Posted by: kathysaysso at January 17, 2012 02:17 PM (ZtwUX)

Posted by: Beff J. at January 17, 2012 02:19 PM (2/dVc)

I beg to differ, sir. [Sound of slab of meat hitting the floor]

Posted by: Wodeshed at January 17, 2012 02:22 PM (SgLsM)

Strive to make more money.  Everyone will benefit in the process.

that Bush's idea of compassionate conservatism was born first of his sense of noblesse oblige

That's great, but this idea that by paying more in taxes you're "helping society" more is silly and obscene.

The federal government can't do honest accounting, make worthwhile financial projections or inventory its assests.

It is time for an adult conversation about taxation and the value of government services and running from the "class warfare" angle is not a good start.

Finally, I find it ridiculous that we're not supposed to care about "what goes on in the bedroom" but apparently we should care what is in someone's bank account (or tax return).

Posted by: Vic at January 17, 2012 02:21 PM (YdQQY)

You cannot possibly believe that the Peggy Josephs of the world will comprehend that.  I mean, you're right and all that, but c'mon.

When Romney came in and spoke to The Wall Street Journal recently, he said that “someone with my background can’t make an argument for cutting taxes on wealthy individuals.”

Huh?

But it is perfectly ok for "someone with his background" to argue for higher taxes on wealthy individuals?

It is time for an adult conversation about taxation and the value of government services and running from the "class warfare" angle is not a good start.

Finally, I find it ridiculous that we're not supposed to care about "what goes on in the bedroom" but apparently we should care what is in someone's bank account (or tax return).

Posted by: Jay at January 17, 2012 02:23 PM (be3Jh)

John Steele Gordon had an outstanding post about this kind of issue the other month on the Commentary blog -- I think he was riffing on the Buffett tax-squawking, but the parameters are about the same. 

Basically this is an argument for a flat tax, and all that flows therefrom (both in argument terms and in tax terms) about the fiscal future of the Republic.

Obviously not for purposes of debating style instruction, but for purposes of debate-point content itself, some attempt ought to be made to get Perry in a quiet room together with Romney to discuss precisely how to turn this matter to Romney's advantage in the public discourse.  Without trying to rattle through 59-odd points or so.

 What obama is not rich? Oh I guess obama worked for it? but evil Republicans don't?

Obama made his money the Proper Way.  He went the whole non-profit, NGO, community organizing route.  That money is nice and pure and untainted by evil private enterprise.  It's fine to be a 1%er if you made the money the Proper Way. 

Much like how the Leaf runs on shiny shiny electricity that comes from unicorn farts and not from coal/oil/nuclear power. 

Posted by: ontherocks at January 17, 2012 02:28 PM (ZJCDy)

Yeah. I'm also wondering if taking the Senate and keeping the House might be the best we can do. If so, we'll see many, many more assaults on the constitution in SCOAMF II, Tyrannical Boogaloo.

You know who else has a shitload of money? Who else makes beaucoup bucks from speaker's fees? Bill Clinton, that's who. That SOB came to town with pocket change and left a wealthy "man".

You know who needs to join Clinton on the circuit? Toonces, that's who.

If you want to avoid noblesse oblige it's probably necessary to avoid the noblesse in the first place.

If you want to avoid the noblesse, you need to put up some decent candidates against them.

It's a shame that Cowboys are so unpopular with the American public.

Our ratings might have been better if people didn't hate Cowboys so much. We should have made our show about a Venture Capitalist. They are the ones who come to the rescue when someone is in trouble. Everybody knows that.

I would love for anyone to ask SCOAMF why taxes need to be higher.

What value isn't the federal government delivering at $3.5 trillion a year?

Bonus question: Why can't the federal government operate on $2.2 trillion per year?

Mitt Romney donated roughly $600K to the shitty commonwealth of Massachusetts by forefeiting his salary.

Good point. Which means it really isn't about "giving back" to the left, it is about jealousy and envy.

Oh, and thanks for reminding me of how much Deval Patrick makes.

Ugh.

Unfortunately, Romney is correct.  It will be very difficult for him to make the argument that the rich should pay less.  That is unfair for sure.  And we would all like it if the messenger didn't matter, but it does.  It would have been better if he had been a self-made millionare, rather than inheriting a bunch - or at least having been given a good start.  Again, unfair and shouldn't matter. 

All that being said, he should argue for what he believes is right.  I don't like his class warfare type argument for having different capital gains rates.  I really don't like it if he is doing it out of guilt or because he believes he cannot advance the agenda that it should be $0 for all.  But if he does believe it should be $0 for all, then make the argument.  Sure they will say it only benefits him, but be honest.  Stop pandering.  He should know that conservatives will rally to him when it comes to honest conservative arguments.  The Bain attacks show that.  Stop pandering Mitt.  Take a hard position.  Hard in that the other side will be critical of you.  When they say were taxed at a 15% (which does sound low to many), tell them what the actual dollar amount of taxes you paid were (which probably sounds high to many).  

Slightly off topic, but that commercial makes me nuts.  You just pull up to some free electric plug out on the street corner?  Who the Hell pays for that electricity? 

Oh, yeah, that drives me nuts as well.  Suuuuuure those are going to stay free.  Yup.  Hell, didn't some city just yank out all the free chargers?

I was addressing ace and the Moron hoard, I figured they would understand. I doubt if Peggy Joeseph knows anything other than how to copy her name from a signature card onto the back of a welfare check.

Posted by: Vic at January 17, 2012 02:25 PM (YdQQY)

It would be fantastic if more people understand the difference between marginal and effective rates.  That's something I was discussing with my parents about evaluating cost of living.  You have to take into account some non-obvious things, like not only the rate of taxation but what is taxed.  It's still shocking to me to pay tax on food and clothes. 

Posted by: carl at January 17, 2012 02:39 PM (QocR4)

Because Mittens will fold like a cheap suit.  Look at how stupidly he handled Bain, to begin with, and that was minor league action.

When the non-taxpayers reach 51% of the population, then the rest of us, the actual taxpayers, are fucked.  This has been their plan all along.  What we're witnessing is the rapidly accelerating downward spiral into full blown socialism.

15%?  I wish it were only 5%. 

noblesse oblige

Oh Ace...its so cute when you speak Spanish. Guess its a good thing daddy doesn't Habla Espaniola.

Posted by: Vic at January 17, 2012 02:47 PM (YdQQY)

What's this effective vs. real tax shit? 

Rate.  Effective vs. marginal rate.  No one is saying it's not all taxes, the discussion is what effective percentage are you paying post deductions vs. what percentile bracket you are in based upon your income pre-deductions. 

Let's get the term for taxes straight here.  Everything that the government takes away from what one earns is a fucking tax. 

I sincerely doubt anyone here disagrees with that.  If anything, the argument would be whether to include fees as taxes when making the calculations. 

Well, class warfare is at the heart of what this election is all about, so maybe this isn't such a bad thing. From what I've seen lately, Romney does a decent job of defending capitalism. Paul and Gingrich (despite some recent antics) seem to do better at it, but Romney's OK.

Gingrich did a great job of making Juan Williams (and the Left in general) look like the complete asses that they are in one question he answered last night. It was in reference to he prior comments about food stamps and school kids possibly doing light maintenance at their schools, where Juan suggested that the comments were "insulting". Gingrich took it on directly, and was unapologetic, starting off with his daughter having had a similar job in her youth. If it were me, I might have told Juan that HIS comment is insulting to janitors, and contemptuous of the useful work that they do, but Gingrich dug more into the positivity of actually doing work and getting paid for it. What a concept!.

Reminds me of a Kung Fu episode, where some a-hole gives Kane an attitude about Kane's job, which is sweeping the floor. Kane understood the dignity (and dare I say morality) of useful work, and unapologetic, unembarrassed, and a little surprised by the jerk's comments.

Posted by: soothsayer at January 17, 2012 02:48 PM (sqkOB)

LOL.  Probably a bit too prescient, though.  It's where we're headed.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at January 17, 2012 02:42 PM (RI0fC)

I am in your camp too. The SCFOAMF has spooked the herd. Why all the record setting gun purchases, at this time? Wouldn't the American public have set an astronomical gun sales  record following some obvious threat like 911? Why now?

Because people are scared and it is The SCFOAMF that scared them. He is going to lose.

I'm beginning to believe now that part of what the whole "Buffet tax" thing was last year was about Romney because they knew that Romney would probably be the nom.  I wouldn't be surprised if they (the Dems) knew what Romney's tax rate was, and so they began to set the seeds very early, with the Buffet tax and then OWS. Oh, these Dems, they are tricksy.

But, I think Romney will lose the election because of this.  Seriously. And, especially because, if this is the strategy, they've made sure that Obama is paying MORE, or a higher percentage than what he's supposed to (and he probably upped his amount to charities, so that it's more than what Romney pays). I'd bet my house on it. Tricksy.

Posted by: Vic at January 17, 2012 02:47 PM (YdQQY)

You've just made my point.  A tax is a tax is a tax is a tax.  The government is forcibly taking it away from me, no matter what the fuck they call it. 

Posted by: The Robot Devil at January 17, 2012 02:49 PM (136wp)

As it should be, as capital gains are WEALTH, not income.  One risks losing money pursuing capital gains.

Let's be honest, so long as we have progressive rates we are never going to "win" this argument with certain groups of people.  Rates for wealthy will rise and fall - depending on the economy, the mood of the electorate, etc.  It will be very difficult to raise rates for the middle class - though we all know that is what the Dems would like to do.  But by continuing the prgressive rate structure, we have acknowledged that the "wealthy" should pay more.  Once acknowledged, it is difficult to convince people that the "more" should only be 5%.  Because if the wealthy should pay 5% more, then why not 10%.

We may never get a flat rate, but that is the argument we should be making.  Because while we may not get a flat rate, we can get a flatter rate.  We need to make the argument that saving and investing should be tax free - i.e., 0% capital gain rate. 

We need to make the argument that corporations do not pay income taxes, they are passed on to consumers and employees.  We may never get a 0% corporate tax rate, but we may get a lower one. 

Mitt's differing capital gain rate structure does not help in this regard.  If the middle class and wealthy should have different capital gain rates, then why shouldn't the wealthy pay more in income taxes too?

Take heart, people. Romney may not be anybody's perfect candidate, but he seems to really have his s**t together as far as his campaign, and doesn't make a lot of mistakes. This sort of thing is an obvious issue, and I would be really surprised if it isn't part of the plan.

On the one hand, why tell the world about your finances if you're not going to be the nominee? On the other hand, your party needs to know what it's getting itself into.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 17, 2012 02:53 PM (f9c2L)

That's horseshit and you know it.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at January 17, 2012 02:58 PM (RI0fC)

Posted by: Dave in Fla at January 17, 2012 02:55 PM (RI0fC)

One zombie Apocalypse coming up!

Posted by: cvb at January 17, 2012 03:02 PM (HRFxR)

Stop dating women you meet @ Appleby's. Aim higher and you can be rich, too!

I thought Newt's line last night evoking the Declaration and then saying, get a job, get a better job, and then own the job was excellent.  Has all the markings of a notable campaign line.  Reminds me of Regans three part line ending in "recovery is when Carter loses his job."

I wonder if he wrote that and when.  Has it been used in his stump speeches and I just haven't heard it?  I suspect it will moving forward. 

That is one of Mitt's liabilities.  He doesn't have - or has not yet delivered any good campaign lines.  Something that would make Peggan Noonan swoon.  (Cough - I threw up a little writing that). 

A candidate should have more, of course, but a good candidate does deliver those kind of lines.  Mitt hast not - at least that I can recall.  

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 17, 2012 03:02 PM (3wBRE)

Not yet.  If Mitt is the nominee, he needs to wait until the general, then challenge Barky to do the same.  The same goes for any of Romney's past written personal records.  Challenge the SCAOMT to reciprocate on every bit of information demanded of our nominee.   

  I'd have to believe that Romney's charitable contributions are extensive.  Not only is the man by all accounts a devout Mormon, presumably inclined to charity, but in a tactical sense he HAD to know that this line of inquiry would be coming.  I'm starting to think that he's going to drop the charity hammer in the general.

Posted by: Wodeshed at January 17, 2012 03:01 PM (SgLsM)

Yup.  That's why he used the word "effective" very deliberately.  It's going to be hysterical when he releases his 2011 return and all there is is a gigantic charitable deduction and the rest of his income taxed at the regular rate.

Posted by: Vic at January 17, 2012 03:07 PM (YdQQY)

Then that's what he needs to be saying.  It might wake people up as to how much of their money is going to a bunch of bureaucrats just sitting around picking their noses. 

Posted by: Greg at January 17, 2012 02:50 PM (Q5a2p)

Hey Greg the dumbass is here. His last great prediction was that there would only be 180,000 votes cast in the NH primaries, les than in 2008.

How did that turn out? 247,000 votes. A new record.

Greg shows the typical intellligence of an Obama supporter.

