guys too, you know.

With very little effort, I found that for 2011, Obama paid about 20% in taxes on his adjusted gross and donated about 22% of his total income. Romney paid 14% on his income and donated 30%. Biden, on the other hand, paid about 23% but only contributed 1.4%. Interesting figures, eh?

I wonder, do some folks realize that the more you contribute, the less tax you have to pay? Maybe someone ought to tell Joe Biden.

no asked, "you're one of those guys who believed Baghdad Bob when he said there were no coalition forces in Baghdad--right?"

No, the only people who believed Baghdad Bob were the same people who believed George W. Bush when he said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. I was not one of those people.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/091...
This is funny!

*impending electoral doom*

LOL--you're one of those guys who believed Baghdad Bob when he said there were no coalition forces in Baghdad--right?

LOL

We need to remember that these last several weeks, and the impending electoral doom, have exacted an emotional toll on Republicans and conservatives that have difficulty handling adversity.

For someone who thinks Romney's taxation hypocrisies are irrelevant, RAF sure seems rather touchy about it.

Gandalf your inability to read words provided is the reason for your confusion. If you would like to address what I did state, not out of order, please do so.

Obama can only attack. He can only try to know out the opponent. It's what he's already been doing to America and her citizens?
Obama has a record of failure. I would be embarrassed to fight for my job if I were him too.

Romney sure made a HUGE mistake in choosing Paul Ryan:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/2...

Luckily, Romney-Ryan will continue their downward spiral to LOSERDOM!

Mitt is a tax cheater and a serial liar and wants to serve only 53 percent of Americans. Instead of being president, he should move to the Cayman Islands or Switzerland, where he proudly does his banking. We don't need him or want him here. NO WAY!

go_to_school, claiming they don't when some do hardly makes your point. Perhaps you need to go back to school and ignore the daily kos and msnbc.

RAF, that's all well and good, but I wonder if you could talk to us for a minute about why the windows don't roll down on an airplane? I guess it's a "real problem"?

Poo if the only issue is about the people running why all the problems over the Koch bros (not to mention the fake accounts)? Oh yeah, more of the same do as I say not as I do left wing fringe agenda again.

"First off...let's get the quote in context"
-
First off? Why does that matter in this instance when it hardly does in others? Oh yeah, more of the liberal left fringe do as I say not as I do agneda agains.

First off, RetiredAirForce, let's get the quote in context. Rahm Emanuel said, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

There is a major difference between Mitt Romney saying what Romney said and Rahm Emanuel saying what Emanuel said. Mitt Romney is running to be President of the United States, Commander in Chief. Rahm Emanuel is not Barack Obama and is not running for President.

fake koch, please provide the name of a person that has paid an effective tax rate of 28% then list thier gross income. I'll wait....

"He will take advantage of the opportunity to politicize an international crisis"

How is that a problem? After all one of Obama's most trusted advisors, and a major leader of the dem party, declared "You never let a serious crisis go to waste". I guess this is just more of the great subjective liberal left wing fringe do as I say not as I do agendas.

This Romney foregoing the tax-writeoff to raise his effective rate has RAF stumped.

It is so relevant -I we have a deficit and lots of GOP Tea hypocrisy flowing about how to address.

If Romney's 9 million in capital gains and qualif dividends were taxed at same rate as wage-earning upper- middle class - 28%...rather thant the non-working-silver-spoon-living off investment income rate of 15%, then we'd have over a million dollars to go towards reducing the deficit.

Why do you like deficits?

"My reply was not narcissistic" vs. "I feel compelled to address"

Yeah okay...

RetiredAirForce, the reason for my disclaimer about not supporting Obama (or Romney) in 2012 was made because you said, "I understand neither Obama nor his supporters will want to address these issues." My reply was not narcissistic at all, but rather it was made so you and others would not misunderstand that I was accepting your challenge as an Obama supporter.

And now, I feel compelled to address your fallacious comment that, "Or even worse yet declaring dead people as bumps in the road....but by all means lets discuss meaningless info as you ignore real issues."

