Bill Kristol on Romney's taxes...

[kallend 1,623]

Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol on Monday admitted that it was “kinda weird” that presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s tax rate was only around 13 percent when most middle-class people paid significantly more.

“The custom over the last 20-30 years, I suppose, has been to release at least a couple years of tax returns,” the neoconservative pundit told C-SPAN. “If you know you’re running for president anyway, I think it’s just part of the price of running. … Obama did so Romney probably should do it.”

“Look, it’s an interesting debate about what tax rates people should pay, how progressive the tax code should be,” he continued. “I personally, if I were designing the tax code, would have a tax code in which Mitt Romney paid more than 13 percent, I would say, given what I know about the kind of investments he made money from.”

msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Video/__NEW/n_wag_4fed_120821.video-260x195.jpg

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 3]

If he's lost Kristol...

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[RonD1120 58]

It is not illegal to avoid paying taxes only to evade paying taxes.

I am far more concerned with with BHO has done and will do with my money then what Romney does with his.

Romney is the only one of the two that understands efficient and effective financial management.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[quade 3]

Quote

Romney is the only one of the two that understands efficient and effective financial management.

If history is any indication, what Romney believes is you can make more money destroying companies, than keeping them running.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Romney is the only one of the two that understands efficient and effective financial management.

If history is any indication, what Romney believes is you can make more money destroying companies, than keeping them running.

What Romney believes changes according to the way the wind is blowing.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I am far more concerned with with BHO has done and will do with my money then what Romney does with his.

Last time I checked, BHO does not do anything with your money. He spends our money as Congress directs. It ceases being your money when it is owed and paid in taxes.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Bertt 0]

A little off the subject, but the Democrats are not doing themselves any favors by continuing to worry about Romney's taxes. This line of attack just makes white people in Kansas think Obama doesn't like rich people.
Democrats should praise Romney for the good work he did as governor of Massachusetts and the courageous positions he took as a moderate Republican when he opposed Ted Kennedy for the Senate - signed an assault weapons ban; instituted universal health care for the state; said that he believes all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of sexual orientation...

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I am far more concerned with with BHO has done and will do with my money then what Romney does with his.

Last time I checked, BHO does not do anything with your money. He spends our money as Congress directs. It ceases being your money when it is owed and paid in taxes.

You mean he uses the budgets from the last 3 years?

[billvon 2,396]

>A little off the subject, but the Democrats are not doing themselves any favors
>by continuing to worry about Romney's taxes. This line of attack just makes white
>people in Kansas think Obama doesn't like rich people.

Given that almost 2/3 of Americans would also like him to release his tax returns, I don't think it's hurting them. Although it's probably also not helping them, since 3/4 of Americans think that campaigns are getting too negative overall.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Quote

I am far more concerned with with BHO has done and will do with my money then what Romney does with his.

Last time I checked, BHO does not do anything with your money. He spends our money as Congress directs. It ceases being your money when it is owed and paid in taxes.

Right, so why is there so much useless banter about Romney's money?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[billvon 2,396]

>Right, so why is there so much useless banter about Romney's money?

Same reason there's useless banter over Obama's birth certificate, college transcripts etc.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

>Right, so why is there so much useless banter about Romney's money?

Same reason there's useless banter over Obama's birth certificate, college transcripts etc.

Yep, you are right on. I hope and pray the debates bring out something substantial.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It ceases being your money when it is owed and paid in taxes.

So then, you agree that an increase in taxes decreases the amount of money that "you" would have?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[marks2065 0]

Quote

Quote

Romney is the only one of the two that understands efficient and effective financial management.

If history is any indication, what Romney believes is you can make more money destroying companies, than keeping them running.

he didn't destroy companies, he divided and sold off the unprofitable ones. what about the ones that prospered? why no talk about that? the tens of thousands that have jobs thanks to Bain capital? being a financial person the companies came to him for help and many jobs were saved and many lost. but not because of Romney but because the company was not profitable. Romney ran Bain capital not the companies that came to bain for assistance.

[billvon 2,396]

>he didn't destroy companies, he divided and sold off the unprofitable ones. what
>about the ones that prospered?

Ask yourself the same thing. The US solar industry is doing very well; growing at 75% a year. Why does the GOP fixate on Solyndra?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

It ceases being your money when it is owed and paid in taxes.

So then, you agree that an increase in taxes decreases the amount of money that "you" would have?

No. It may or may not have that result. It's entirely plausible that an increase in taxes results in a corresponding savings in private expenditures such that the amount of savings exceeds the amount of tax increase. In such a case, an increase in taxes would increase the amount of money that I have.

For example, if taxes were increased enough to fully fund Medicare for all, it is probable that the average person would save more by not buying equivalent care from the private sector than that person would spend in increased taxes. Such a tax increase would increase the amount of money the average person has available for discretionary spending.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>he didn't destroy companies, he divided and sold off the unprofitable ones. what
>about the ones that prospered?

Ask yourself the same thing. The US solar industry is doing very well; growing at 75% a year. Why does the GOP fixate on Solyndra?

A legitimate answer is because one was private sector and legal and the other was a nearly criminal abuse of "our" money by a single government official.

But mostly because it's a good PR stunt - that's what both parties focus on. Much better than policies and substantial dialogue - which is good for putting most people to sleep.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

For example, if taxes were increased enough to fully fund Medicare for all, it is probable that the average person would save more by not buying equivalent care from the private sector than that person would spend in increased taxes. Such a tax increase would increase the amount of money the average person has available for discretionary spending.

or - simply a transfer for wealth mechanism for some at the expense of others where we all are told we belong to the first group

unless you still think that giving it away will 'reduce' the overall costs for all

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

If history is any indication, what Romney believes is you can make more money destroying companies, than keeping them running.

he didn't destroy companies, he divided and sold off the unprofitable ones. what about the ones that prospered? why no talk about that? the tens of thousands that have jobs thanks to Bain capital?

Too many examples where Bain found a company with "too much capital or pension money," loaded it up with debt and paid Bain that money in fees, and then let the company flounder away.

Roll the tape - Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko in Wall Street...companies aren't targeted to be fixed, they're targeted to make money on. Regardless of the impact to the company. That's the objective of a company like Bain Capital. To make money. Let's not pretend otherwise.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

A little off the subject, but the Democrats are not doing themselves any favors by continuing to worry about Romney's taxes. This line of attack just makes white people in Kansas think Obama doesn't like rich people.

Any sane review of our budget and deficit makes it clear that we're going to have to give up some or most of the Bush era tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. So people will be paying more. That Romney is paying less than even the capital gains rate should be bugging people.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

For example, if taxes were increased enough to fully fund Medicare for all, it is probable that the average person would save more by not buying equivalent care from the private sector than that person would spend in increased taxes. Such a tax increase would increase the amount of money the average person has available for discretionary spending.

or - simply a transfer for wealth mechanism for some at the expense of others where we all are told we belong to the first group

unless you still think that giving it away will 'reduce' the overall costs for all

It wasn't accidental that I used the word average, and not typical. Yes, it is probable that implementing a tax to pay for "Medicare for all" would decrease the total cost of providing that level of health insurance for everybody.

The private sector is really bad at providing health insurance efficiently.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Any sane review of our budget and deficit makes it clear that we're going to have to give up some or most of the Bush era tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. So people will be paying more.

I even heard a Republican say that on NPR today.

Quote

That Romney is paying less than even the capital gains rate should be bugging people.

As it should.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

A little off the subject, but the Democrats are not doing themselves any favors by continuing to worry about Romney's taxes. This line of attack just makes white people in Kansas think Obama doesn't like rich people.

Any sane review of our budget and deficit makes it clear that we're going to have to give up some or most of the Bush era tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. So people will be paying more. That Romney is paying less than even the capital gains rate should be bugging people.

Not if all his income is derived by capital gains.

[billvon 2,396]

>>That Romney is paying less than even the capital gains rate should be bugging people.

>Not if all his income is derived by capital gains.

If all his income is from capital gains, and he is paying significantly less than the capital gains rate - then no wonder he won't release them.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Any sane review of our budget and deficit makes it clear that we're going to have to give up some or most of the Bush era tax cuts from 2001 and 2003. So people will be paying more. That Romney is paying less than even the capital gains rate should be bugging people.

Not if all his income is derived by capital gains.

Especially if so. A lot of people - chiefly those who have little to no investments in taxable accounts - don't support the tax rate favoritism. When he was active at Bain, it looks like his income was treated as many hedgies do...claiming it is long term capital gains, which is another treatment that is even less popular now and likely to be squashed.

So yes, more reasons why he'd like to keep as few returns as possible in the public eye.