Posted by: Henry Gomez at January 17, 2012 03:05 PM (ncBJb)

PE guys don't get salary, they get partnership income from the company which it earns in fees and dividends from the companies it runs - which are paid out of post-tax income.  None of it is regular income, because it is all at risk if the company's investments fail.  That's why the IIRS ruled that their income should be taxed as capital gains.

34 ALL income needs to be treated the same.. doesn't matter how you acquire it.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at January 17, 2012 02:27 PM (f9c2L)

You’re right, all income should be treated the same – untaxed.

The only way solve all the problems is to go to the Fair Tax and stop interfering with the freedom and privacy of the individual.

@159.  I agree.  I really see no reason for Romney to release his income tax returns, but that is because it will not make any difference to me. Unless there are donations to planned parenthood - I just don't care.  That being said, it may be relevant to others, and if so they should ask for him to release his returns.  If the primary were closer, he might have been forced to.  And still may, I guess. But so long as he is the likely nominee, the better political strategy is to keep them private until Obama and the media ask for him to release them.  Then he can ask Obama to release his student records.  My guess is neither the media nor Obama will ask him to release such records, because it will not be necessary.  Mitt is already the rich capitalist.  The media can ask now, but in the context as part of the GOP primary.

Posted by: Greg at January 17, 2012 03:16 PM (2Y56z)

Posted by: soothsayerreport2012 at January 17, 2012 03:14 PM (sqkOB)

He's just trying to earn his Chicken McNuggets.

Posted by: Greg at January 17, 2012 03:10 PM (Q5a2p)

Well Greg since your predictions are usually 30% light that would put Walker right at 1.1 Million votes. That sounds about right.

Posted by: joncelli, too stressed by half at January 17, 2012 03:16 PM (RD7QR)

That's not true at all. I am indeed a Concerned Christian Conservative and I'm only trying to warn fellow cons, er, conservatives what the political future holds.

I also like to pop a squat over a punchbowl. That part is true.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 17, 2012 03:19 PM (i6RpT)

Delayed-reaction Friday the 13th. However, in compensation you get to have three days for St. Patrick's Day.

Posted by: Greg at January 17, 2012 03:16 PM (2Y56z)

Who is this, Miss Cleo of Psychic Friends Network?  Prevaricating prognostication and oral masturbation in one sentence is the hallmark of liberalism.  Get a job bitch!

I think not taxing investment income plays well with a certain segment of the population - OLD PEOPLE who rely on investment income, and who have been hammered in the past 10 years.  You know what OLD PEOPLE do, they vote.  You know who else might like not taxing investment income.  Boomers who are about to retire.  You know what there are a lot of - Boomers.  Let's make the argument that they will be better off if investment income is not taxed. 

You know who will not like it - Young people.  They are unreliable voters.  Trying to convince them is not worthwhile, because they will not believe you.  They know better than you.  But they may not vote at all.  Voting for Obama is so 2008.  They will understand one day why investment income should not be taxed.  But they first need to earn income to have some investments.

Greg did call the Wisconsin Supreme Court race right though.

What's the name of that new justice again Greg? The democrats ground game at its finest.

Posted by: Greg at January 17, 2012 03:20 PM (2Y56z)

You're rooting for the financial demise of Wisconsin?  Weird....

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 17, 2012 03:19 PM (i6RpT)

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 17, 2012 03:15 PM (SY2Kh)

You're looking at the situation from the wrong side, entirely.  You are viewing taxation as a tool instead of its actual purpose of funding the government.  Fairness being expressed in the taxes being uniformly applied, which progressive taxation is specifically against, arguing that certain people "should" be paying more ... in absolute dollars and then in percentage terms. 

It's just another case of leftists fashioning laws that are targeted for DISPARATE IMPACT ...  yeah ... the same people who try to stop groups like Connecticut firefighters from giving objective tests, because of the DISPARATE IMPACT, though not of any intention, at all.

"and without regard to any census or enumeration."

just sayin' ...

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 17, 2012 03:27 PM (i6RpT)

Does she like Chicken McNuggets?

Lord knows that John Kerry's billions made him a pariah. He couldn't make any kind of class warfare argument. No way, no how!

It did hurt him. Even republicans used it against him.

Don't you remember the windsurfing picture? Who windsurfs, who does not yacht? He was certainly caricatured that way.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 17, 2012 03:27 PM (i6RpT)

Dude? Why are you bogarting whatever it is you are smoking? Pass it around so we can all see fairies, unicorns, and other fantasies come to life.

At least now we know what's powering the Leaf.

I am against the carried interest rate of 15%. I think it's a ripoff and a give away to wallstreeters that have none of their own money invested.

The capital gains rate of 15% is different in that you have money at risk. You can either win or lose money when you invest. Look at homes for example. If you lose money in the stock market you can only take a $3 K loss per year deduction, it doesn't matter how much you lost in excess of that during the year.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 17, 2012 03:27 PM (i6RpT)

Sounds like Greg's girlfriend.

You're rooting for the financial demise of Wisconsin?  Weird....

Posted by: Tami at January 17, 2012 03:24 PM (X6akg)

And with unbridled enthusiasm, even.

It's what selfish assholes do!

The capital gains rate of 15% is different in that you have money at risk. You can either win or lose money when you invest. Look at homes for example. If you lose money in the stock market you can only take a $3 K loss per year deduction, it doesn't matter how much you lost in excess of that during the year.

Posted by: robtr at January 17, 2012 03:30 PM (MtwBb)

That's why so many people, including myself, took such bad hits in 2009.

@218.  That argument works well with @216.  If you put your own money at risk, then you should not pay taxes on it when it earns income.  You should not be able to deduct any losses (limited to $3,000 anyway, so no big loss).  Correspondingly, you can then tax carried interest.

Now taxing carried interest would change the tax affect of billions of dollars of investment deals in place in this country. So let's be mindful of it. 

But I think the general point is worthwhile, if you risk your own capital, it should not be taxed.  You are already paying Ron Paul's favorite tax anyway - the inflation tax. 

Posted by: Vic at January 17, 2012 03:32 PM (YdQQY)

You're right, of course and I find it better to channel that angry energy into mocking them.

Posted by: Greg at January 17, 2012 03:35 PM (2Y56z)

Posted by: Vic at January 17, 2012 03:32 PM (YdQQY)

You're right, of course and I find it better to channel that angry energy into mocking them.

Posted by: ErikW at January 17, 2012 03:36 PM (26eIS)

That's the nice thing about Gerg -- he's both persistently wrong and persistently persistent. You always now that you'll be able to taunt him a second time.

Posted by: Wodeshed at January 17, 2012 02:22 PM (SgLsM)

Strive to make more money.  Everyone will benefit in the process.

Posted by: really ... at January 17, 2012 02:23 PM (X3lox)

Or have kids...or, more kids.  Single with no dependents and throwing in state income tax, Medicare and SS I paid in $17,200 (26.5%).

Posted by: Greg at January 17, 2012 03:35 PM (2Y56z)

Uhmm dumbass, you were declaring victory before the votes were counted on this very blog the night of the election. Prosser did dispute your the dem dummy that you ran. He said he would wait until the votes were counted to see who actually won.

I think he also disputed her idiotic claim when he was sworn into office again after defeating  her soundly.

A troll? Where is he? Huh, where is he? Lemme at him. I had a rough day at work and I'd like nothing better than to eviscerate a troll right before supper.

It won't spoil my appetite, really it won't.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 17, 2012 03:32 PM (i6RpT)

I guess that rules Greg out then.  He's still driving his severely dented 1973 Ford LTD.  Now that I think about it, Greg probably couldn't pick up a jonesing crack ho.   

It's time for Perry to drop out and throw his support to Newt.  Even in Texas, he's coming in third.  All he can do now is help hand the nomination to Romney.

 He has no job that produces ordinary income

See!  Don't forget, I'm unemployed just like so many other Americans struggling to get by these days.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 17, 2012 03:44 PM (SY2Kh)

That's beyond ridiculous.  I mean, really.

 Arguing with "greg"is useless. He is either a sock or about as dumb as a creosote post. Either way you are wasting time.
 

Post 231 as exhibit A

Since I got here late, I suppose somebody upthread already mentioned how Mitt's giving the SCOAMF ammunition.

While there's nothing wrong with paying as little as possible in taxes (everybody does it), Mitt's actually using a real, live number.

The only time leftards even comprehend the use of numbers is so they jump up and down and scream, "That's too much!!!!111" or "That's not enough!!111!1"

Mitt's got to learn to start qualifying everything he says, because the SCOAMF's going to use it against him every time. If Mitt always follows up with a few facts, then he can always point back to the SCOAMF and say that he obviously didn't hear the rest of his statement, and then proceed to launch back.

MiketheMoose.  I know exactly what my effective rates are.  I can tell you they are more than 15%. Not much.  I was going to add this point earlier, but I'll add it now.  Most people's effective rate tops off at 18% regardless of what the income tax rates are.  I think this is interesting because historically spending has been about 18% of GDP - before the Obama administration that is.  I don't think it is conicidence that those two rates are about the same.

If you add state and local taxes, they are quite a bit higher than 15%. 

But you are right, very few people have an effective rate that exceeds 20%.  One reason why I like Newt's 15% flat tax over Perry's 20% (though I think Perry keeps the mortgage deduction and charitable contribution - defeating the purpose of the flat tax).  If someone comes out in favor of 10% flat tax, or dare I say it, a 9% rate, I might support them.

Mitt's got to learn to start qualifying everything he says, because the SCOAMF's going to use it against him every time. If Mitt always follows up with a few facts, then he can always point back to the SCOAMF and say that he obviously didn't hear the rest of his statement, and then proceed to launch back.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy, CEO Curmudgeons INC. at January 17, 2012 03:55 PM (d0Tfm)

You're forgetting.  The MFM will give Barky as long as he wishes to talk about whatever is being talked about.  They'll give our nominee ten second soundbites.

maybe 2% at most will be spent by the government on anything remotely productive.

I don't think that the military accounts for 2% of that 15%. 

Posted by: Waterhouse at January 17, 2012 03:58 PM (Br7O6)

Very much so.

I'm not rich, but 15% seems like a plenty high rate for anyone to pay. Of that 15%, I figure maybe 2% at most will be spent by the government on anything remotely productive.

IIRC, Russia instituted a flat tax a few years back, around 13%. Their revenues went up considerably.

A flat tax here of 12% across the board with no deductions (or 14% and keep the mortgage deduction) and a balanced budget amendment that limits it to absolutely no more than 80% of GDP would go an awfully long way towards getting and keeping us prosperous and free. Lower numbers would be even better.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 17, 2012 04:01 PM (i6RpT)

And the Kurds were the only reliable allies the US had in Iraq.  They are also the ones about to be the most screwed.  They sit on too much oil.

My biggest beefs with the US tax system:

1.  Why are employers responsible for withholding and paying taxes?

2.  Why do paystubs not show the employer portion of FICA taxes that the employee is receiving (for that matter, why not show all employee costs, such as healthcare)?

3.  Why do corporations, businesses pay any taxes at all? 

Can anyone make a philisophical argument in favor of any of those (well at least 1 and 3), 2 is just something I think employers should show their employees so they get a better sense of the true cost of employing them.

And the Kurds were the only reliable allies the US had in Iraq.  They are also the ones about to be the most screwed.  They sit on too much oil.

Posted by: really ... at January 17, 2012 04:04 PM (X3lox)

Hmmmm.  I thought the Kurds were sitting on the world's supply of cottage cheese. 

I got a new unifying theory regarding R candidates, past and present.  My two stars are Newt and Huckleberry.  Both demonstrably hate them some Romney.  Both have their supporters scratching their heads over some of the stuff they said about Mitt.  Both these guys have gone after Mitt in ways that had/might have the effect of killing their own political futures, all in the service of trying to derail the Mitt train.

They know something we don't.  Something about Mitt that they find so intolerable, they do not want to see him win the White House.  Even willing to kill their own chances of winning, that's how bad they want to keep Mitt out. 

What could it be???

Posted by: sandy burger at January 17, 2012 04:00 PM (ErTq7)

Yes! Gingrich would treat the press pool like they're fucking idiots which is exactly what they deserve.

Newt Gingrich would make a fantastic Press Secretary.

I thought that was the Horde consensus.

God, I miss Tony Snow. 

Yes! Gingrich would treat the press pool like they're fucking idiots which is exactly what they deserve.

Posted by: ErikW at January 17, 2012 04:08 PM (26eIS)

If I was the President I would eliminate the "WH Press" and throw them out.

I don't see how making $362,000 a year just for talking about how much money he made through "creative destruction", i.e. buying firms and firing (formerly) middle class workers, could possibly create any kind of issue in the general election.

It's just capitalism, that's all. Once it's explained that way, everything should be just fine.

I think we're golden.

They know something we don't.  Something about Mitt that they find so intolerable, they do not want to see him win the White House.  Even willing to kill their own chances of winning, that's how bad they want to keep Mitt out. 

What could it be???

Posted by: BurtTC at January 17, 2012 04:07 PM (TOk1P)

Good hair?

Posted by: SH at January 17, 2012 03:59 PM (gmeXX)

I'm OK with deductions that are taken by a huge proportion of the population (i.e., mortgage interest).  You can't monkey around with peoples' financial expectations like that.

I think a simple solution is: If 10% of taxpayers don't take a deduction, it must be eliminated for the next year.

As to Romney, since he's a Mormon, I think he probably takes a huge number of deductions due to charities.  

Also, does this include payroll taxes?  (BTW, that's part of the trick that Buffett uses to argue that his secretary pays a higher rate.)

Way OT, but would like some advice.  I asked my commie senator from Florida if he supported Obamao making appointments while the senate is in session.  Based on his response below, do I follow-up and advise him I don't like being treated like a dummy or just consider the source and let it slide?  I did not ask him how recess appointments work.

  Thank you for contacting me in regards to recess appointments.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at January 17, 2012 03:51 PM (0q2P7)

Good point.  I have to look at my taxes, but I'm single and deduct mortgage interest and make about 75K.  I'll bet I paid about 11K in taxes.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 17, 2012 04:03 PM (SY2Kh)

Er ... the flat tax is pretty popular and it hasn't even been argued correctly.

Percentage represents the unit of financial "fairness" in every transaction similar to government taxation (without the force the government brings with its side, of course).  Therefore, it would be, and very much IS, normal to view fairness in taxation as a percentage expression.  Progressives, in their very name and label for the taxation, say that "percentage" is not a financial measure of fairness, but "need" is.  Well, that sort of thinking is repulsive to your average American.  And when it comes down to personal expenses, many normal people suddenly realize how UNFAIR and ridiculous the idea that percentage == financial fairness, but opposite to the progressive solution.  A lawyer does no work that could be fairly rated as being attached to a percentage of the judgment.  It's beyond silly, especially when class-action suits have brought in insane judgments in a quirky way.  People start to realize that fairness is a monotonically decreasing function - it goes DOWN as the value goes up.

There are thousands of ways of arguing these points and the "fairness" - though I wouldn't even address that part, as "fairness" has nothing to do with it, uniformity is the important concept in taxation - and getting normal people to like a flat tax and appreciate it.

Posted by: Jean at January 17, 2012 04:12 PM (WkuV6)

This is AOSHQ. You're not supposed to be beating your drum.

God, I miss Tony Snow. 

Posted by: alexthechick at January 17, 2012 04:08 PM (VtjlW)

I do too.  He had a calming affect.  He had a way of putting everything into the exact proper perspective.  Not only do I miss him as press secretary, but also when he'd fill in for Rush as guest host. 

Yes! Gingrich would treat the press pool like they're fucking idiots which is exactly what they deserve.

Posted by: ErikW at January 17, 2012 04:08 PM (26eIS)

I think that Rumsfeld remains one of the greatest in that respect, ever.

Posted by: sandy burger at January 17, 2012 04:11 PM (ErTq7)

Very well put.

Posted by: Turd Ferguson at January 17, 2012 04:10 PM (WUWb9)

And do you know why Nelson's form letter included that phrase?

Because the Democrats in Congress did EXACTLY what the Republicans are doing now.  They seemed to think that it was enough to block recess appointments back then.

The point of recess appointments was to avoid having to call Congress back into session when they had taken their horses and wagons back to their home states, not to circumvent a perfectly legal process.

Congress is blocking these appointments for a reason, so Obama should instead...I don't know...maybe negotiate?

If I was the President I would eliminate the "WH Press" and throw them out.

Posted by: Vic at January 17, 2012 04:09 PM (YdQQY)

It would be fun to nuke that.

Schedule a presser, tell them they're all a bunch of lying, useless assholes and then tell them to get the fuck out. Then turn it into a pool hall.

"Here's the problem with nominating a rich guy: He's so vulnerable on the class-warfare stuff he has to preemptively surrender on it some."

Which comes first: the rich candidate or the class-warfare stuff?

313 Turd:  In his response to me, Nelson also had the balls to say that Obama's appointments were legal and reasonable.  As you say, our commie senator.  I am so looking forward to working for his challenger and voting against him (Nelson) in Nov.  I told him that back in 2010.

The rich people I know pay much more than 15%. The "rich" paid the most during the Clinton years. 39+%. + + +

Something about the warren buffet level rich. They only pay 15%.