"In two separate interviews Monday, Romney took aim at Obama’s remark in a inter view on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that aired Sunday that “there are going to be bumps in the road” as the US builds a relationship with new governments emerging from the Arab Spring. The Republican nominee said Obama triviliazed events overseas. “I can’t imagine saying something like the assassination of ambassadors is a bump in the road,” Romney said in an interview with ABC News Monday.

The Obama campaign responded similarly. “Today, we saw what Mitt Romney meant when he told a closed door group of high-dollar donors that he would ‘take advantage of the opportunity’ to politicize an international crisis to help his campaign,” campaign spokesperson Lis Smith said in a statement. “He’s purposely misinterpreting the President’s words and making reckless statements about the death of four Americans in Libya, apparently for the sole purpose of his own political gain. Using this incident to launch political attacks should be beneath someone seeking to be our nation’s Commander-in-Chief.”" [ http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/0... ]

Sadly, what Romney said in the now famous video was true. He will take advantage of the opportunity to politicize an international crisis solely for his own political gain. Romney should be ashamed, but this is him doubling down on this issue which in recent polling has cost him significant swing state support. He apparently is now so desperate that he figures he has to use any and all of his slimy tactics -- including those which have previously failed him. "As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly." - Psalms 26:11

On the other hand, I have to agree with Rommney, and those on the right on taxes. However; I believe there should now be ZERO tax on ANYONE. I mean we have given the fed full authority to create $$ to fund government, so why on earth do we need taxes? And why does the deficit-debt even matter any longer?? The fed can create $$ at their will to 'expand the balance sheet' ; ERRRRRRR print-electronically create it, to pay it off. I seriously don't see why there is even a debate on taxes today, when you have a currency that can and IS literally manipulated by a man behind the curtain; sitting at the fed printing press.

Poo/koch your narcissism is near the levels of our president. I never stated anything about, personally, who you support but yet you feel the need to inject it? The only thing more twisted is your bizarre twisting of political words as you pretend you’re not supporting the current president with the tri-corner scheme.

For the president, and his supporters, to ignore the real national debt levels while echoing private citizens financial information is indeed hypocritical. After all, if you can't properly manage the nation's finances and lead this country while allowing the country to operate without a national budget for three years while wanting to discuss tax returns is a great example of being out of touch. Or even worse yet declaring dead people as bumps in the road....but by all means lets discuss meaningless info as you ignore real issues.

"I'm not supporting Obama (or Romney) in 2012"
.
I hope you are then on the Gary Johnson bandwagon then! Very sad that the media just makes this a two horse race. A race which in truth, is just one BIG GOVERNMENT candidate vs another. The only disagreement between the two is where-who the big government printed $$'s get doled out to. If Johnson got any serious coverage, and was allowed in the debates, you would have a very intriguing 3 horse race. Now, I know many will post that my vote for Johnson is wasted, in which I will counter that a vote for Rommney is also wasted, as he also has ZERO shot!

RetiredAirForce said, " I understand neither Obama nor his supporters will want to address these issues."

I'm not supporting Obama (or Romney) in 2012, but I'm glad to point out the fallacies of your comment and questions. Mitt Romney is one of two leading candidates for President of the United States. To characterize him as only a "private citizen" not accurate. He is a very public figure, a candidate for the highest public office in the land.

1) "Why does the Obama campaign know how much Mitt paid in taxes but when asked on national TV by Letterman what the size of the national debt was Obama declared he didn't know?"

Anyone who has looked at Romney's 2010 and 2011 returns knows how much Mitt paid in taxes. He voluntary chose to release those returns, understanding the importance of making them available to the public. On the national debt question, Letterman asked him what the debt was when Obama took office and Obama said he did not know the precise amount. Here's that transcript:

“Now, do you remember what that number was? Was it $10 trillion?” asked Letterman. “I don’t remember what the number was precisely,” responded Obama.

2) "Why is more important for him to know Mitt's financial position in life than the countries he is suppose to be running?"

You haven't established that Obama knows Mitt Romney's "financial position in life." At most, he knows only the information on Romney's tax return, which in the case of a multi-millionaire with considerable off-shore investments and a reluctance to release his FBAR forms, nobody will ever know his true financial position. And again, his reply about the question Letterman asked him about the debt when he took office, he didn't recall the precise amount. Your questions are laced with fallacies.

