Enlightening Political Discussion?
From a leftist website September 24, 2012
Discussion among Romney opponents and Jim C. over an article
questioning Romney’s tax returns:
Jim C: What relevance does Romney's personal tax returns
have to do with his potential Presidency? If something is amiss in the returns,
it's a matter for the IRS, which has surely subjected them to intense scrutiny.
I'm sure Romney uses fully competent tax experts and advisers for preparing his
returns. The issue of Romney's returns is nothing but a "red
herring", and a distraction from the important issues at stake in the
coming election.
Michael G: Jim C you are obviously in fear of the truth and of transparency. It becomes obvious with each question so phrased. You don't really want to look at the answer do you?
Let's not look under every rock and behind the tree so that we know truly who we are electing. Let's just take him at his word. Didn't he say trust and verify? Once we have verified we can trust. Using only half that combination (trust) is and has been dangerous time and again throughout history. Can you in all seriousness write such a post without feeling the least bit embarrassed by your rather obvious position?
Dr. C: @Jim C.[What relevance does Romney's personal tax returns have to do with his potential Presidency?]
Absolutely nothing if you close your eyes to the character that such recordings might give light to. Most certainly the views of right and wrong in a candidate's public record should be totally ignored and whatever he says to the public on thursday should overwrite wednesday , tuesday or for that matter the totality of their life.
Most certainly we should as wise people but define the character of our future by the expressions of the nearly 8000 media outlets owned by Mr. Romney and what they said but yesterday.
My apologies for having the totally ludicrous thought to examine any data at all.
Jim C to Dr C.: What do you think Romney has done regarding his taxes that any other decent, honest person would not also do? Do you attempt to pay more in taxes than is legally required? Please tell us exactly what Romney has done tax-wise that is illegal, immoral or unethical. The first sentence in my first comment may have been misleading - I was trying to say that if Romney followed the law, and didn't engage in wrongdoing such as dishonesty, hiding income, or otherwise cheating, then nothing else about his taxes is relevant to his Presidential campaign.
Michael G: Don't you just love it, Dr C, when phonies like Jim C pony up with that whispering confidential approach.
Come on now man to man, what difference does it make if he played the system? That's what we are all supposed to do right? That's the kind of fighting spirit we need in a president. We need a guy who will take it to the hilt, play all of the curves.
I mean all of us can put in 102,000 dollars into an IRA for over 38 years and have it grow to 110 million it happens all the time, just not for the 47% at least. Well, maybe the percentage who can is smaller. But he was at the right place at the right time. That has to count for something doesn't it?
Jim you are so transparent
Jim C: Michael G, I don't remember Romney saying anything about "trust and verify" - when was that? Of course we need to know about a candidate's ideas of right and wrong and, more important whether the candidate acts according to those ideas. Anyway, what do tax returns have to do with one's ideas about right and wrong, unless it involves cheating or lying?
You say that a candidate's "public record" is important. Of course it is. But a person's tax returns are not part of the "public record", but are part of one's private life. By the way, I guess I missed the part about Romney owning "nearly 8,000 media outlets" - what's your source for that?
Dr. C: @Jim C.[Dr C.: What do you think Romney has done regarding his taxes that any other decent, honest person would not also do? Do you attempt to pay more in taxes than is legally required?]
The first reaction of those without ethics is the briefcase defense "but it was legal".
Actually , on the one hand when personal revenues here where $85/hour, there was never asked a dime of refund from the government that created the Internet upon which my coin was made.
@Jim C.[ Please tell us exactly what Romney has done tax-wise that is illegal, immoral or unethical.]
Illegal , but of course not, unethical? Have you been living under a rock? All that money hidden in swiss accounts , cayman island accounts. structures set to but profit (like the mortgage industry) if America looses!!!!
@Jim C. [The first sentence in my first comment may have been misleading - I was trying to say that if Romney followed the law, and didn't engage in wrongdoing such as dishonesty, hiding income, or otherwise cheating, then nothing else about his taxes is relevant to his Presidential campaign.]
Of course we should discount the habit of the retroactive lie where stories are told than reality temporarily shoehorned such as a 9% tax rate tricked out in his 2011 tax returns to be 14%, but ONLY until after the election where an amended filing will be made to take it back down to the 9%
9% is less than those in the 47% Mr. Romney aims to crush pay in simple payroll tax deductions.
Jim C: Michael G, Truth and transparency applies to public policy and public decisions, not to one's private life. How transparent was Obama and the Democratic Congress when they passed Obamacare in a late night power play, and the general public was not permitted to know what was in it. As Pelosi said, we'd find out what was in the law after it was passed. Public laws passed by Congress are clearly a public act which the public has a legal/constitutional right to know about, unlike a candidate's private tax returns. I think you're a bit confused about what is public and what is private. (When did Romney say "trust and verify", and what was he talking about? I don't remember it.)
Claudia L: Good grief.....we are $16 billion in debt, we are on the edge as a nation financially and we are worrying about Mitt Romney's taxes?
How about being concerned about the 9 billion that has disappeared at the Federal Reserve....or doing a better job of teaching our children about this nations heritage....or improving our schools so we no longer fall behind other nations? Let's deal with really important issues. Let's give someone new a chance to clean up the mess we're in.
Jim C: Claudia L.: Excellent comment! All the issues you list are gravely important, and relevant to every American.
Jim C: As for the comment of Claudia L., our national debt is $16 TRILLION, not billion. The first ten trillion of that debt was accumulated during the entire previous history of the U.S. The additional six trillion was added during Pres. Obama's first three plus years in office. (A trillion is a thousand times more than a billion!)
Jim C: Michael G, Romney has no part in the management of Bain, though I think he owns some of its stock. Why I don't know all the details of Romney's personal finances is because I don't care much about them. As far as I'm concerned, it's absolutely irrelevant to his qualifications as President. I do believe though, that his general knowledge of finance, economics and business, as well as his past experience in those areas, is an important qualification for the Presidency. Frankly, I see no evidence that Pres. Obama has any experience in those areas. I don't say that to demean him - it's just a simple fact. Also, from all I've heard about Romney, he's an entirely good and decent man who truly cares about the country and its people. I have no resentment toward those who are financially successful.
Michael G: Jim C you are obviously in fear of the truth and of transparency. It becomes obvious with each question so phrased. You don't really want to look at the answer do you?
Let's not look under every rock and behind the tree so that we know truly who we are electing. Let's just take him at his word. Didn't he say trust and verify? Once we have verified we can trust. Using only half that combination (trust) is and has been dangerous time and again throughout history. Can you in all seriousness write such a post without feeling the least bit embarrassed by your rather obvious position?
Dr. C: @Jim C.[What relevance does Romney's personal tax returns have to do with his potential Presidency?]
Absolutely nothing if you close your eyes to the character that such recordings might give light to. Most certainly the views of right and wrong in a candidate's public record should be totally ignored and whatever he says to the public on thursday should overwrite wednesday , tuesday or for that matter the totality of their life.
Most certainly we should as wise people but define the character of our future by the expressions of the nearly 8000 media outlets owned by Mr. Romney and what they said but yesterday.
My apologies for having the totally ludicrous thought to examine any data at all.
Jim C to Dr C.: What do you think Romney has done regarding his taxes that any other decent, honest person would not also do? Do you attempt to pay more in taxes than is legally required? Please tell us exactly what Romney has done tax-wise that is illegal, immoral or unethical. The first sentence in my first comment may have been misleading - I was trying to say that if Romney followed the law, and didn't engage in wrongdoing such as dishonesty, hiding income, or otherwise cheating, then nothing else about his taxes is relevant to his Presidential campaign.
Michael G: Don't you just love it, Dr C, when phonies like Jim C pony up with that whispering confidential approach.
Come on now man to man, what difference does it make if he played the system? That's what we are all supposed to do right? That's the kind of fighting spirit we need in a president. We need a guy who will take it to the hilt, play all of the curves.
I mean all of us can put in 102,000 dollars into an IRA for over 38 years and have it grow to 110 million it happens all the time, just not for the 47% at least. Well, maybe the percentage who can is smaller. But he was at the right place at the right time. That has to count for something doesn't it?
Jim you are so transparent
Jim C: Michael G, I don't remember Romney saying anything about "trust and verify" - when was that? Of course we need to know about a candidate's ideas of right and wrong and, more important whether the candidate acts according to those ideas. Anyway, what do tax returns have to do with one's ideas about right and wrong, unless it involves cheating or lying?
You say that a candidate's "public record" is important. Of course it is. But a person's tax returns are not part of the "public record", but are part of one's private life. By the way, I guess I missed the part about Romney owning "nearly 8,000 media outlets" - what's your source for that?
Dr. C: @Jim C.[Dr C.: What do you think Romney has done regarding his taxes that any other decent, honest person would not also do? Do you attempt to pay more in taxes than is legally required?]
The first reaction of those without ethics is the briefcase defense "but it was legal".
