Romney on 47% comments: I was 'completely wrong', page 3

Originally posted by 3litechasr
Please tell us all how exactly corporations don't pay taxes? Read some financials and you will find they pay taxes and at a high rate.

Small businesses are unwilling to tolerate much more risk in this economy.

The Clinton adminstration brought in NAFTA, which paved the way for off-shoring.I don't like it but how is this exactly a "Republican" problem.

Having an off-shore account isn't illegal, as long as its purpose isn't to avoid taxes. I'm pretty sure Romney hasn't been indicted for tax fraud by the IRS.

Okay, they avoid paying all of the tax they owe. They might pay some, but not what they actually owe. We have this in the UK too, with corporations hiring lawyers and fighting their tax bills, eventually blackmailing the government into accepting a fraction of the tax they owe or be trapped in endless litigation.

Tax Dodgers

Also, interesting to see that Romney only released some of his tax records, not the same level of transparency traditionally expected from the nominee. If there's nothing to hide, why not show the rest?

You've already had a response to the BS NAFTA statement, so I'll leave that one alone

reply to post by LeatherNLace

---

I'll agree to disagree Clinton signed it into law.
HIstory

BH, your not taking in the full context and leaving out a key portion of that text:
"As this analysis notes, in addition to paying other taxes each year (many of which involve significant tax burdens), most people who do not pay federal income tax in a given year do pay that tax over time. For example, more than half of the tax filers who received the EITC between 1989 and 2006 received the credit for no more than a year or two at a time and generally paid substantial amounts of federal income tax in other years. The taxpayers who claimed the EITC during this 18-year period paid several hundred billion dollars in net federal income tax over that period (in 2006 dollars) even after taking the EITC payments they received into account. *

The tax-paying record of both large corporations and small businesses follows an analogous pattern — in some years no taxes are paid, while in other years substantial taxes are paid. During the years when they have net operating losses, companies that are subject to the corporate income tax generally have no tax liability.

A GAO study found that in every year from 1998 to 2005, approximately 55 percent of large corporations paid no corporate income tax. ** But just 2.7 percent of large corporations reported no net tax liability in all eight of those eight years. This reflects a similar pattern as applies to families and individuals — those who do not pay income tax in a given year often do pay income tax over time.

This pattern also applies to small business owners and others who deduct business losses from their taxable incomes and thereby eliminate their income tax liability in some years." GAO Quote

So a company that operates in the red should pay taxes on what?

reply to post by 3litechasr

---

Originally posted by 3litechasr
BH, your not taking in the full context and leaving out a key portion of that text:

That's not part of Romney's quote. That's the explanation of how the 47% DO pay taxes. And why these two quotes are not comparable.

Originally posted by 3litechasr
reply to post by LeatherNLace

---

I'll agree to disagree Clinton signed it into law.
HIstory

Yes, Clinton signed the actual bill. A Republican bill that was conceived under Reagen, ceremoniously signed under Bush. A Republican bill that was 7 years in the making. A bill that was passed by a Republican majority House and Senate.

You see, at the time, America was coming out of a recession; a recession that has Reagen's fingerprints all over it. A recession in which Reagan bailed out the Savings & Loans and a recession that both Reagen and Bush freely exercised deficit spending (sound familiar?). America was hurting for jobs and NAFTA was the Republican answer.

Before reluctantly signing NAFTA into law, Bill Clinton was quoted as saying "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."

Yes, NAFTA was all Clinton's doing.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

---

Thanks for the blanket insult. I really didn't expect that.

Sorry about that BH.
I apologize.
It wasn't meant to come across that way.....I am just passionate and have to watch my words.
In hindsight...I probably should not have typed that.
Politics sometimes just makes me nuts and i should know better.
I should have used a better "filter" for my words.

Again,sorry.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by hp1229

---

Read Obama's comments in context on the previous page. He was talking to his team, trying to get them to reach out to the gun and religion-clingers. Unlike Romney, who was just vilifying and dismissing the 47% (half of whom were his own supporters)...
.

edit on 10/5/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

Thanks but no Thanks. POTUS is a fraud just like any other politician. No point as one way or the other, i'm just a middle class citizen. Time is a luxury for me.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

---

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There is no comparison, when we look at both IN CONTEXT.

Not true...because you've missed the point.

The "context' arguments only make sense to the side seeking the defense of the comments.

The 'guns' and 'religion' group found it deeply offensive that Obama singled out these two characteristics as a consequence of economic misery. There is no question, that EVEN in context, to Obama those qualities were used pejoratively.

To THEM, those comments were as offensive as the 47% comments made by Romney to the Left.

BOTH men stepped into it.

And BOTH men essentially were attempting to make similar points- essentially that during an election, they can't be too worried about trying to flip the most ardent supporters (apply the appropriate 47% or 'guns' and 'religion' adjectives) of the opposition.

It seems people who don't support either man very easily see how these are the same.

Plain and simple.

And the other similarity is that BOTH men later 'apologized' for their respective comments.

Obama 'sorry' for God and guns jibe

The Democratic frontrunner admitted he had used the wrong words when he described the bitterness of people over job losses.

Same, same, and same...

The proof in the point I'm making is that BOTH men, despite the justifications attempted by their respective supporters, later disavowed the comments as wrong.

BOTH men used red-meat language in communication with their base when attempting to secure their base for the nomination....and BOTH men, when later exposed for these comments, apologized for them... And once the nominations were secured, each raced to the center.

reply to post by 3litechasr

---

Who creates what we call jobs? People with money or people on the dole?

It's a fair question is it not?

If the answer isn't limited to only your A) or B) options.


Who creates jobs?

C) The consumer.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

---

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Unlike Romney, who was just vilifying and dismissing the 47% (half of whom were his own supporters)...

Let me put it this way.... Regardless of what you think the men's motivations were for the comments, what is clear is that each painted very negatively the other side. In other words, each 'vilified' the 47% and the 'guns' and 'religion' crew.

And each have supporters who fit beneath all three labels.

So I still don't accept your distinction.

Originally posted by 3litechasr
Please tell us all how exactly corporations don't pay taxes? Read some financials and you will find they pay taxes and at a high rate.

'Some financials?'
Do you think they are actually going to tell you the truth about what they pay?
How about read some equally informed 'non-financials?'

Such as this publication from CTJ.org?

Small businesses are unwilling to tolerate much more risk in this economy.

Don't believe everything that Congress tells you...Congress is by no means a 'small business!'


People who run small businesses in their formative years have absolutely no time to run for, or serve in, Congress, either.

Many true small business owners (meaning truly a small business) will tell you that in the last few years, they have actually gotten an income tax refund for the first time ever...and especially if it is their first year of start-up...almost everything is deductible.

To start up and operate a small business is to live every day tolerating and even thriving on the challenges you call risk...it isn't like it is expected to be a 'gimme' endeavor.

There is but ONE requirement for a small business to succeed outside of personal ability/acumen and that is demand. That is, consumers who are willing and able to buy what you are selling, whether it be goods or services.

The Clinton adminstration brought in NAFTA, which paved the way for off-shoring.I don't like it but how is this exactly a "Republican" problem.

Having an off-shore account isn't illegal, as long as its purpose isn't to avoid taxes. I'm pretty sure Romney hasn't been indicted for tax fraud by the IRS.

Of course not. You don't have to be a criminal to get out of paying federal taxes in this country.
He pays his accountant(s) way too much to be worried about indictments...and since he hasn't had an actual income in who knows how long, he most likely has ZERO taxable INCOME to report in any given year...just capital gains and dividends and blind trusts and so on and so forth....when he does make an income, he makes sure to give it charity immediately. That's probably a DOUBLE tax break but I don't know for sure....because I'm one of the '47%.' As well as being a 'small business owner.' That might be an oxymoron, but nevertheless...there it is.



Irregardless of being legal..he himself knows that doesn't make it RIGHT or GOOD or even AMERICAN nor does it imply that he truly has OUR best interests at heart outside of what will benefit HIM and his family...that's why he won't disclose the details...not because he's committed crimes but because he really only cares about his own ends...but that would ruin his chances, for sure...if he gave proof of what many already strongly suspect...and the suspicion is growing.

reply to post by Evil_Santa

---

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
So...

Why isn't the GOP up in arms - at this point - about Romney being a flip-flopper, like they were in '04 about Kerry?

For the very same reason the Left isn't up in arms about their Flopper-in-Chief in the White House.

Flip flopping may matter to some purists, but in today's politics, all that really seems to matter is the guy in the right colored jersey wins.

reply to post by SrWingCommander

---

Isn't this the exact same thing as, "We have to pass it....so we can find out what's in it", from good ole' dem speaker Nancy Pelosi???

Actually...not at all.

When they were working out all the details of Obamacare, things were constantly being revised and worked out as far as the HUGE amount of details involved...and then there was the flak that they had to contend with and the concessions and the reality checks and everything else that defines 'work in progress.'

Most bills are tiny compared to the Obamacare bill...if we have to read one of those every time it is revised, it is no big deal. But to read Obamacare just once through, for the average joe...is not only tremendously time consuming but easily induces a headache in the best thinkers and vertigo in the rest of us...to have to read that over and over every time they submitted a revision would have probably been the death of anyone willing to follow it that closely.

Until it was passed, it was not law but a bill open to revision...which, in this case, means that Nancy's answer, while perhaps not worded in the best way for the rest of us to understand, was the most truthful and simple answer applicable. I'm sure by the time she made that statement, her own head was feeling like a seasick sit and spin ride.


AND that is also why it might seem to many that certain things that Obama said would be in Obamacare are NOT or are vastly different than how he said they would be. Some of what he wanted to do was not feasible in any way shape or form...but he had no way of knowing that until the bill was scrutinized by in committees...by the people that have practical experiential knowledge in these matters that he does not. But then, again...when pressed for details unrelentingly by those who 'want to know,' a person evidently just does the best they can with what they know at the time...unless of course, they have the ability to tell the future and all the other super-powers that come with...

We need a President with super-powers or we will never be happy in this country...that's what it seems to me, anyway.
On the other hand, I often wonder if even super-powers would be enough to satisfy this tough crowd. My conclusion is consistent: I doubt it seriously.

Ron Paul Won (Great Read) - Huffington Post
  Posted 13 days ago with 127 member flags

Texas GOP Mutiny - SC, VA, LA and Others May Join
  Posted 15 days ago with 83 member flags

*VID* Proof Romney and RNC is a sham causing potential Republican civil war.
  Posted 11 days ago with 77 member flags

FOX News and Others Take Ryan to the Woodshed for "Blatant Lies." ...Seriously, FOX News.
  Posted 12 days ago with 65 member flags

A Common Man\'s Guide to the Federal Budget.
  Posted 3 days ago with 51 member flags

Why the GOP Is Scared of Ron Paul and 4 Reasons He Might Still Get the 2012 Republican Nomination
  Posted 19 days ago with 45 member flags

Former RNC Chairman, Michael Steele criticizes Romney/RNC for the treatment of Ron Paul.
  Posted 11 days ago with 43 member flags

*VID* Ron Paul delegates speak out from RNC.
  Posted 8 days ago with 39 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: