Posted on 09/23/2012 1:25:44 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The release of over two decades of Mitt Romney's tax information on Friday must have been so anticlimactic for Team Obama --- not only does it turn out that Romney contributed a boatload of money towards the federal coffers, but he's also an almost wildly generous and charitable individual to boot. After the monumentally huge deal Team O made out of the tax returns, with dodgy "secrecy" ads and unsubtle fat-cat jabs out the wazoo, they don't seem to be seizing on the information with quite the fervor you would've expected.
Yes, Romney is hugely wealthy, and hey, maybe some of his money was harbored in offshore bank accounts --- so what? Those things aren't illegal. Being a talented businessman, creating jobs, and acquiring plentiful personal wealth is something a heck of a lot of Americans probably wouldn't mind doing themselves, and if President Obama is so averse to perceived tax loopholes and financial rejiggering, why the heck hasn't he done anything about it? Quit attacking the symptoms, and maybe step up to the plate and attack the disease.
So, it looks like more of the same old, same old — the messaging is just continuing on with the “fair share” nonsense (the fact that we have a graduated income tax and that “fair share” is actually viable political rhetoric, will never cease to amaze me). At a campaign rally in Milwaukee on Saturday, via The Hill:
“We have always said in this campaign that change takes more than one term,” Obama said, asking for more time to finish the job he started as president.
The president also sought to highlight the contrasts between Romney and himself on several issues, including energy, Medicare and taxes. Obama has said he would raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more annually and at the rally he argued against more tax cuts for the wealthy.
“I can afford to pay a little more and Mitt Romney sure can afford to pay a little more,” Obama said. “We don’t build the economy from the top down. We build it from the bottom up.”
For goodness’ sake — these tax hikes, which will produce a questionable amount of additional federal revenue and will have much more damaging and far-reaching effects on the private sector as a whole, are sure meant to pay for a lot of things! To hear President Obama tell it, they’re going to stop the sequester, pay for ObamaCare, build roads and bridges, better our education system, and stop the rise of the oceans while they’re at it. But hey, who needs profit incentives — why don’t we just go crazy and impose a maximum-income cap while we’re at it?
Let’s hope that more Americans will wake up and realize they’re being spoon-fed a load of populist waffle before too much longer. And hey, maybe they will — all these contradictory polls are starting to make me go cross-eyed, but Gallup and Rasmussen aren’t looking too shabby there. But, but — pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
Obama campaign manager Jim Messina told reporters on Saturday that despite national tracking polls showing the president and Romney tied, Obama is still winning. …
“I think you will see a tightening in the national polls going forward,” he said. “What I care way more about it Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc. In those states, I feel our pathways to victory are there. There are two different campaigns, one in the battlegrounds and one everywhere else. That’s why the national polls aren’t relevant to this campaign.”
I don’t think the Mormon Church is running a 5-trillion dollar deficit. Seems to me that Romney was better off giving the money to the church than a feckless federal government.
I have to chuckle at the liberals pointing fingers at Romney’s off shore accounts. No mention of Pelosi, Feinstein, Lautenberg and others that also do the same.
We never saw medical records of Obama or his University records, for that matter, never saw Clintons either.
Romney, if elected will not accept the pay.
Why are we still paying Pelosi’s medical beefits? Nothing ever said about the left.
Hey Odumbo, Mitt gave over 4 million dollars to charity. That is voluntary, discretionary redistribution of wealth. In other words, Mitt isn’t going to give money to terrorist regimes like the muslim brotherhood so they can turn around and murder Americans with it!
FUBO, your toast!
Romney’s reply should be -—
Obama, you are worth at least 12 million by now. I have always given 15% of my income to charity. Surely you could do the same yet you haven’t. If you feel so strongly about the rich paying more taxes to your bloated inefficient Federal Government why don’t you start the ball rolling by volunteering to give an extra million taxes to the US Treasury every year. The reason you don’t is like spending other people’s money, not your own.
And to repeat. My charitable contributions have averaged 15% of my income for a few decades and you cannot come close to matching this. But you could close the gap by contributing a million a year to the US Treasury since you seem to consider the US government to be a charity when you have your food stamp program running advertisements urging to sigh up
Because that’s all the left has.
Their Obama experiment has failed miserably on all fronts and all they can do is attack the successful Americans. Envy runs deep in the Democrats, always wanting what others have earned. It just what they are. Everything they touch turns to shit.
I don’t think that the bulk of Obama’s income comes from capital gains, interest, dividends and inheritance. So however paltry the windfall from expiring tax cuts might be over 10 years, Mitt’s own plan also doesn’t balance the budget and would still save himself millions (although not as much as Ryan’s).
Mitt Romney sure can afford to pay a little more,”
How do you know that?
Its not your money azzhole.
(.)
Before workers can get jobs at factories, those factories have to be built. Taking money that would be used to build factories and giving it to people who would work in them if they existed, won't do anything to create jobs. Instead, it will immediately deny jobs to those who would have been hired to build the factories, and in the long run deny jobs to those whom the factories would have hired.
The reason capitalism leads to prosperity is that people who invest capital in such a way as to produce more wealth, end up wealthier than those who don't; this in turn gives those people more capital, with which they can then create even more wealth. Consequently, large amounts of wealth get created, leaving just about everyone better off than if wealth were equally distributed such that only a tiny amount of capital be available to the people who would be effective at using it to create new wealth, and only a small amount of wealth would get created on an ongoing basis.
Note that many people, even Christians, seem to regard as axiomatic the notion that happiness should depend on "relative" rather than absolute wealth. I would regard such a notion as anti-Christian. Christ in a parable expressly rebuked workers who were happy working for a certain wage, but were unhappy when they saw how others were paid. There is nothing wrong with aspiring to improve oneself to be as wealthy as one's neighbor, if keeps such aspiration in proper perspective, but there is nothing right about harboring hatred toward one's neighbor as a consequence of his superior wealth.
Note that while most of the "Seven Deadly Sins" represent healthy things taken to excess, covetous does not. There is no such thing as a healthy dose of covetousness.
If Romney paid 100% in taxes; these cretins would still say Romney could pay “a little more”
think you are posting to the wrong person as I have no idea what on earth you’re on about
Although ultimately of course whether a new company continues growing and creates self-sustaining jobs is a function of customers’ ability and willingness to pay for the company’s products, not the entrepreneur or the investor capital. What good are the tax breaks if they just go straight into the bank (where it either sits and earns interest) or get invested overseas or in companies that already have strong demand to sell products and create jobs ?
The company’s customers are who buy the company’s products that in turn creates the need for the employees to produce, sell, and service those products. If those customers go broke by tax policies that reward “the 1%” at the expense of everyone else, the demand for the company’s products will collapse. And the jobs will disappear, regardless of what the entrepreneur does.
“Mitt Romney sure can afford to pay a little more”
And he did! He paid a lot more as taxes than he needed to.
Did Barack?
“If those customers go broke by tax policies that reward “the 1%” at the expense of everyone else, the demand for the company’s products will collapse. And the jobs will disappear, regardless of what the entrepreneur does.”
So, to use your reasoning, and assuming the “1%” act in their own rational self-interest, why would they want taxes to be that high? People with money who work for it do not want taxes to be that high. I am not sure if you are on furlough from DU or not, but think about this.
I do have a couple of solutions though. One, maybe voters can stop voting for the Dumocrat politicians who make it more expensive to do business in the U.S. through laws, regulations, unions, and taxes. Voters put these people in office and then wonder why jobs are sent to China or wherever. Businesses do not exist to give people jobs or to improve the economy. They exist to make a profit, period! If they cannot do it here because of the cost of doing business, they will do it elsewhere. It is the CEO’s job to see that it happens that way, as he/she serves only at the pleasure of the Board of Directors of the company. It is their job to maximize shareholder value. Employees want loyalty from companies, then show their disloyalty to business as a whole by their actions at the ballot box.
Solution 2: At this time, wage earners pay income taxes. Investors pay capital gains taxes. I could solve the problem of our debt easily, imho. A flat tax for wage earners, abolish death and the capital gains tax, and then enact a tax on WEALTH along with spending cuts. Then we will see if the Hollywood elite, Harry Reid, Warren Buffet, any Kennedy, and all of the other rich fools who call for higher income tax on wage earners are still so eager to raise taxes on themselves. The tax rate on wealth will match the tax rate on wage earners, by constitutional amendment. Then we will see how many are out there complaining about the 1% or how many of the 1% think tax rates should be higher.
Yet, for Democrats “a little more” is never enough...
I’m just saying that given that tax rates are historically low, I’ve yet to come across a rich entrepreneur on record confirming that a modest hike in capital gains and income taxes would have the slightest impact on their desire to create companies and jobs, No one is talking about a hike in rates for the middle class. What creates the jobs is a healthy economic ecosystem surrounding the company, which starts with enough company’s customers with discretionary income to pump right back into the economy via consumption (i.e., demand).
“I’m just saying that given that tax rates are historically low”
Yet we have the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.