Actually , on the one hand when personal revenues here where $85/hour, there was never asked a dime of refund from the government that created the Internet upon which my coin was made.
@Jim C.[ Please tell us exactly what Romney has done tax-wise that is illegal, immoral or unethical.]
Illegal , but of course not, unethical? Have you been living under a rock? All that money hidden in swiss accounts , cayman island accounts. structures set to but profit (like the mortgage industry) if America looses!!!!
@Jim C. [The first sentence in my first comment may have been misleading - I was trying to say that if Romney followed the law, and didn't engage in wrongdoing such as dishonesty, hiding income, or otherwise cheating, then nothing else about his taxes is relevant to his Presidential campaign.]
Of course we should discount the habit of the retroactive lie where stories are told than reality temporarily shoehorned such as a 9% tax rate tricked out in his 2011 tax returns to be 14%, but ONLY until after the election where an amended filing will be made to take it back down to the 9%
9% is less than those in the 47% Mr. Romney aims to crush pay in simple payroll tax deductions.
Jim C: Michael G, Truth and transparency applies to public policy and public decisions, not to one's private life. How transparent was Obama and the Democratic Congress when they passed Obamacare in a late night power play, and the general public was not permitted to know what was in it. As Pelosi said, we'd find out what was in the law after it was passed. Public laws passed by Congress are clearly a public act which the public has a legal/constitutional right to know about, unlike a candidate's private tax returns. I think you're a bit confused about what is public and what is private. (When did Romney say "trust and verify", and what was he talking about? I don't remember it.)
Claudia L: Good grief.....we are $16 billion in debt, we are on the edge as a nation financially and we are worrying about Mitt Romney's taxes?
How about being concerned about the 9 billion that has disappeared at the Federal Reserve....or doing a better job of teaching our children about this nations heritage....or improving our schools so we no longer fall behind other nations? Let's deal with really important issues. Let's give someone new a chance to clean up the mess we're in.
Jim C: Claudia L.: Excellent comment! All the issues you list are gravely important, and relevant to every American.
Jim C: As for the comment of Claudia L., our national debt is $16 TRILLION, not billion. The first ten trillion of that debt was accumulated during the entire previous history of the U.S. The additional six trillion was added during Pres. Obama's first three plus years in office. (A trillion is a thousand times more than a billion!)
Jim C: Michael G, Romney has no part in the management of Bain, though I think he owns some of its stock. Why I don't know all the details of Romney's personal finances is because I don't care much about them. As far as I'm concerned, it's absolutely irrelevant to his qualifications as President. I do believe though, that his general knowledge of finance, economics and business, as well as his past experience in those areas, is an important qualification for the Presidency. Frankly, I see no evidence that Pres. Obama has any experience in those areas. I don't say that to demean him - it's just a simple fact. Also, from all I've heard about Romney, he's an entirely good and decent man who truly cares about the country and its people. I have no resentment toward those who are financially successful.
Jim C: The
last paragraph of this article contains a fundamental, and common,
misconception about taxing the "wealthiest" Americans. It's the
"wealthy" who produce virtually all the goods and services we
Americans enjoy, as well as nearly all the jobs (which are needed to accomplish
such production). Overtaxing the "wealthy" results in less available
products, higher prices, and fewer jobs. Tax "cuts" reduce the
financial burden of business and industry and enable them to produce more and
better products, and hire more people in the process.
Michael G: I don’t think you can make that statement about Bain just yet with such assurances. So Strike No. 1. Your song and dance about not knowing and not caring about anything that patently makes mister mormon a cultish carboard cutout candidate a new representation of the HAL 9000 of the GOP. Strike No. 2. Of course you don’t care. Strike No. 3. He is part of the dominant sub-group and President Obama isn’t. You are a part of the new racism that isn’t overt about it but still measures those not part of the dominant sub-group through a different strainer. Strike No. 4. Your facile manner of waving off things of importance through practice and self-indulgence do not impress me. Strike No. 5. The country is not a business so your bona fides for Norquists puppet matter not. Strike No. 6. You see no evidence because you are a closed minded racist. Strike No. 7.
@Jim C coughs Overtaxing the "wealthy" results in less available products, higher prices, and fewer jobs.
That lie has been told for ages and is unfounded and you are insulting us by pretending that trickle down works. Working people buy products. Businesses make those products. If the people working for those businesses make good money they buy lots of products. If you pay people s--- they can’t buy the products so business either slows or moves elsewhere where there is a market. Pretending you are stupid and don’t know this is tedious and irritating.
Business owners and CEO’s are making 500 times what middle class workers when there were some were making. Ain’t no trickle down pard. That’s a fairy tale like much of what you have been writing while pretending to engage in discussion.
@Jim C coughs again Tax "cuts" reduce the financial burden of business and industry and enable them to produce more and better products, and hire more people in the process.
They don’t have a burden because they have been streamlining the workforce for so long it almost doesn’t exist. CEO’s and boards of directors and shareholders are the only folks making money. You are a troll for behaving otherwise.
Jim C: What was our "real evidence" of anything about Obama before his election? Romney had a good track record in business (restoring many failing businesses to financial soundness, leading to growth and, ultimately, more jobs). He also demonstrated his leadership ability by engineering the restoration of the Salt Lake Olympics, which may sound trivial but was in fact a monumental achievement. His governorship of Mass. has been often slighted, but he brought the state from a deep financial deficit that existed when he was elected, to a surplus when he left office. Did Obama have any such past achievements when he was elected?
Dr C, The number of people who now have jobs is smaller than when Obama took office. Obama inherited a recession from Bush, as Bush had inherited a recession from Clinton (Reagan inherited a deep recession from Carter, for that matter). Most recessions create a natural rebound in a fairly short amount of time. Bush's economy had received an additional blow from 9/11, but in a year or so the economy rebounded and for more than four years the economy experienced steady growth - the longest period of continuous economic growth in American history, so I've heard. The Bush economy turned bad at the end, because of the collapse of the housing market which was caused by a longstanding Democratic policy of promoting bad loans to minorities. There has been no (or very slow) economic rebound since Obama took office.
Michael G: Jim C you are now floundering on the beach, out of the water flopping around on the sand.
Your Mormon idiot ground up more as grist for the mill than he did restoring businesses. But you know this and in your facile way pretend otherwise. Your guy can’t square a circle. He’s now 9 points behind at least. He can’t even run a successful campaign even though he has received more money than the Obama campaign raised and still had to borrow 20 million. He bought his way into MA. And in spite of his monetary edge still looks the cardboard cutout candidate. And all you care about is replacing a president who has succeeded in steering us through a crisis the likes of which Romney, surrounded by the advisors of the prior 8 years of rape, looting and pillage which caused it with this puppet.
You are pathetic Jim C. You are as transparent as can be pretending otherwise.
Your denial that this wasn’t one of those most recessions is another illness your ideology causes you to suffer from. Time to turn the intellect back on instead of approving the campaign messages of the loser.
Jim C: Michael G, I've never understood what "trickle down" means. It was a slogan created by Reagan's enemies who tried to disparage his economic ideas by using that silly catch-phrase. It has nothing to do with free market economics, which Reagan supported. What does it matter that some are "richer" than others? No two people are exactly the same, and the attempts to use government power to make everyone "equal" has never resulted in anything but misery, in the long run. The fact is, the more successful a business is the more products and services it can produce, and the more jobs it necessarily creates. A failing business results in job losses. It's just basic reality.
Michael G: Well Jim C do some homework and study up on what trickle down is. I am not your errand boy, counselor or teacher. If you are going to show up here with your patronizing behavior attempting to twist the story perhaps you had better know what you are talking about. Your previous post had me thinking pretty clearly that you did understand trickle down.
Jim C: Michael G, It's true that workers making good money can buy more, but businesses can't pay those good wages unless they make money also. Overtaxing hurts both businesses and employees (who not only get lower wages when a business makes less money, but who are also taxed more when they get better wages). The more money government drains from both business and labor, the worse off everyone is. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against government as such, nor against taxation. It's just that government should be frugal and not tax any more than necessary to operate efficiently. Taxes shouldn't be used just to punish the "rich", or to enhance the power of the government. A "rich" government is more dangerous than "rich" people, in my opinion.
Jim C: Michael G.: Actually, I do know what "trickle down" is. It's a slogan concocted by Reagan's opponents to mock and discredit the value of economic freedom. In reality, it has no authentic economic meaning.
Michael G: I don’t think you can make that statement about Bain just yet with such assurances. So Strike No. 1. Your song and dance about not knowing and not caring about anything that patently makes mister mormon a cultish carboard cutout candidate a new representation of the HAL 9000 of the GOP. Strike No. 2. Of course you don’t care. Strike No. 3. He is part of the dominant sub-group and President Obama isn’t. You are a part of the new racism that isn’t overt about it but still measures those not part of the dominant sub-group through a different strainer. Strike No. 4. Your facile manner of waving off things of importance through practice and self-indulgence do not impress me. Strike No. 5. The country is not a business so your bona fides for Norquists puppet matter not. Strike No. 6. You see no evidence because you are a closed minded racist. Strike No. 7.
@Jim C coughs Overtaxing the "wealthy" results in less available products, higher prices, and fewer jobs.
That lie has been told for ages and is unfounded and you are insulting us by pretending that trickle down works. Working people buy products. Businesses make those products. If the people working for those businesses make good money they buy lots of products. If you pay people s--- they can’t buy the products so business either slows or moves elsewhere where there is a market. Pretending you are stupid and don’t know this is tedious and irritating.
Business owners and CEO’s are making 500 times what middle class workers when there were some were making. Ain’t no trickle down pard. That’s a fairy tale like much of what you have been writing while pretending to engage in discussion.
@Jim C coughs again Tax "cuts" reduce the financial burden of business and industry and enable them to produce more and better products, and hire more people in the process.
They don’t have a burden because they have been streamlining the workforce for so long it almost doesn’t exist. CEO’s and boards of directors and shareholders are the only folks making money. You are a troll for behaving otherwise.
Jim C: What was our "real evidence" of anything about Obama before his election? Romney had a good track record in business (restoring many failing businesses to financial soundness, leading to growth and, ultimately, more jobs). He also demonstrated his leadership ability by engineering the restoration of the Salt Lake Olympics, which may sound trivial but was in fact a monumental achievement. His governorship of Mass. has been often slighted, but he brought the state from a deep financial deficit that existed when he was elected, to a surplus when he left office. Did Obama have any such past achievements when he was elected?
Dr C, The number of people who now have jobs is smaller than when Obama took office. Obama inherited a recession from Bush, as Bush had inherited a recession from Clinton (Reagan inherited a deep recession from Carter, for that matter). Most recessions create a natural rebound in a fairly short amount of time. Bush's economy had received an additional blow from 9/11, but in a year or so the economy rebounded and for more than four years the economy experienced steady growth - the longest period of continuous economic growth in American history, so I've heard. The Bush economy turned bad at the end, because of the collapse of the housing market which was caused by a longstanding Democratic policy of promoting bad loans to minorities. There has been no (or very slow) economic rebound since Obama took office.
Michael G: Jim C you are now floundering on the beach, out of the water flopping around on the sand.
Your Mormon idiot ground up more as grist for the mill than he did restoring businesses. But you know this and in your facile way pretend otherwise. Your guy can’t square a circle. He’s now 9 points behind at least. He can’t even run a successful campaign even though he has received more money than the Obama campaign raised and still had to borrow 20 million. He bought his way into MA. And in spite of his monetary edge still looks the cardboard cutout candidate. And all you care about is replacing a president who has succeeded in steering us through a crisis the likes of which Romney, surrounded by the advisors of the prior 8 years of rape, looting and pillage which caused it with this puppet.
You are pathetic Jim C. You are as transparent as can be pretending otherwise.
Your denial that this wasn’t one of those most recessions is another illness your ideology causes you to suffer from. Time to turn the intellect back on instead of approving the campaign messages of the loser.
Jim C: Michael G, I've never understood what "trickle down" means. It was a slogan created by Reagan's enemies who tried to disparage his economic ideas by using that silly catch-phrase. It has nothing to do with free market economics, which Reagan supported. What does it matter that some are "richer" than others? No two people are exactly the same, and the attempts to use government power to make everyone "equal" has never resulted in anything but misery, in the long run. The fact is, the more successful a business is the more products and services it can produce, and the more jobs it necessarily creates. A failing business results in job losses. It's just basic reality.
Michael G: Well Jim C do some homework and study up on what trickle down is. I am not your errand boy, counselor or teacher. If you are going to show up here with your patronizing behavior attempting to twist the story perhaps you had better know what you are talking about. Your previous post had me thinking pretty clearly that you did understand trickle down.
Jim C: Michael G, It's true that workers making good money can buy more, but businesses can't pay those good wages unless they make money also. Overtaxing hurts both businesses and employees (who not only get lower wages when a business makes less money, but who are also taxed more when they get better wages). The more money government drains from both business and labor, the worse off everyone is. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against government as such, nor against taxation. It's just that government should be frugal and not tax any more than necessary to operate efficiently. Taxes shouldn't be used just to punish the "rich", or to enhance the power of the government. A "rich" government is more dangerous than "rich" people, in my opinion.
Jim C: Michael G.: Actually, I do know what "trickle down" is. It's a slogan concocted by Reagan's opponents to mock and discredit the value of economic freedom. In reality, it has no authentic economic meaning.
No comments:
Post a Comment