home

Thursday Night Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 09:33:59 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

More stars are born...Will Jones and Jeffrey Alan Gutt on the X Factor.

So far this season, I'm liking the X Factor better than The Voice.

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< NJ Bans Smiling in Drivers' License Photos | Friday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Thursday Night Open Thread | 147 comments (147 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    not to gloat... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by CST on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 10:58:28 PM EST
    But here I am gloating...  This last week is exactly what I meant months ago when I said romney was too rich and couldn't fake it.  Yes, they are all rich.  There is a distinctive difference though, and it just may cost him the election.

    Meanwhile, on foreign policy, he makes Obama seem like nelson mandela every time he opens his mouth.  My sister the other day said she used to think he was a good man who was just too willing to compromise for his ambitions.  Now she thinks he's a bad man who acted good sometimes due to his ambitions.  I'm inclined to agree.  What an utter @sshole. - sincerely, a member of the Obama-voting 53%

    CST, how is school? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by caseyOR on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:33:48 AM EST
    Have you started yet? I couldn't remember if you'd told us when classes start.

    Anyway, it's good to see you around the old place. Keep us up-to-date on the life of a today's grad student.

    I agree with your sister. Mitt Romney is a bad man.

    Parent

    hi! (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by CST on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:07:59 PM EST
    yes I've started classes, although I'm not quite done with my summer gig, so I'm commuting between boston and the island until columbus day, at which point I've got to find some steadier employment at home.  I probably should've just quit and done it already but apparently waiting tables in some places pays better than engineering, so I've got some savings and a few of my own reasons to stick around.

    But classes are great, and I'm really enjoying being a student again.  I took almost exclusively math/science as an undergrad, and I greatly prefer the reading/writing/discussion aspect of grad school.  Note to the kids out there - just because you can do something doesn't mean that's what you should be doing.  Still trying to figure out my end goal but I think this will help me get there, and at least in the meantime it's something I enjoy.

    Parent

    Hmmmmm....a few of your own reasons..... (none / 0) (#78)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:33:53 PM EST
    I am so snoopy.  It lurks in the back of my Id, it never sleeps :)

    Parent
    Pols (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 06:09:14 AM EST
    My sister the other day said she used to think he was a good man who was just too willing to compromise for his ambitions.

    Unfortunately, the same can and should be said about the man in the White House.

    One could know this for sure ever since 2006 when Obama went to Connecticut to campaign for Lieberman in order to ingratiate himself with the Democratic establishement. He praised Lieberman's "keen intellect" and "heart" and urged Connecticut voters to have the "good sense" to send this vulture back to the Senate.

    Ambition turns all of these guys until they are dizzy.

    Parent

    Also (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by CST on Thu Sep 20, 2012 at 11:48:41 PM EST
    there have been a number of comments noticing that we are comparing the 47% speech to Clinton and FDR, with nothing on Obama.  So here is something from Obama's 2012 DNC speech:

    "...we also believe in something called citizenship - a word at the very heart of our founding, at the very essence of our democracy; the idea that this country only works when we accept certain obligations to one another, and to future generations.

    We believe that when a CEO pays his autoworkers enough to buy the cars that they build, the whole company does better.

    We believe that when a family can no longer be tricked into signing a mortgage they can't afford, that family is protected, but so is the value of other people's homes, and so is the entire economy.

    We believe that a little girl who's offered an escape from poverty by a great teacher or a grant for college could become the founder of the next Google, or the scientist who cures cancer, or the President of the United States - and it's in our power to give her that chance."

    And later:

    "We, the People, recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which only asks what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense."

    Finally:

    "Yes, our path is harder - but it leads to a better place. Yes our road is longer - but we travel it together. We don't turn back. We leave no one behind. We pull each other up."

    Mitt Romney:

    "There are 47 percent of the people who [...] are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. [...] My job is is not to worry about those people."

    About (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:55:30 AM EST
    the 47% ---

    It is really a shame that there is so much poverty in the USA.

    Who's to blame?

    The government.
    Not Republicans.
    Not Democrats.
    All of them.
    The government.

    Parent

    I just control c'd your comment... (none / 0) (#22)
    by magster on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 11:18:58 AM EST
    ... and control v'd it into my facebook status.  Thank you for that comment!!

    I'll have some 2nd cousins and great uncles control x me from their friend list, but hey, I never see them anyways.

    Parent

    re Fiona Apple bust in Texas: (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 07:32:44 AM EST
    lol.  "I'll never smoke weed with Willie again..."

    - Toby Keith

    North Carolina? (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 11:58:08 AM EST
    Yes, North Carolina. Two polls out of the Tar Heel State today put Obama in the lead there.

    Next to possibly flip back to the Dems? Missouri.

    Amazingly, Missouri has been very quiet the entire month. That should end as polling will likely be done this weekend in Missouri because Akin and McCaskill are having a debate right now. The GOP can't even be bothered with trying to push out Akin anymore because they are too busy patching holes in Senate races in Virginia and Massachusetts and Wisconsin and Nevada and Connecticut.

    The last poll (none / 0) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    i saw in MO had Akin and McCaskill tied unbelievably.

    Did you watch the Warren/Brown debate? I watched some of it and I could not believe how badly Brown came off. He came off as being entitled to being reelected and unprepared for the debate.

    In VA you have the problem of the GOP base picking Allen to run. This is just another example of how the GOP base is way out of touch with even the voters in their own state.

    I think the GOP has a really good shot in CT from what I've seen it looks like the best shot they have out of those listed.

    Parent

    There's been so many polls lately... (none / 0) (#43)
    by magster on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:46:20 PM EST
    ... that you really have to go to the poll aggregator sites to get the trends. The trends are certainly going the way of the Dems.

    Connecticut is weird, but I'd be surprised if McMahon won given what's going on at the top of the ticket.


    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#106)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:09:42 PM EST
    with everything being so close no one it seems has coattails and it's every man or woman for him/herself. It's not like Obama's record has been that great on the economy either. Mark McKinnon was on Jennifer Granholm's show and was pretty good at explaining what is going on. A lot of the GOP's problem this year is the same one they had in 2010 and it's the candidates that they are picking. Harry Reid should have lost his seat but for the craziness of the tea party was able to keep it. Probably going to be a lot of splitting tickets this fall and also you have to remember that Obama is not advertising himself as a Democrat. Remember it's Obama for America not the Democratic Party for America.

    Parent
    Disagree.... (none / 0) (#114)
    by magster on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:24:43 PM EST
    ...the "implosion" that Nate notices about the GOP senate races, coincides with Obama's surge post convention.

    Parent
    I agree though (none / 0) (#119)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:33:28 PM EST
    After convention people began to ask themselves harder questions outside of "How has Obama failed me?"  Now they are onto "What are these Repubs going to do for us and to us?"  The answer has them running for the exits.  The party is crazy, the debates will make the situation worse as voter realize what Republicans have in mind for them vs. the rich people.

    Parent
    I'll just (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 04:14:00 PM EST
    have to wait and see. I'm not a big fan of Silver.

    Parent
    I didn't (none / 0) (#50)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:12:33 PM EST
    From what I've read Elizabeth more than held her own. Most opinion columns I saw leaned towards Warren doing better than Brown. Most news columns characterized Brown as attacking throughout.

    Based on the attacking nature of the incumbent during the debate, I would think Brown's internal polls don't look good. After the debate last night, I'd expect we'll have a new poll or two out between tomorrow and Monday.

    Parent

    Wow: (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:14:45 AM EST
    Subway ad by the man who fomented opposition to Islamic center near ground zero:
    AP

    Sure, (none / 0) (#8)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 06:02:23 AM EST
    free speech is an issue.

    But I'll wager that the fact that it is Muslims who are being characterized as  "savages", as opposed to some other ethnic or religious group, made it easier for the New York City Transit Authority to suddenly become civil libertarians.

    Parent

    I don't want to find out personally... (none / 0) (#10)
    by unitron on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 07:17:36 AM EST
    ...any more than I do with Ann Coulter, but I'm reasonably certain that Pamela Geller is female.

    "Subway ad by the man who fomented opposition to Islamic center near ground zero:"

    Parent

    Here we go again. (none / 0) (#6)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:53:13 AM EST
    The "debate" between Warren and Brown.

    "Obama's drawing a harder line and that's a good thing," said Brown on Iran.

    Warren agreed. "I think with Iran, it's very clear, we cannot have a nuclear Iran," she said.

    I'm still rooting for Wqrren, but with much less enthusiasm.

    Warren's position on Iran (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by brodie on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 09:34:43 AM EST
    basically tracks Obama's and is the basic line for most Ds across the country, possibly excepting Indy socialist Bernie Sanders.  And MA residents I would assume don't have Iran high on their list of top voting concerns.

    I think she did ok but as a personal preference I would have liked to have seen her display more aggressiveness in painting Brown as a RW enabler and abettor.

    Not bad though for her first debate vs a true ideological opponent who is slick and who has been well prepped.  She needs to stay on the offensive in the final six weeks.  Nice polite soft-spoken Dems tend to end up giving nice polite concession speeches.

    Parent

    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 09:51:17 AM EST
    Nice polite soft-spoken Dems tend to end up giving nice polite concession speeches.


    Parent
    That's (none / 0) (#77)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:30:01 PM EST
    what is disappointing to me about Warren.

    She will track the party line.
    And on this major, potentially catastrophic issue, we need a voice in the party to counteract the mirror-image of the right-wing republican-Bush-Cheney-McCain philosophy to which Obama has been clinging.

    If she can't be independent of party dictates, she isn't going to be of much use.

    I thought she was a bright light, but for me she has dimmed considerably. Now, for me, it's just a "she's better than Brown" situation - much like Obama/Romney.

    What an election.

    Parent

    That's a rather sweeping (none / 0) (#120)
    by brodie on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:36:16 PM EST
    extrapolation just based on her campaign stance on one issue.

    Actually, contra a number of CorporaDems in Congress today, I see her fighting for the little guy, the m-c consumer, the poor and elderly.  Basically a Ted Kennedy Dem.

    That goes for FP too despite her Iran campaign stance.  I just don't see her eager to whip up a war over Iran, which is where Romney and the GOP are.  Quite a difference there in all honesty.

    Parent

    Maybe better than Ted on FP, (none / 0) (#123)
    by brodie on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:40:52 PM EST
    at least judging by a first term.  TK supported Lyndon's obvious blank check on VN -- GoT Res -- and was rather late to publicly oppose LBJ's war.  Eliza Warren strikes me as probably smarter at this stage than Ted on foreign matters.

    Parent
    I (none / 0) (#129)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:56:12 PM EST
    agree that it is quite an extrapolation.

    But to me, it is a red flag.

    I pay attention to red flags.
    Obama supporting Lieberman was a bright red flag to me.
    And everyone was calling him the anti-war candidate.

    I know about her on consumer issues.
    I like her and am in her corner.

    But that line of hers about Iran took the winds out my sails with respect to the enthusiasm I felt about her and the possible impact of her presence in the Senate.

    I must admit that I never was a fan of Teddy, so it doesn't do much for me to compare Warren to him. I had much higher hopes.

