snood
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 06:52 am
@revelette,
revelette wrote:

Also misses the point. It is not that Romney is incredibly rich, its that his policies mostly favor the rich.


There's more than just one relevant "point" to be made about Romney's wealth. The size of it (he is in the .1% of the 1%), how he accumulated it, how it affects his world view and policies and other things are all relevant.
revelette
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 06:54 am
@snood,
true
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 10:35 am
@revelette,
What I'm not understanding is that their rhetoric is "we pay less taxes than everybody else, and we want more tax cuts, so you bozos can pay more," and they're winning that fight.

I think the American people have all lost their common sense, and gone crazy!

snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 10:50 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

What I'm not understanding is that their rhetoric is "we pay less taxes than everybody else, and we want more tax cuts, so you bozos can pay more," and they're winning that fight.

I think the American people have all lost their common sense, and gone crazy!




I know what you mean. It seems like they willingly choose to buy into the obvious lie that R&R (Romney and Ryan) are going to concern themselves with the needs of the average person.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 11:36 am
@snood,
I got a good laugh from your use of "R&R," because most military knows what that means! "They" want more of it while the rest of us pay for it. Mr. Green Drunk Drunk Drunk Drunk
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 01:20 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:
R&R (Romney and Ryan)

I think they should be called the Pie Boys. (Because pie are square)
roger
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 01:25 pm
@DrewDad,
No, pie are round. Cornbread are square.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 03:07 pm
@roger,
Romney's lies aren't being challenged by the right wing nuts.

He now uses a blackboard to show that Obama is cutting $716 billion from Medicare without explaining what or how those cuts are being made and used.

How does such a candidate in the US get away with such bull ****?

From PolitiFact.com.
Quote:
$700 billion from Medicare?

The claim that Obama cut $700 billion out of Medicare is relatively new. Not long ago, the oft-cited number was $500 billion. How did he manage to cut another $200 billion when no one was looking?

First things first: Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut a dollar amount from the Medicare program’s budget.

Rather, the health care law instituted a number of changes to try to bring down future health care costs in the program. At the time the law was passed, those reductions amounted to $500 billion over the next 10 years.

What kind of spending reductions are we talking about? They were mainly aimed at insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries. The law makes significant reductions to Medicare Advantage, a subset of Medicare plans run by private insurers. Medicare Advantage was started under President George W. Bush, and the idea was that competition among the private insurers would reduce costs. But in recent years the plans have actually cost more than traditional Medicare. So the health care law scales back the payments to private insurers.

Hospitals, too, will be paid less if they have too many re-admissions, or if they fail to meet other new benchmarks for patient care.

Obama and fellow Democrats say the intention is to protect beneficiaries' coverage while forcing health care providers to become more efficient.

Under the new law, the overall Medicare budget is projected to go up for the foreseeable future. The health care law tries to limit that growth, making it less than it would have been without the law, but not reducing its overall budget. So claims that Obama would "cut" Medicare need more explanation to be fully accurate. In the past, we’ve rated similar statements Half True or Mostly False, depending on the wording and context.

Because Medicare spending gets bigger every year, the cost-saving mechanisms in the health care law also get bigger. Also, it takes a few years for the health care law’s savings mechanisms to kick in. In fact, the effects of time are the main reason the $500 billion number has turned into $700 billion.

The CBO determined in 2011 that the federal health care law would reduce Medicare outlays by $507 billion between 2012 and 2021. In a more recent estimate released this year, the CBO looked at the years 2013 to 2022 and determined the health care law affected Medicare outlays by $716 billion.

So it’s timing that’s making the cuts bigger, not changes to Medicare.



Finn dAbuzz
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 04:20 pm
@snood,
Selective class warfare.

Obama's personal wealth is much greater than most of the people who will vote for him, but we should not consider him wealthy.

FDR and JFK (who apparently shouldn't be considered to have been wealthy) inherited great wealth and kept it. Romney, on the other hand, gave away all his inheritance and then made his own fortune, but apparently that's a dead give-a-way that he is a sinister Robber Baron lookin to put the chains back on y'all.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 04:23 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Romney, on the other hand, gave away all his inheritance and then made his own fortune

I love that one. Is that in Romney's tax returns as well?
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 04:24 pm
@cicerone imposter,
So, reducing the rate of growth is not the same as cuts, is that what you are saying?

That goes against what you and others were saying when Bush once tried to cut the rate of growth on Medicare.
The claim by the left then was that he was cutting Medicare, even though he wasn't.
So, if Bush was cutting Medicare by reducing the rate of growth, wouldn't Obama be doing the same thing?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 05:30 pm
@parados,
How do you think he ended up paying 13%? LOL

BTW, there are limits to annual charitable contributions.

The big question still remains, how did Romney accumulate all that wealth in his IRA? Contributions must be made from compensation, not investments.

Quote:
Regardless of the type of IRA you choose, the Federal government imposes annual contribution limits. The chart below shows the maximum dollar amount individuals are allowed to deposit into their IRA each year. After 2010, the contribution limit will raise in increments of $500 depending upon the level of inflation.
Deposits into your IRA do not have to be made at the same time. (For example: In the year 2010, a 35 year old woman could deposit $416.67 into her IRA each month. At the end of the year, it would add up to the maximum $5,000.)
parados
 
  3  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 07:59 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
So, reducing the rate of growth is not the same as cuts, is that what you are saying?

That goes against what you and others were saying when Bush once tried to cut the rate of growth on Medicare.

You are confusing cutting benefits with cutting the rate of growth.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/12/mitt-romney/romney-says-only-obama-has-cut-medicare/
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 10:29 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You don't understsand all the features of IRAs.

You can invest post tax dollars in an IRA witout limit. Later, when you withdraw funds you can withdraw the original post tax investment (principal only) tax free.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 10:52 pm
@georgeob1,
That would be a Roth?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 19 Aug, 2012 11:01 pm
@georgeob1,
Funny, I read this about Roth IRA's.

Quote:
Roth IRA Income Limits for 2012

The IRS tax regulations limit your ability to contribute to a Roth IRA also by using your MAGI. They have three different categories based on your filing status.

If you file your taxes as Married Filing Jointly or a Qualifying Widower in 2012 then your income (specifically, your MAGI) needs to be below $173,000 for you to be able to fully contribute to a Roth IRA. If your MAGI is between $173,000 and $183,000 then you are in the “phase-out” range and the amount you can contribute starts “phasing out”. At $183,000 you are unable to participate in the Roth IRA.

For those who file as Single, Head of Household, or Married Filing Separately (not living with your spouse) in 2012, your MAGI needs to be below $110,000 to fully contribute. Your phase out range is between $110,000 and $125,000.

Finally, for those of you who are filing Married Filing Separately (living with your spouse) in 2012, your MAGI needs to be $0. Your phase out range is between $0 and $10,000.


Also.
Quote:
Historical Roth IRA Income Limits

Every year, the income limits are evaluated against inflation and incomes to determine if a change is needed. In the past five years there has only been one instance where the limit did not change for the two major categories.

Year Married Filing Jointly or Qualifying Widower Married Filing Separately (lived with spouse) Single, Head of Household, or Married Filing Separately
2012 $173,000 - $183,000 $0 - $10,000 $110,000 - $125,000
2011 $169,000 - $179,000 $0 - $10,000 $107,000 - $122,000
2010 $167,000 - $177,000 $0 - $10,000 $105,000 - $120,000
2009 $166,000 - $176,000 $0 - $10,000 $105,000 - $120,000
2008 $159,000 - $169,000 $0 - $10,000 $101,000 - $116,000
2007 $156,000 - $166,000 $0 - $10,000 $99,000 - $114,000
2006 $150,000 - $160,000 $0 - $10,000 $95,000 - $110,000
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 09:55 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Selective class warfare.

Obama's personal wealth is much greater than most of the people who will vote for him, but we should not consider him wealthy.


Of course we should consider Obama wealthy; by any reasonable measure, he certainly is.

However, I am far more trusting of a wealthy guy who is looking to increase his own taxes, than I am one who is looking to lower his taxes.

It's purely obvious that Obama's wealth has come as a by-product of his success in other areas, whereas for Romney, the garnering of wealth is the DEFINITION of his success.

Regarding whether both of these men should be considered EQUALLY wealthy, I will say this: the gap between my personal net wealth, and Obama's, is far smaller than the gap between Obama's wealth and Romney's wealth - in terms of percentages as well as, of course, the massive pile of real-world dollars.

Cycloptichorn
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 04:21 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Looking to increase his own taxes?
So you know for a fact that Obama is not taking advantage of every deduction and every loophole he can to reduce his tax burden?
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 04:47 pm
@mysteryman,
If we just go by what we KNOW, and not speculation, we KNOW that Romney has to have had lawyers and accountants working overtime to get his taxes down to 13%.

and I WISH you guys would stop trying to pretend Obama's wealth in ANY way resembles Romney's.

Romney got money through venture capitalism - there is no product for sale; there were wounded companies that Romney and his ilk killed and divied up the carcasses.

Obama got the bulk of his money through book sales, and whatever investments he's made since.

And as for the character and predispositions of the two men, could you all PLEASE stop trying to act like it means nothing that Obama's first meaningful job was as a community organizer wherein he hung out and worked with and for POOR people. so, he can RELATE to people who have little or no money or power.

Romney was born rich and has been surrounded by the trappings of wealth and power all his life.

Does anyone actually believe these two men can relate to middle class and poor people equally as well, or that middle class and poor people have equal advocates in both these men?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Aug, 2012 05:09 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Looking to increase his own taxes?
So you know for a fact that Obama is not taking advantage of every deduction and every loophole he can to reduce his tax burden?


Perhaps he is, but he's also explicitly campaigning on raising those same taxes - both in terms of income rates paid by the highest marginal groups, and in terms of taxes on investment income.

It's the polar opposite of Romney/Ryan, who are explicitly campaigning on lowering Romney's taxes, both in terms of marginal income taxes and investment taxes.

Cycloptichorn
 

Related Topics

Why Romney Lost - Discussion by IRFRANK
Route to the sea. - Question by raprap
Two bad moments for Romney in second debate - Discussion by maxdancona
Romney vs. Big Bird - Discussion by maxdancona
Mitt Romney, the bane of Sesame Street - Discussion by DrewDad
It looks like it's Paul Ryan!!! - Discussion by maxdancona
Who will be Romney's running mate? - Discussion by Robert Gentel
When will Romney quit the race? - Discussion by edgarblythe
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Romney 2012?
  3. » Page 49
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 11:42:00