No. You are sadly hilarious RAF. We have a deficit, and tax cuts that allow silver spoon millionaires like Romney to accumulate income at lower tax rates than working people ---and this buffoon and the tea party agenda want to lower their taxes even more.

Bizarre. But that's what we should expect in a plutocracy.

Hilarious! Just think how better off this country would be if Obama and his supporters were as worried over government spending and debt as they are over a private citizen's money.

Question: Why does the Obama campaign know how much Mitt paid in taxes but when asked on national TV by Letterman what the size of the national debt was Obama declared he didn't know? Why is more important for him to know Mitt's financial position in life than the countries he is suppose to be running? I understand neither Obama nor his supporters will want to address these issues.

I encourage everyone to download Mitten's taxes for 2011. Then look at your own. Do a little math.

Mitt is not welcome in Italy, due to shady tax issues http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-06...

So, just so we're clear, every Romney/Ryan voter here thinks it's okey-dokey that Ryan forgot over $60,000 in income and had to fix a tax return, and Romney had to fix up his taxes to be in line with what he had already said that they were? So you're really OK with these two apparently lying and or committing tax fraud?

"The reason he was late turning this return in is BECAUSE it was being AMENDED. He even does etch-a-sketch with his taxes...."

I don't think so woody. He got an extension to file, as many people do. You can't amend them until they're filed in the first place. He didn't actually have to file until October.

In 2008, John McCain reviewed Mitt's tax returns when considering him for the VP slot, and found no problem.
In 2009, after a whistleblower gave info on Swiss banks hiding taxable income for various countries, the IRS investigated and told thousands of American millionaires, to pay up with a 25% penalty, for hiding taxable income in Swiss bank accounts, and get a get-out-of jail card, and no publicity.
In 2009, Mitt closed his Swiss bank account.

Ezoner said, "Poo -- when you ignore one side and only focus upon the other -- no credibility. Punishing , blaming or going after the successful, makes no sense."

Pardon me? My previous comments in this thread dealt with what Romney spent on his 2008 and 2012 campaigns; a call by a group of six senators (3 Democrats and 3 Republicans) for genuine budgetary compromise; Romney and Ryan flip-flopping on healthcare and Social Security; and the PollTracker electoral college projection.

If you want to make a point, Ezoner, just make your point. There's no need (or advantage gained) to pretend you are countering something that you've only imagined I'd said.

Poo -- when you ignore one side and only focus upon the other -- no credibility. Both guys are rich by our terms. An arguement of you guys is richer seems really weak. Punishing , blaming or going after the successful, makes no sense. In the end -- no matter what -- no matter who is elected -- the middle class will suffer -- period. Lets all understand that. You cannot penalize the rich without causing harm to all. Just cannot happen.

brotherkoch said, "I got a kick out of how the return looks like someone scanned it in hastily and all-cockeyed."

I'm sure given Mitt's reported miserly ways (compressing his garbage at home because he's charged by the bag, only running the air conditioner on the hottest of days, etc.) that he scanned his own tax returns. Mitt has really got by cheap in 2012.

"In 2008, Romney spent more than $42 million of his own cash to fund his bid for president. That's about $9 of his own money for each vote he got, and it's also about as much as the indomitable super PAC currently supporting him has spent so far ($40 million).

Romney changed his tune after spending a small fortune and not winning, deciding that in the 2012 cycle he would rely on donors for money instead (car elevators don't pay for themselves after all). He was, of course, aided and abetted by the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United, which effectively released unlimited amounts of money on the campaign. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that Romney has spent only $52,500 of his own money for the 2012 nomination." [ http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/romn... ]

no
Sep 24, 2012 at 3:26 p.m.
Suggest removal *News flash...most middle class people don't have income from these sources. If they do it is very little. *

On the contrary, anyone with a 401k or an IRA has or will have income from these sources
------------------
**Correction. True - middle class people typically can have investment income in 401Ks. However 401Ks and regular IRAs gets at Regular higher tax rates when drawn out... NOT at the tax-favored 15% investment rates that $9 million of Mitten's income was taxed.

If Mitten's investment (long term gains and Qdivd) income was taxed at 28% marginal rate like it used be, it would have been over a million more in tax to reduce our deficit.

The amount of charitable deduction unclaimed was close to $1.8 mill, not $500,000 as mentioned earlier in comments. And the tax rate would have been about 12.1% if he claimed it.

Think about that ye math wizards - (not that many patriots are)... It took $1.8 million in unclaimed deduction to get Mitten's tax rate above the magic %.

That is a HUGE deduction to forego, and it only amounts to about $270,000 in tax savings! - just enough to push him up into the 14%s

It drives home how ridiculously wealthy this guy is. And how low the rate of taxation is on people that don't work and live off of investment income.

Also worth noting - Team Mittens included the social security tax in his 14%. If a middle class worker included social security tax as effective taxr rate would be typically be much higher than Mitten's.

I got a kick out of how the return looks like someone scanned it in hastily and all-cockeyed.
http://www.mittromney.com/disclosure/mit...

It appears that Romney, Ryan, McConnell and Boehner have another problem on their hands -- three Republican senators finally calling for genuine budgetary compromise with Democrats.

"A group of six senators — three Democrats, three Republicans — are urging leaders of both parties to ward off automatic cuts to domestic and defense spending at the end of the year with more targeted deficit reduction policies.

But while the clamor to avoid so-called “sequestration” is nothing new, the GOP signatories’ adoption of the Democrats’ call for “balanced” deficit reduction represents a significant departure.

The letter was written by the top Democrat and Republican on the Armed Services committee — Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ) — as well as Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH). All signatories except for Whitehouse sit on the Armed Services committee.

“Balanced” means different things to different members. But crucially it is a Democratic codeword for reforms that include both spending cuts and revenue increases. Republican leaders have consistently opposed higher taxes in negotiations with Democrats over long-term budget consolidation." [ http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/... ]

*News flash...most middle class people don't have income from these sources. If they do it is very little. *

On the contrary, anyone with a 401k or an IRA has or will have income from these sources.

Wouldn't it be great if Obama were to launch a "TRUTH" offensive against Romney? Of course, that would be kind of hard to do when our "king" has no clue what truth actually is....

".......I would hope that he would amend his return"
.
The reason he was late turning this return in is BECAUSE it was being AMENDED. He even does etch-a-sketch with his taxes....

916, it was no mistake. He gamed the numbers so it would appear that he was paying more in taxes (remember that 13% pledge he made?). Of course he also said that anyone who pays more in taxes than they are supposed to isn't fit to be president. So if ammends later, I guess he gets to have it both ways. It still makes him either a lair or unfit to serve to me.

Now Palin is telling the etch a sketch team how to save their campaign.....good grief
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/22...

dtb.......I would hope that he would amend his return. The fact that Romney didn't use every deduction possible to reduce his tax liability was stupid. He really needs to correct that mistake.......

Since neither candidate cares to actually tell me what they will do in the next four years, (instead opting to sling mud as usual), I will once again be write-in voting for the best man for the job. Me. If anyone cares to join this grass roots movement (I did inhale), message me.

The amended return and claim deduction idea is awesome, dtb. The Patriots will love it.

To raise his tax rate to the announced 13%, Mittens could have just picked up his Cayman Island invesment items as income. But then that screws up how much he's supposed to tithe to the Mormon Financial Empire. ...and it could land him in jail for tax fraud.

donnaw wants Obama to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Imagine the photo ops for all our Patriot news sites.

No donnaw, the voters missed it. They had the chance to nominate Hillary 4 years ago and didn't in droves.

And fear not, brethren of the tri-cornered hat . Once this whole kerfuffle about tax rates has passed, Mittens will amend his 2011 tax return and get that extra money back.

Any other Patriots wondering if our boy Paul Ryan made a bad career move hitchin his wagon to Romney?

I guess he still has that congressional seat to recline into.

gandie...you are right. I misspoke about the location but he still should be at the UN to do what he was elected to do to meet with other world leaders instead of entertaining his Hollywood audience. We should elect Hillary instead of Obama. She's smarter and much more experienced. You Dems missed the boat on that one.

lol - he had to forego deducting charitable donations so that his claim that he never paid lower than 13% rate would be true. So he paid more taxes than legally required! (and thus he's not qualified to be president, at least according to his other statement.)
-----
Cayman Islands. Lol.

And before Romney and devotees start claiming that he's so philanthropic with his donations - the tithing thing with the Mormon church is not exactly pure selflessness - it secures him a safe spot at Judgement Day.... and funds the Mormon financial empire, of which he is a privy.

....

I dropped a quotation mark in my previous comment. The quote by Jonathon Gruber is, "The guy has come completely full circle." The quoted material prior to that comment was written by the author of the article I cited, Sahil Kapur.

This flip-flopping of Romney is apparently contagious.

First Romney: “Comments made by Mitt Romney on Sunday night to CBS News reveal again, in stark relief, how fully he’s abandoned the basic tenets of the health care reform law he enacted in Massachusetts.

The guy has come completely full circle,” says Jonathan Gruber, a professor at MIT who advised Romney on the Massachusetts law and has expressed his dismay about Romney’s shift in several public fora. [ http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/... ]

Then Ryan: "Further distancing himself from Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan says he no longer would describe programs like Social Security as “collectivist” as he did in a speech before the Randian Atlas Society in 2005.

“I don’t think of it like that,” Ryan told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Saturday when asked about his past remarks." [ http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/0... ]

Romney says he is going to cut taxes for the middle class 20% by reducing the taxes on investment, interest and dividend income. News flash...most middle class people don't have income from these sources. If they do it is very little. So who is he really cutting taxes for? Again, Romney revealing how out of touch he is with the real middle class, not those making $200,000 - $250,000. His idea of the middle class.

"Romney acknowledged Sunday that he was trailing the president in several key states."

Romney finally said something truthful. Obama continues to pull away from Romney in the polls. The PollTracker electoral college projection WITH leaners now has Obama up 328-191 and with leaners Obama is up 332-206. [ http://core.talkingpointsmemo.com/electi... ]

The swing states have moved into Obama's column -- in large part because of the selection of Ryan and the backlash to the Ryan budget proposal, the flip-flopping of Mitt and statements of Romney's belief that half of Americans are victims that feel entitled to government assistance. Yes, that includes seniors who are now receiving the Social Security and Medicare benefits for which they've paid taxes.

I notice no comment from the lamestream media about Obama spending 2 days in NY at big UN gathering of world leaders and then skips town to go to Hollywood to be on The View, instead of sticking around to meet with the leaders. He dispatched Hillary to do the heavy lifting. Too bad he can't do the job he was elected to do. Talk about a Teflon guy.

Obama: Bla bla bla
Romney: Alb alb alb
Gary Johnson?
I'm just sayin'...
http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

Look people -- the guy is rich -- we all know that. We all know that he has paid in or donated more than most people we all know -- so the real difference is -- should the money be collected via taxes, or should we be allowed to determine where the money goes on our own. Thats the real question. I do not believe that we should be taxing cap gains at a higher rate, I do not feel we should be asking more than we do of the wealthy. So we disagree.... move on -- this topic is boring and adds no value.

A Milwaukee TV station reported that Romney didn't take $500,000 in charitable contributions on his tax returns because it brought his tax rate down to 10%. So if he wasn't running for Pres. would he have taken this on his tax return? LOL

The Daily Dolt, 9/24/12:
"Mitt Romney had 14 “Pants on Fire” Statements (9% of all statements by Romney which were reviewed by Politifact), while 65 of his statements as reviewed by Politifact were in the “Mostly False,” “False,” or “Pants on Fire” category (43%), and 45 were “True” or “Mostly True” (30%). The largest single category of statements by Romney as reviewed by Politifact were “Half-True” (43 statements, or 28%).

Meanwhile, Barack Obama had 6 “Pants on Fire” statements (2%). 111 of his statements as reviewed by Politifact were in the “Mostly False,” “False,” or “Pants on Fire” category (29%), while 182 (46%) were “True” or “Mostly True.” The largest single category of statements by Obama as reviewed by Politifact were “Half-True” (98 statements, or 25%)."
Look in the mirror Mr. Romney

What's the problem, Mitt?
Why can't you come clean?
;-)

Yeah Mitt...stop the cheaters....show the tax returns....like your dad did....