    Parent

    Teddy (none / 0) (#150)
    by CST on Sat Sep 22, 2012 at 01:12:21 PM EST
    Also voted against the Iraq war, and was on a short list.

    Honestly, I can only think of a handful of senators that did a better job representing their state in the senate - maybe russ and he got booted.  If Warren can live up to that standard I would be very happy.

    Parent

    The Sept 3 New Yorker (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 07:46:51 AM EST
    carries an article, "The Vegetarian," about the extremely prominent dissidents who disagree with Bibi Netanyahu re Iranian nuclear capabilities and prospects.

    The dissidents include the Army chief-of-staff, the commander of the Air force, the heads of Shin-Bet and Mossad, Bibi's own Intelligence minister.

    Last I heard Bibi was screaming that Iran was only a few months away from having a nuke.  The old party line, trumpeted for at least twenty years, was that they were a few years away.  What's next - a few weeks?  45 minutes?

    Parent

    Indeed, the talk of Iran and its nuclear (none / 0) (#13)
    by Farmboy on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 08:23:45 AM EST
    capabilities has been going on for a very, very long time.

    Parent
    hate to change the subject but... (none / 0) (#14)
    by fishcamp on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 09:07:23 AM EST
    my iPhone 5 just now arrived @ 10:05 AM and I'm about to shut down here and plug it in...more to follow (:-

    Not to rain on your parade... (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 10:53:40 AM EST
    but I just watched excellent video of an NBC reporter interviewing OWS guy near the iPhone mayhem. He made a really salient point: He and his OWS peers have been harassed and arrested for camping out on the street, and yet...the people camping out on the street waiting to get their new iPhones are not only tolerated by NYPD, they are helped by them.

    Camping out in social protest = bad
    Camping out for consumerism = good

    What a sad, messed up culture we live in.

    Parent

    And this is surprising because... how? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Farmboy on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:00:26 PM EST
    Camping out to protest a business = not encouraged by the business.
    Camping out to support a business = encouraged by the business.

    And it isn't just businesses. If you park in front of somebody's house with signs telling the world what a great person they are, they're much more likely to let you continue than if you show up with signs and petitions alleging that they're child abusers.

    Parent

    I hear ya... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:42:53 PM EST
    but what about in the eyes of the law?  Either it is legal to camp in public space like a sidewalk or park, or it ain't.

    I tend to think of resting your feet or sleeping as a natural inalienable right of all living things...it should be tolerated in public spaces regardless of the reason, be it protesting or consuming or simply chilling.

    Parent

    fishcamp jones (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 09:41:49 AM EST


    Parent
    I'll hold your beer... (none / 0) (#18)
    by Rojas on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 10:13:50 AM EST


    Parent
    Intrigue (none / 0) (#19)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 10:44:37 AM EST
    Romney doesn't have as much money as suspected?  NYTimes.

    Amateur-Hour Michigan Medical Pot law (none / 0) (#21)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 11:02:15 AM EST
    leaves Walmart worker completely unprotected.


    "The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled     (in the opinion below) that Wal-Mart was allowed to allegedly fire an employee for using medical marijuana. That would seem a curious ruling given state law protecting people in the use of medical marijuana. However, the court found that the drafting of a key line left workers without protection for termination." - Jonathan Turley

    Politico reporting that Romney... (none / 0) (#23)
    by magster on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 11:30:50 AM EST
    gave out $200,000 bonuses to his senior campaign staff after GOP convention. Way to bring large undeserved corporate bonuses into the spotlight. How did this guy get rich? He's as incompetent as he is a jerk.

    How did he get rich? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 11:44:34 AM EST
    And how you can too....start with a big pile of cash in a rigged game, stiff creditors and the FDIC with Don Corleone-esque "offers they can't refuse", and generally have no shame whatsoever...voila, you're a 1%er.  

    Brains not necessarily required, but a strict requirement is that lack of shame and a lack of a heart and soul.

    Parent

    Very unfair, MrK. (none / 0) (#26)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 11:53:06 AM EST
     
    generally have no shame whatsoever...voila, you're a 1%er.  
    Brains not necessarily required, but a strict requirement is that lack of shame and a lack of a heart and soul.

    Too broad a generalization.

    Parent

    Speaking solely of the... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:07:41 PM EST
    Mitt Romney school of making a fortune.

    Bruce Springsteen, The Rolling Stones...they did it the right way.

    Bill Gates...he did it the right way, though I have some beefs with Microsoft's business practices once he was already crazy rich.

    Anybody who makes and creates things people value, creations and innovations that improve people's lives...I have no problem with that kinda 1%er, they earned it.  

     

    Parent

    What do people value? (none / 0) (#135)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 04:15:58 PM EST
    Iphones?  Home runs?  Touchdowns?  Videos about Islam?  Piss Christ?, Cars?, Investments?  Does a Power plant improve people's lives?  

    Parent
    You would love (none / 0) (#33)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:08:45 PM EST
    THE moment of zen from The Daily Show last night.

    "One last thought you guys, when I was a boy, when I was a boy, I used to think that becoming rich and becoming famous would make me happy. Boy was I right'. - Mitt Romney March 17, 2005

    Parent

    So much better (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:14:03 PM EST
    with video

    Parent
    One of the comments on YT (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:35:00 PM EST
    I used to think that Romney was a douche-bag....boy was I right!


    Parent
    And I thought you guys (none / 0) (#54)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:22:35 PM EST
    were just dishing out satire....

    It wasn't The Daily Show or Steven Colbert.....

    Romney himself really said this....UNBELIEVABLE.  

    Parent

    Bit jaw dropping, eh? :) (none / 0) (#56)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:27:46 PM EST


    Parent
    Speaking of Happy Mittens... (none / 0) (#36)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:26:56 PM EST
    have you guys gotten a load of Bainport Illinois?

    We're workers at Bain Capital-owned Sensata in Freeport, Illinois. We're fighting to save our jobs from being shipped to China by the end of this year. We are calling on Mitt Romney to come to Freeport, IL and we will camp across the street from our plant for as long as it takes!


    Parent
    Freeport! Near my old stomping grounds.. (none / 0) (#121)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:38:14 PM EST
    not far from Ryan's home of Janesville WI either. These are towns that lived on small business manufacturing when I was growing up, only to see plants close and unemployment in the 20% range by the time I was in college.  Tool and dye industry, farm equipment, etc. and Freeport had a pretzel factoery at one point, hence the high school sports team name - the Freeport Pretzels!

    Anyway, I did not know they got Bained. Boo.

    Parent

    On one hand, I see your point (none / 0) (#117)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:31:37 PM EST
    On the other hand, they did somehow shake out the clown car to get this jerk nominated as the candidate of the GOP. So I think a bonus was in order.

    Parent
    Whew. (none / 0) (#24)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 11:33:44 AM EST
    The military said it had withdrawn 33,000 surge troops ordered to Afghanistan by President Obama in 2009.

    That's progress.

    Except for the dead and severely (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 11:59:49 AM EST
    injured.  

    Parent
    Yes. (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by lentinel on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:21:08 PM EST
    Yes. Except fot the dead and severely injured.

    I remember the day when he announced his "surge".

    I didn't have much hope for Obama anyway, but when he stood there rattling that information off to us, like a robot, at what seemed like his very first order of business, it drained me.

    And I have remained drained.

    And when I would post (elsewhere) about how I felt about it at that time, his supporters would try to turn it into a plus - that he was 'keeping his promise" - as indeed he was.
    The same promise that we got from McCain.

    And now we're in a competition between Romney and Obama to see who is "tougher" on Iran. Even Elizabeth Warren, supporting Obama, is talking tough on Iran.

    I see it as yet another disaster in the making. A disaster I have no means to prevent because both candidates are promoting it.

    Parent

    Last night I read Jennifer Rubin's (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:38:35 PM EST
    Washington Post piece advising Romney how to be more aggressive, especially re Iran.  

    Parent
    I have a suggestion (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:12:19 PM EST
    for Jennifer Rubin, but I'm not allowed to write what I'm thinking on this site, in this particular case.  

    Parent
    Thanks to Bernanke's promise to keep (none / 0) (#58)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:35:36 PM EST
    the printing presses running full steam (yes, I know they aren't physically printing), we are headed to a time when the dollar is only going to be useful as toilet paper. A war with Iran will serve as a nice distraction.

    Parent
    A little rough for TP... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:37:39 PM EST
    a little thick for rolling paper...I got it, kindling, to keep warm over a garbage can fire;)

    Parent
    Does anybody (none / 0) (#27)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 11:54:19 AM EST
    else around here think Current is better than MSNBC? Too me MSNBC is too rah-rah Obama where Current seems to be more issue oriented. Jennifer Granholm really did a good job last night with a guest explaining exactly what the problem is with Washington.

    I think they are both worth watching (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:01:06 PM EST
    I watch Morning Joe because it inspires me to kill roaches.  Always a difficult thing for Buddhists, but Buddhists with asthma must be vigilant about their roach killing need.

    Parent
    I never (none / 0) (#37)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:32:10 PM EST
    watch Morning Joe but it seems a lot of people do. It's just comes on at an inconvenient time for me.

    Parent
    It used to be interesting (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:57:02 PM EST
    I have agreed to watch it with spouse in the mornings because he is an Independent.  The Republican party is melting though, or I suppose I should say the unsustainable Modern Republican Party.  Joe is having one hell of an identity crisis.  He speaks fresh stupid nuts every day right now trying to find a path that does not exist.  And when I'm not enraged by something pathetic that he said, I simply enjoy his melting while brain dead Mika sits next to him and holds his hand.   I have two large Southern porches on this house.  One long columned on on the front, one square shaded one on the back, I'm bleaching the mold and mildew off of both of them right now in honor of Joe Scarborough's current suffering.  If the existing Republican paryty intends to survive, they must scrape the $hit off of them and bleach the mold and miildew out.  They stink, they preach hating people, they are filth at this point.

    Parent
    Ah, yeah (none / 0) (#98)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:59:38 PM EST
    This is too real and too funny:

    I simply enjoy his melting while brain dead Mika sits next to him and holds his hand.


    Parent
    if you preview those morning (none / 0) (#126)
    by fishcamp on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:46:35 PM EST
    shows like the late night ones sometimes some of them have great people they interview.  and I always watch a little Don Imus because he absolutely hates everyone and everything and plays country western music too.  BTW the new ip5 is excellent.  way faster and lots more stuff, very cool.  it seems smaller even though it's larger.  

    Parent
    Ah, you beat me! (none / 0) (#142)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 06:43:39 PM EST
    Mine is in the way.

    Parent
    I watched both Maddow and O'Donnell (none / 0) (#41)
    by magster on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:41:00 PM EST
    on Wednesday night, and both shows were excellent. Haven't seen Current, but I don't know how it could have been "better". Maddow's segment on why the jobs for veterans bill failed was must see, and O'Donnell focused on more obscure segments of Romney's speech that were still incredibly troubling.  

    Parent
    Right. Maddow is steadily good (none / 0) (#75)
    by brodie on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:25:44 PM EST
    and informative and doesn't always spout the Dem line.  She's had 3d party prez candidates on her show, eg Rocky Anderson a couple of times, and is always looking to book someone similar or from tre enemy camp.  Maybe too open to diverse voices in fact ...

    Lawrence O has been getting feisty lately calling out the Mittster as "stupid and insane."  that wouldn't have been allowed under the ancient regime with Jack Welch.

    Current is improving as is Granholm's show which was weak early as she needed time to get her footing, maybe assumed wrong that people would flock to a show featuring segment after segment about the nuts n bolts aspects of politics.  Weak guests early on too -- as with the awful regular two female panelists, one of whom was a soft centrist bipartisan "Dem" working for the CA Chamber of Commerce and the other a soft centrist "Dem" who had been Arnold's chief of staff.  Yuk.  But thankfully I haven't seen much of them lately.

    Not a big fan of Current adding the Joy Behar show in Granholm's former p-t slot.  It's silly superficial chit chat with celebrities, usually B-list ones.

    Parent

    I haven't seen Granholm's show (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:04:35 PM EST
    but her convention speech was a classic, and her recently unearthed "big hair" Dating Game video was outrageously hilarious. Lots of LOL there.

    She definitely has the talent to do t.v.

    Parent

    Agree that her show might need some re-tooling (none / 0) (#104)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:07:50 PM EST
    but she has such an infectious personality about the whole thing that it works for me.

    Parent
    Me too. (none / 0) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:13:44 PM EST
    Her personality is very appealing and she literally shines in front of the camera. She's also not so serious and laughs at a lot of the crazy stuff from the GOP and also she's good at asking questions that  someone off the street would ask.

    Parent
    I have (none / 0) (#107)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:11:59 PM EST
    watched Maddow and she can be good. O'Donnell gets too much into the rah/rah stuff for me some times.

    Parent
    I do watch Current a lot more than MSNBC (none / 0) (#103)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:06:29 PM EST
    I've been a fan of the Young Turks for a long time and am glad they got a show on Current. Cenk is definitely where a lot of us are as far as criticizing Obama when he needs it.

    Also like Granholm's show, and Spitzer's. Only problem I have with Current is they tend to play the same commercials over and over and over...need some new sponsors!

    I only watch Maddo on MSM=NBC, and then pnly sporadically. I see that Chris Hayes has a show now too on MSNBC - may try to watch it sometimes. He is a smart guy, and not a blowhard. I can't take much of Ed Shultz or chris Matthews.

    Parent

    I noticed (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:16:22 PM EST
    that last night. The State of Connecticut must have had the majority of commercials during Granholm's show.

    I've only seen the blurbs for Spitzer's show but I would like to watch it. I think the thing that is good about current is that their hosts are good at distilling issues down much like Bill Clinton does.

    Parent

    During the Dem conventions they had (none / 0) (#124)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:41:12 PM EST
    an ad with an ATT union worker that I wanted to strangle by the end of the week, even though she was perfectly likable with a great message!

    I find the shows a lot more informative and issue oriented. Not as much gossip type stuff except toward the end.

    Parent

    Romney to release 2011 tax returns (none / 0) (#44)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:49:24 PM EST
    at 3:00 pm EDT - no link.
    Releasing it on a Friday afternoon (none / 0) (#46)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 12:59:21 PM EST
    Interesting timing.  Then again, he's had such a bad week; how could it possibly get worse?

    Parent
    Desperate men do desperate things (none / 0) (#95)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:55:09 PM EST
    His campaign is so on the skids, this won't make much difference come November.

    Parent
    You're probably right (none / 0) (#108)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:12:12 PM EST
    It's amazing how fast things came apart over the last couple of weeks. I don't want to count my chickens, but it does not look good for the GOP.

    Parent
    In addition, he's releasing (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    a letter later today from his tax advisers providing a summary of his tax liability for a 20-year period from 1990 to 2009. The campaign said the summary will show that Mr. Romney paid taxes every year during that period, that the lowest annual federal tax rate was 13.66 percent and that the Romneys gave an average of 13.45 percent of their income to charity during the period.


    Parent
    The plot thickens... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:14:10 PM EST
    what is in the actual returns that he's so scared to show us, busting out this summary sh*t instead from his tax adviser task force?

    He was better off ignoring the calls to release the returns, imo.  This reeks of just trying to prove Harry Reid wrong, not full disclosure.

    Parent

    I'm sure a lot of people will think that way, (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:20:30 PM EST
    some others will think it pretty sh*tty of Reid to be such a liar.

    Parent
    Ugly business... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:36:09 PM EST
    I couldn't vote for either one.

    Parent
    Oh, now, now... (none / 0) (#143)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 07:06:53 PM EST
    We have seen no primary documents. Nor have off-shore accounts been directly or satisfactorily addressed.  

    "Poor" Mitt...as Republican strategist Alex Castellanos & other Repub strategists have opined today: Why put a spotlight on your situation now--at best, minimal taxes for a kazillionaire--when you've come so far, why draw further attention to your dilemma now, Mitt?  Meanwhile, the Obamas had timely filed their return much earlier...which returned showed more than 20% federal taxes paid...straightforwardly.

    Ah yes, sarcastic unnamed one, I do need to add that some of us very much appreciate the almost-successful taunts of dear Harry Reid in the tax combat arean.  'Expect we'll actually hear more, not less.  

    Parent

    Reid did attack again today (none / 0) (#147)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 09:56:51 PM EST
    see his release at dkos.  If he continues attacking Obama will just throw him under the bus, presumably by design.  Although I guess we'll see what happens.

    Parent
    Charity or the Church? (none / 0) (#49)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:08:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Looks like a mixture of both. (none / 0) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:16:41 PM EST
    In addition to their church donations, the Romneys had deductions for more than $2 million in donations that are listed as noncash charitable contributions. That includes tens of thousands of shares of stock in Domino's Pizza Inc, Senasata Technologies, Dunkin Donuts and Warner Chilcott that went to his family's Tyler Foundation, based in Boston. [...]

    The Tyler Foundation made $647,500 in donations during 2010, including $75,000 to the Center for the Treatment of Pediatric Multiple Sclerosis and $10,000 to the Dana Farber Cancer Institute. It also donated $145,000 to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, $100,000 to the George W. Bush presidential library and $10,000 to the Harvard Business School, of which Romney is an alumnus.



    Parent
    Owns stock in Domino's (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:52:57 PM EST
    No surprise there. Domino's CEO, Tom Monaghan, sold his stake to Bain in 1998 for $1 billion. The same Tom Monaghan who is a zealot when it comes to denying women reproductive choice and denying gays the right to marry.

    Parent
    Oh sh&t! (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:28:44 PM EST
    Sensata Technologies...giving away the stock as the jobs get shipped to China.

    Too bad he didn't give it to the employees, they'd have a vote to save their jobs.

    Parent

    Now you know why he's not releasing his (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:37:28 PM EST
    actual returns, reactions like yours. You know he's not involved in any capacity with running Bain anymore and has nothing to do with this or any of Bain's business decisions, right?

    Parent
    Yes, we do know why, sarcastic unnamed one (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 07:11:06 PM EST
    For me, there is the seamlessness matter...separation of church & state, how beholden in the former Ward leader & Bishop...what is the "charity" here, really?  

    Parent
    It's his baby, his business model... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:53:59 PM EST
    he can't run on it and hide from it at the same time.  It's not like Bain under Mitt rolled any differently...it's a 30 year old tale.

    Will he accept the challenge and explain that to the residents of Bainport?  "Sorry, I resigned, can't help ya.  Can I interest you in a tax cut or are you all part of the 47%?  Tell ya what, I'm christening my schooner at the yacht club on Saturday, would anyone like to mow my lawn?  Hmm Hmm"

    Parent

    Maybe so. (none / 0) (#69)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:58:59 PM EST
    fwiw, I started using a new machinist for my biz this month - he's cheaper, faster and physically closer to my biz than the old one. I'm not sure Romney invented that idea...

    Parent
    Romney did not invent smart business... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:11:04 PM EST
    he helped invent ruthless finance chicanery that has become one of our main "industries".  

    Your business creates, you're nothing like Romney & Bain and the business of destruction.

    By closer, I guess you didn't go to China for machine work...I knew I liked you! ;)


    Parent

    100% Made in the USA. (none / 0) (#97)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:58:37 PM EST


    Parent
    2mil noncash over 20yrs? (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:39:47 PM EST
    What % is that of the 13.45%?

    Parent
    I know the goal is to make him look as bad (none / 0) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:48:16 PM EST
    as possible, but the 2mil is part of the 7mil he gave to charity in 2010 & 2011. So, it's 29% of his charitable contributions.

    Parent
    And I would know that how? (none / 0) (#64)
    by nycstray on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:51:18 PM EST
    no link from you and the previous comment you made referred to the 20yr wrap up.

    Maybe I just need more coffee . . .

    Parent

    Fair enough. fwiw, I'm just googling (none / 0) (#65)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:53:54 PM EST
    "romney tax" to find info to answer your questions, something I'm sure you can do too...

    Parent
    Summary of other years (none / 0) (#68)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:58:58 PM EST
    I certainly put way more faith in a letter from PWC than in Sen. Reid's anonymous source regarding the tax rate Gov. Romney paid in different years. But I am curious as to how he managed to pay more than 13% in 2008 or 2009 when the market tanked and he should have had big investment losses. Any ideas? It makes no sense to me. And that's (one reason) why I'd like to see the actual return rather than a summary.

    Parent
    Interesting (none / 0) (#73)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:13:05 PM EST
    wonder if the summary will be enough.

    Parent
    It sure as he[[ ain't enough for me (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:44:21 PM EST
    I want to see the million$ he's hiding tax-free in the Caymans.

    Parent
    The Cayman stuff is a major matter, isn't it? (none / 0) (#145)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 07:12:41 PM EST


    Parent
    It is to me (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 10:52:18 PM EST
    and I think it is to a lot of people. When one considers that he may have sheltered many millions of dollars in the Caymans (and in Switzerland, for that matter), the total escape of those taxes would bring his overall rate to far below 13%, and certainly into the single digits -- for numerous tax years. In this economy, with so many unemployed, under-employed, and those lucky enough to have jobs now working for minimum wage (which is impossible to support oneself on, much less a family), the Romney tax issues are not going away. The American people know he is hiding money and documentation.

    Watch for him to get all flustered about it in the debates.

    Parent

    How do you think regular working stiffs (none / 0) (#87)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:45:56 PM EST
    are going to feel about his 14% rate, when they are paying a lot more? I have an idea it's not going to go iver too well.

    Parent
    As long as what he is doing is legal, you (none / 0) (#92)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:51:29 PM EST
    really can't fault him. He is doing what everyone who is able is doing,taking advantage of a very complicated tax code to find as many loopholes as possible.

    Parent
    His problem with American voters is not (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:06:18 PM EST
    that they think he is committing crimes. His problem is that people don't think he can ever relate to them -- the average working man and woman. These tax "summaries" only prove that.

    And we still don't know how many million$ he is hiding tax-free in the Caymans. I'm just going to keep harping on that point, because regualar Joe and Jane American will never be in a position to hide money in order to escape paying taxes.

    Parent

    I thought he had a chance before but thanks (none / 0) (#110)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:14:11 PM EST
    to his "relatility" issues, I think he is pretty much done now.
    And as long as Bernanke can keep the stock market pumped up with his QE to infinity, the money guys are going to be very happy to have Obama in the WH for another four years. He's got their back!

    Parent
    I can fault him! (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:08:35 PM EST
    You know I can!  Here's my reasoning: Just because something is legal does not make it right. It is impossible to write a tax code that fully addresses all contingencies -- once you write it, people will find ways to use it to their advantage. So we have to be able to rely on people to act ethically, not just legally.

    For example, Gov. Romney has a tax-sheltered IRA that is worth something like $100 million.  I have no doubt that he sheltered that $100 million legally.  But the IRA was designed to be a retirement savings vehicle, and the average IRA account has, I believe, less than $100,000. So it is legal for Gov. Romney to shelter $100 million in an IRA. But it isn't right.

    I admit that I probably am holding Gov. Romney to a higher standard. It doesn't bother me when people of ordinary means take full advantage of the tax code.  But the tax avoidance devices available to someone of Gov. Romney's wealth are not available to an ordinary person.  And, for Pete's sake, he's asking to be the President: I expect better.

    Parent

    That right there is the problem. (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:22:32 PM EST
    the tax avoidance devices available to someone of Gov. Romney's wealth are not available to an ordinary person

    And it is never going to change because the majority of our elected representatives are wealthy.

    And, for Pete's sake, he's asking to be the President: I expect better.

    Now I know you are just pulling my leg... :-).

    Parent

    Well, to DC's point, (none / 0) (#116)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:27:47 PM EST
    I also claim dividends and cap gains every year. Certainly not to the extent of Romney or, say, Kerry, and not enough to even come close to living on, but still...

    Parent
    To: vml68 (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 07:15:04 PM EST
    There are requirements that are within the narrowest letter of the law...and there are other matters beyond that.  Legal Ethics or Societal Ethics?  (But then, maybe it is one of those "we know it when we see it," huh?)

    Parent
    Well, he'd be required to pay the standard (none / 0) (#76)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:27:02 PM EST
    cap gains rate on any cap gains in those two years. Maybe instead of paying 1.9mil on 27.3 mil, like he did in 2011, he paid 0.19mil on 2.73mil. That's the same %, just on a much smaller number.

    Parent
    But you deduct the losses against gross income (none / 0) (#80)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:36:58 PM EST
    Say he had $5MM in gross capital gains income and capital losses of -$4MM. Then, at the 15% tax rate he would have paid $150,000 in taxes on the $1MM in net income.  But that's a tax rate of 150,000/5,000,000 = 3% on his gross income.  

    Maybe you are right and they are reporting his taxes as a percentage on his net income, but that is not the standard way to report it.  (At least I don't think it is; I am not a tax accountant!)

    Parent

    I don't know the details of how Romney (none / 0) (#88)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:46:30 PM EST
    has his money invested but usually for losses on stocks, options, etc. you can only deduct $3000 worth of losses a year. The rest gets carried over to the next year. If you have losses again, then those losses get added to your total loss but you can still only deduct $3000 a year. If the following year, I make a profit of $20000 but I am carrying over losses of $15000, then I deduct those from the $20k and pay taxes on $5k.

    Parent
    My guess is that they're reporting his taxes (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:46:38 PM EST
    as a percentage of his taxable income, that would seem logical and standard to me. (I am also not a tax accountant) So using your example that would be 150,000/1,000,000 = 15%.

    Parent
    The Mittster and Ann paid roughly 14.1% tax rate (none / 0) (#67)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 01:56:24 PM EST
    for 2011.  $1.93 million on $13.7 million

    A pittance (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:01:07 PM EST
    I pay almost twice that rate. But then, I have a job with wage income.

    Parent
    Yes, well (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:18:09 PM EST
    Same with us.  But we're just peons, I guess.  
    We should become hedge fund managers, venture capitalists, or be heavily involved in asset management or financial services.  We're missing the boat, apparently.

    Parent
    The reports are saying he paid an average rate (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:36:23 PM EST
    of a little over 20% for those 20 years, which compares to Obama's 20.5% last year. What % did you pay last year?

    Parent
    And, in order to compare apples to apples (none / 0) (#82)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:40:11 PM EST
    Romney and Obama's rates are calculated simply by dividing the fed tax they paid by their income. If your income is taxed at, say, 28%, that is not the same thing as what they're talking about.

    Parent
    That's the calculation I did (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:46:43 PM EST
    I know you weren't talking to me, but I'm going to answer anyway.  :-)

    My federal income taxes divided by my AGI = ~26.5% in 2011 and ~27.9% in 2010.  So it's apples to apples and I don't understand why I should pay a higher rate than Gov. Romney. I don't have a problem with the exemption on the charitable deductions; in fact, I assume Pres. Obama pays a lower rate at least in part because he donates far more to charity than I do.  But the tax-favored treatment of Gov. Romney's Bain income is crazy unfair, in my opinion.

    Parent

    Cap gains are taxed at a lower rate than earned (none / 0) (#91)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:51:17 PM EST
    income. Lots of reasons why that is, not that I think any of them will make you OK with it! :-)

    Parent
    You're right about that! (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:15:53 PM EST
    But the thing that is more galling than the rate differential is that the tax code pretends that the income Gov. Romney earned at Bain is capital gains rather than earned income. It should be taxed as earned income, and yet it's not. It drives me crazy.

    Parent
    I don't know why Obama's income was taxed at (none / 0) (#99)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:02:24 PM EST
    an effective rate of 20.5%, maybe he has a lot of cap gains too?
    Obama's own tax return for (2011) showed that he and his wife, Michelle, paid $162,074 in federal taxes on $789,674 in adjusted gross income, an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent.


    Parent
    Thank you, DC (none / 0) (#128)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:55:53 PM EST
    We're in the very same ballpark as you are, federal tax-wise.    ;-)

    Parent
    "Apples to apples"? (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:26:49 PM EST
    If you want to compare apples to apples, why are you comparing Obama's taxes for last year to Romney's average tax rate over the past 20 years, as opposed to Romney's tax rate for last year?

    Oh, wait, ...

    ... because "a little over 20%" is much closer to Obama's rate of 20.5% than Romney's tax rate from last year, which was 14.1%.

    Parent

    Of course that's the reason, (none / 0) (#118)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:32:40 PM EST
    they're about the same. And also because Obama hasn't released a summary of the past 20 years of his taxes. Is there more parsing that you'd like to do?

    Parent
    Not "parsing" (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:59:47 PM EST
    Just holding you to your own "apples to apples" standard.

    But I guess when you don't like the results of that standard, I guess it's time to pick up an orange ...

    Parent

    Makes no difference to me (none / 0) (#133)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 04:11:20 PM EST
    regarding what this sub-thread is about, the Obamas paid a lower effective rate (on their almost $800,000 income) last year than both DemocraticCat and Zorba paid, it's not just Romney...

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 04:22:23 PM EST
    one of the candidates thinks that is wrong, the other doesn't.

    Parent
    Really? That's your argument? (none / 0) (#137)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 04:37:03 PM EST
    That Obama's a hypocrite?!

    Parent
    Uhhhhmmmm, ... no (none / 0) (#138)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 04:45:04 PM EST
    One candidate thinks it's unfair that multimillionaires get taxed at lower rate than teachers, simply because they earn investment income rather than wages, and proposes to change it.

    The other likes it just fine.

    Parent

    Ya, I'll give you that. (none / 0) (#140)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 05:09:38 PM EST
    googling around it looks like while the O's only paid 20.5% in taxes, they then donated another 22% to charity. Gotta give them props for that, that's a chunk of dough.

    Parent
    What? (none / 0) (#141)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 05:28:57 PM EST
    Not sure how much the Obama's donated to charity, but that's really not relevant.  The issue is whether the candidates want to continue/rescind tax policies that allow multimillionaires to pay lower tax rates than working class people.

    Parent
    Heh. Yes. (none / 0) (#148)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 10:00:03 PM EST
    Vote Hypocrite in 2012!  To be fair, it wouldn't matter who you cast your vote for.  A truly bipartisan moment.

    No, I mean Obama's proposal for a more progressive tax code.  The easiest thing I could find to express it vis a vis his income was on his site.  The Tax Foundation has a calculator also.

    Parent

    Dodge, dick, dip, dive,&#65279; ... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 04:50:37 PM EST
    ... and dodge!

    Obama paid a lower rate and wants wealthier Americans to pay a higher tax rate.

    Mitt's just fine with paying a much lower rate than DemocraticCat, Zorba, and the rest of the working class.

    Which one do you agree with?

    Parent

    Oh, and ftr, (none / 0) (#122)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:38:30 PM EST
    I didn't make it a point to go and search out Obama's info, the USA Today did and reported it as a comparison in their article on Romney's taxes today.

    Parent
    Romney has released two years (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:53:32 PM EST
    Anything else about twenty years is fluff. Only the averages from those two mean anything unless he releases the rest. 2010 is still incomplete and he can refile 2011 based on his own statement and cut his rate down much lower.

    He went with the Friday news dump. Smart move on his part, but his return is still bad news during a really bad week. The fat lady has started putting on her makeup.

    Parent

    BTW - The reason Obama ... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 04:04:46 PM EST
    ... hasn't released a letter stating his effective tax rate over the past 20 years is because he's not trying to pump up the low tax rate he's paying now, as Romney is.  OTOH, Obama has released a full set of returns for the past 12 years, as opposed to say ...

    ... two.

    Parent

    Maybe more clear (none / 0) (#84)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:42:11 PM EST
    If you are in the, say, 28% income bracket, that is not the same thing as what they're talking about.


    Parent
    If I have already paid a high rate (none / 0) (#81)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:39:14 PM EST
    on my wages and I invest what I have saved, why should I have to pay a high rate on my profit. To me it seems unfair.
    I know you feel differntly, Zorba. I respect that but I disagree with your view.

    Parent
    But it's an income tax (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:53:57 PM EST
    If you invest your money by buying stock, you are generating income for yourself. Of course it should be taxed. I know you disagree -- vive la difference! But it is an "income" tax, not a "wage" tax. By treating different types of income differently, you create incentives for people to manipulate things to avoid taxes. Thus, the carried-interest debacle.

    Parent
    I agree it should be taxed but I don't think (none / 0) (#102)
    by vml68 on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:06:22 PM EST
    it should be taxed the same as wages. I believe there should be incentives to save and invest.  

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#130)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:57:30 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    We're part of the combo percentage serfs (none / 0) (#83)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:41:39 PM EST
    The lazy-a$$ 47% of the 99%.

    Parent
    I still want to see what he's hiding (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by shoephone on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 02:42:39 PM EST
    in the Cayman Islands. He ain't paid a dime on that.

    Parent
    Yeah, the rates and amounts are not the issue (none / 0) (#125)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 21, 2012 at 03:44:12 PM EST
    to me, except that the huge amounts make protecting his wealth important.  I want to know what loopholes and deductions he uses and would therefore be trying to protect as POTUS. It is a simple matter of conflict of interest.

    Parent
    Thursday Night Open Thread | 147 comments (147 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment