Ann Romney: "We've given all you people need to know."

[_Jason Bourne]

quote]The Obama approach is now vote "vote for me because I am better than the other guy." And that is because He has crap to run on really. He is not a great president, he is more of a socialist, I think the man has been in over his head for most of his presidency.[/quote]

I'm sad to see Jason has been sucked into the Right Wing BS so easily.

Oh please Kevin. Anytime someone disagrees with you politically you start out by poisoning the well with this type of statement. Really? FYI I listen to FOX, CNN, President on XM, read Time Magazine cover to cover every week, peaks and the WSJ and often look at liberal position from links you and other of my friends post of Facebook. I think I am fairly broad and open minded and make my own conclusion. Can you say the same?

Now I can't really tell his posts apart from Droopy's.

That was a low blow. And uncalled for really.

To say Obama has nothing to run on is just plain ridiculous. He has been running on his record and accomplishments at every town hall meeting he has attended, rarely mentioning Romney in the process.

I have been listening to entire speeches the President is giving on the campaign trail that are played unedited on President and I hear little by him about his record. Mostly he talks about how bad Romney is, how Romney shipped Jobs overseas, how Romney wants to bring back the same old failed policies, how he needs more time because Bush sucked and left him with a horrible mess and so on.

Honestly I am tired of both him and Romney attacking each other. I want to hear them discuss issues, talk about their respective plans to reduce the defecit and stimulate the economy. Obama says he wants to build the economy from the middle class up-BUT HOW is he going to do that? Romney says he is a business man that can create jobs and get the economy going. But HOW? Neither talk about that much.

The fact that Romney is so incompetent that he can't even anticipate the fallout from his tax returns, is just astounding. Does he really think the American people are going to let him get away with not showing them his tax returns for the past decade? You learn something new everyday I suppose. Romney isn't just a liar, he's also an idiot.

You may not like Romney but people don’t get as far as he has by being incompetent and an idiot. And by the way you really do need to stop calling people idiots so often. You do do this. You are smart enough to get your point across without such statements.

Regarding Jason's comment about Obama's so called "nothing to run on"... Obama has accomplished more than any other President in recent memory. Killing Osama bin Ladin alone is more than Bush ever did, but that is hardly the extent of his accomplishments, and given the unprecedented level of congressional opposition, I'd say the man has nearly worked miracles. Here are his top ten accomplishments, out of fifty):

1. Passed Health Care Reform: After five presidents over a century failed to create universal health insurance, signed the Affordable Care Act (2010). It will cover 32 million uninsured Americans beginning in 2014 and mandates a suite of experimental measures to cut health care cost growth, the number one cause of America’s long-term fiscal problems.

If this is such a great accomplishment ( and the whether it is or not can be debated another time, then why isn’t Obama talking about it more and more? Is it because it appears that the majority of Americans don’t like the bill?

2. Passed the Stimulus: Signed $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009 to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression. Weeks after stimulus went into effect, unemployment claims began to subside. Twelve months later, the private sector began producing more jobs than it was losing, and it has continued to do so for twenty-three straight months, creating a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs.

This really is a continuation of what Bush was doing as he left office. And whether is really made a the difference that you outline above is hard to tell. Smart economists on both sides argue pro and con against this. One thing is for sure, it did not deliver the below 8% unemployment the president said it would. And another question is what is the long term cost to us given what it added to the defecit? Such stimulus provide short term fixes, not long term and are not sustainable.

But again why don’t I hear Obama talking about this if it is a hallmark of his presidency?

3. Passed Wall Street Reform: Signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (2010) to re-regulate the financial sector after its practices caused the Great Recession. The new law tightens capital requirements on large banks and other financial institutions, requires derivatives to be sold on clearinghouses and exchanges, mandates that large banks provide “living wills” to avoid chaotic bankruptcies, limits their ability to trade with customers’ money for their own profit, and creates the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (now headed by Richard Cordray) to crack down on abusive lending products and companies.

4. Ended the War in Iraq: Ordered all U.S. military forces out of the country. Last troops left on December 18, 2011.

5. Began Drawdown of War in Afghanistan: From a peak of 101,000 troops in June 2011, U.S. forces are now down to 91,000, with 23,000 slated to leave by the end of summer 2012. According to Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, the combat mission there will be over by next year.

6. Eliminated Osama bin laden: In 2011, ordered special forces raid of secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, in which the terrorist leader was killed and a trove of al-Qaeda documents was discovered.

7. Turned Around U.S. Auto Industry: In 2009, injected $62 billion in federal money (on top of $13.4 billion in loans from the Bush administration) into ailing GM and Chrysler in return for equity stakes and agreements for massive restructuring. Since bottoming out in 2009, the auto industry has added more than 100,000 jobs. In 2011, the Big Three automakers all gained market share for the first time in two decades. The government expects to lose $16 billion of its investment, less if the price of the GM stock it still owns increases.

I will give you these though I am not sure Dodd-Frank is a great law yet. It seems too far reaching.

With the tax-filing deadline looming, Republican Senate candidate Mitt Romney yesterday challenged Sen. Edward M. Kennedy to disclose his state and federal taxes to prove he has ‘nothing to hide,’ but another GOP rival, John R. Lakian, called Romney’s move ‘bush league’ ‘It’s time the biggest-taxing senator in Washington shows the people of Massachusetts how much he pays in taxes,” said Romney, a business consultant from Belmont. Romney said he would disclose his own state and federal taxes for the last three years ‘on the very day that Kennedy turns over his taxes for public scrutiny.’ [Boston Globe, 4/19/94]

If you read my comments above I said he should release his tax returns but I also noted he is in a no win situation in this regard.

Jason goes on to complain that anyone would criticize while not knowing what his tax returns will tell us, but then he does precisely what you complains about, by assuring us that there is nothing to hide. That no laws have been broken and that all they will show is that he is a wealthy man. Well, b***s***. Jason doesn't know what they will tell us because he doesn't know what's in them either. He is just speculating that poor innocent Romney's tax returns are completely legal and legit, which can only be misinterpreted by inferior minds who simply don't understand tax codes as well as he does! Sigh!

Yep I am speculating just like many are here. But can you really dispute my point that making an assumption that there is nothing illegal or untoward in them that they will likely contain things that are very complex and hard for the average person to understand. And by the way Mr Hyperbole Graham, I never said that someone’s mind was inferior because they do not understand tax law. Who would unless they deal with it regularly? But my point is people will, if they see say a foreign trust, think something fishy is up even if there is nothing wrong.

The fact is Jason, there are a number of reasons why Romney would want to hide his tax returns. It doesn't necessarily have to do with breaking laws. It could very well have to do with the fact that the more we learn about how Romney "earns" his wealth, the least likely he is to identify with the American voters.

And if he earns his wealth in ways that are different and beyond the norm so what? Did Kennedy earn his wealth the way most Americans did/do?

Take for example his embarrassing back and forth b***s*** about being a Bain man but not really. About being a CEO who had ZERO responsibility, contrary to business documents provided during that same period. You complain that people said he may have commited a felony, but this was born from a logical deduction of the evidence based on the contradicting claims coming from him, his wife, is spokespersons, and his precious company. But the point is, the most important thing we learned from all of this is that Romney (despite talking about how wealth is "earned" from hard work, etc) has been making a six figure income for doing absolutely NOTHING. That's what his argument had to devolve into in order for him to distance himself from Bain's outsourcing programs. "Oh it wasn't me, I was only the CEO and sole owner, but it was BAIN who did all that outsourcing" This argument is idiotic and it is enough to piss off those whose intelligence has been insulted.

Romney should have owned what Bain did. There is nothing wrong with businesses looking for low cost options in a worldwide economy. But even an SEC chairman or former chairman said Romney did nothing illegal in being listed as the CEO and owner of Bain in a transition period and he could have had the title and even drawn a salary without running the company. The practice is not uncommon at all. I have business clients transitioning the business to say a son or a new owner that stay on as CEO for a number of reasons while not running the company day to day. And they can draw compensation. It is typically in some form of a deferred compensation plan. Not uncommon at all.

No time for the rest.

[_beastie]

Obviously there's something on his tax returns that is worse than the one he released. I suspect he paid at an even lower tax rate, or was more involved with Bain than he's willing to admit.

But he has to know that the speculation will be wild and rampant. I doubt he committed a felony, but the point of that remark was that he was either lying about his involvement with Bain now as a politician, or he lied when he signed Bain documents for the fed, which would be a felony. I'm sure he's just lying as a politician. But he doesn't want Bain around his neck during that problematic time period.

Whether or not any individual approves or not, the fact is that income inequity is an issue right now. Actually seeing, in black and white, how the very wealthy manage to avoid taxes would hurt Romney even more than simply refusing to release his tax returns, and he knows it. Of course, the difference is probably marginal at this point, due to the speculation and imagining even worse scenarios than the one I described.

[_Jason Bourne]

Obviously there's something on his tax returns that is worse than the one he released. I suspect he paid at an even lower tax rate, or was more involved with Bain than he's willing to admit.

Obviously?

Whether or not any individual approves or not, the fact is that income inequity is an issue right now. Actually seeing, in black and white, how the very wealthy manage to avoid taxes would hurt Romney even more than simply refusing to release his tax returns, and he knows it. Of course, the difference is probably marginal at this point, due to the speculation and imagining even worse scenarios than the one I described.

How do the wealthy avoid paying taxes? Do most of them actually avoid paying taxes? According to stats the top 1% paid over 36% of all income tax in 2009:

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

[_Kevin Graham]

Oh please Kevin. Anytime someone disagrees with you politically you start out by poisoning the well with this type of statement. Really? FYI I listen to FOX, CNN, President on XM, read Time Magazine cover to cover every week, peaks and the WSJ and often look at liberal position from links you and other of my friends post of Facebook. I think I am fairly broad and open minded and make my own conclusion. Can you say the same?

Yes, even more so, actually. I'm disappointed in you not because you disagree with me, but because you sit there and pretend Obama is "attacking" Romney for simply asking him to do the same precise things that seemed reasonable to:

1. A majority of the American prople
2. Romney's father
3. Mitt Romney of 1994 and 2000
4. Mitt's spokesperson Gillespie in 2004
5. The National Review and a plethora of Republican politicians.

Yes, for you to tell us Obama is only doing this because he can't run on his record, I have to question your ability to analyze the evidence you claim you've been exposed to.

The only people who are trying to defend Romney for thinking he is too important to do what every other Presidential candidate in recent memory, are the unreasonable extremists like Hannity, Beck and Droopy. Oh, and now you.

I have been listening to entire speeches the President is giving on the campaign trail that are played unedited on President and I hear little by him about his record. Mostly he talks about how bad Romney is, how Romney shipped Jobs overseas, how Romney wants to bring back the same old failed policies, how he needs more time because Bush sucked and left him with a horrible mess and so on.

He discusses these things because they are true and they need to be addressed, but he also speaks on his accomplishments which is something you said he never had. At least he has a record to run on, whereas all Romeny has to run on is lies misrepresentations with the overall theme being "At least I'm not Obama." Tell me Jason, what do you think of Romney's recent lies about Obama saying people don't make their own businesses. Let's see how open minded you are being about this. But I'm not going to concede your point about the ratio of attacks against Romney because it simply isn't true. Take for example this speech in Tampa in April:

Romney is mentioned a grand total of zero times. But look at what Obama does mention:

Now, part of building that economy is making sure that we’re not a country that’s known just for what we buy and what we consume. After all, our middle class was built by workers who invented products and made products and sold products -- the best in the world -- all around the world. Our economy was thriving when shipping containers left ports like this packed with goods that were stamped with three proud words: Made in America. And those exports supported a lot of good-paying jobs in America, including right here in Florida.

That’s the country I want us to be again. And that’s why, two years ago, I set the goal of doubling American exports by the end of 2014. Today, with the trade agreements that I’ve signed into law, we’re on track to meet that goal. Soon, there are going to be millions of new customers for American goods in South Korea, in Colombia, in Panama. Soon there will be new cars on the streets of Seoul that are imported from Detroit and Toledo and Chicago...

Now, one of the ways that we’ve helped American businesses sell their products around the world is by calling out our competitors, making sure they’re playing by the same rules. For example, we’ve brought trade cases against China at nearly twice the rate as the last administration. We just brought a new case last month. And we’ve set up a trade enforcement unit that’s designed to investigate any questionable trade practices taking place anywhere in the world. See, we’re going to take action whenever other countries are skirting the rules, breaking the rules, and putting our workers and our businesses at an unfair position...

Now the good news is already our exports to the Western Hemisphere are up by 46 percent since 2009. I want to repeat that because that’s obviously important to Tampa. (Applause.) Tampa is one of the biggest ports in the country and a lot of the business being done here has to do with trade between us and Latin America. So the fact that it has gone up 46 percent since 2009 is a big deal for Tampa. In Florida, exports to this region are up nearly 30 percent. We now export more to the Western Hemisphere than to any other region in the world. And those exports support nearly 4 million U.S. jobs...

One of the new things that we’re doing is launching something called the Small Business Network of the Americas. Obviously, a lot of the exports that leave from America to other places are big business and that’s great -- we want our big corporations successful, selling products all around the world because we’ve got a lot of small businesses that are suppliers to those big business. But we also want our small and medium-sized businesses to have access to these markets...

Our job in government is to help businesses grow and to hire -- to create platforms for their success. That’s one of the reasons I’ve cut taxes 17 times for small businesses. (Applause.) That’s why I’ve fought to tear down barriers that were preventing entrepreneurs from getting funding. And that’s why, yes, I’ve traveled around the world, opening new markets, so that American businesses can better compete in the global marketplace. (Applause.)...

It was really a brief speech that ends shortly after that last citation. He was constantly pointing out his accomplishments, which is something you asserted he couldn't do!

Moving closer to the election, six weeks ago in Cleveland the President gave [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/full-transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-the-economy-in-cleveland-ohio/2012/06/14/gJQAdY10cV_story.html]another speech[/url announcing that:

And in the coming weeks, Governor Romney and I will spend time debating our records and our experience, as we should. But though we will have many differences over the course of this campaign, there is one place where I stand in complete agreement with my opponent: This election is about our economic future.

Now I want to point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with explaining why voting for the other guy is going to be bad for the country. Romney boasts his big business experience as a valid qualification to run the US Government, and Obama has every right, nay the obligation, to challenge and scrutinize his posturing from every angle possible and warn the American people about what they would be getting if he were elected: Bush 2.0.

Obama goes on to provide a background of economic theory that was in place since 2001, and how those policies pushed us to the brink of depression. Then before ever mentioning Romney's name, he points to his own record:

And when my opponents and others were arguing that we should let Detroit go bankrupt, we made a bet on American workers and the ingenuity of American companies and today our auto industry is back on top of the world.

He then explains that this election is going to be a battle between two different ideologies on getting the economy where it needs to be. He then refers to the view of his opponents which is shared by Romney:

Now, Governor Romney and his allies in Congress believe deeply in the theory we tried during the last decade, the theory that the best way to grow the economy is from the top down.

So they maintain that if we eliminate most regulations, we cut taxes by trillions of dollars, if we strip down government to national security and few other basic functions, then the power of businesses to create jobs and prosperity will be unleashed and that will automatically benefit us all.

That’s what they believe. This -- this is their economic plan. It has been placed before Congress. Governor Romney has given speeches about it, and it’s on his website. So if they win the election their agenda will be simple and straightforward; they have spelled it out. They promise to roll back regulations on banks and polluters, on insurance companies and oil companies. They’ll roll back regulations designed to protect consumers and workers.

They promise to not only keep all of the Bush tax cuts in place, but add another $5 trillion in tax cuts on top of that.

In my view, Obama accurately describes Romney's intentions. There is no "attacking" here. Romney's plan is the same exact plan that was instituted by George Bush in 2001. I would only add that Romney, like Bush, wants to increase military spending, and Obama need to hit on that fact as well. Obama then concludes his speech by pointing out that the Republicans plan to make cuts in government spending to cover $5 trillion, but that they've yet to specify where they want to make cuts. This is also true. They're afraid to say what they're planning to cut because either 1. they have no real plan or 2. they know Americans would never vote for them if they knew. Obama then goes on to describe his economic vision, his detailed plan to get there, and also his accomplishments during the first term:

Over the last three years I’ve cut taxes for the typical working family by $3,600.
I’ve cut taxes for small businesses 18 times.

I have approved fewer regulations in the first three years of my presidency than my Republican predecessor did in his.

And I’m implementing over 500 reforms to fix regulations that were costing folks too much for no reason...I’ve signed a law that cuts spending and reduces our deficit by $2 trillion. My own deficit plan would strengthen Medicare and Medicaid for the long haul by slowing the growth of health care costs -- not shifting them to seniors and vulnerable families.

Again Jason, there's that record you say Obama isn't able to run on. He ends the last ten minutes talking about the details of his plan and how they dovetail with his previous accomplishments as President.

So then another another speech given June 15, on immigration policy. Nowhere in the speech does he even mention Romney's name.
The first time I recall him going after Romney's record was on June 17th in this speech. But first he touched on his accomplishments again:

I believe in the American worker and I believe in American ingenuity. (Applause.) And so we got management and workers together, and guess what -- three and a half years later G.M. is the number-one automaker again. (Applause.) The auto industry is roaring back and they're building better cars and more fuel-efficient cars than ever. That's an example of what America can do when we work together. (Applause.)... In 2008, I said I'd end the war in Iraq. (Applause.) Thanks to the brave men and women in uniform that serve us with such valor, I was able to keep that promise. (Applause.) I said we'd go after bin Laden. (Applause.) Thanks to our men and women in uniform, I kept that promise. (Applause.) We are now winding down the war in Afghanistan and starting to bring our troops home. (Applause.)...

So considered me baffled when you say Obama has to attack Romney because he can't say anything about a record you think he doesn't have!

Honestly I am tired of both him and Romney attacking each other. I want to hear them discuss issues, talk about their respective plans to reduce the defecit and stimulate the economy.

Are you kidding? Romney doesn't want to discuss these things with anyone outside FOX News. He has to send his wife and his spokespersons to speak anywhere else, and in each case they make the issue worse for him. Just yesterday Romney's wife said they've given "all that you people need" probably referring to that evil "liberal media." Well who better to decide that, the American people or Romney? This is so much like the Mormon Church insisting they tell people "all they need" to know before getting baptized.

If this is such a great accomplishment ( and the whether it is or not can be debated another time, then why isn’t Obama talking about it more and more? Is it because it appears that the majority of Americans don’t like the bill?

He has talked about it. He talks about it when he says Romney wants to repeal it, effectively taking away health insurance for 33 million Americans.

This really is a continuation of what Bush was doing as he left office. And whether is really made a the difference that you outline above is hard to tell. Smart economists on both sides argue pro and con against this.

The vast majority of them consider it a huge success, even those who consider themselves Conservatives. As far as I can tell, the only folks downplaying it are the economists hired by Right Wing think tanks. I mean all you have to do is compare where we are now with where we were headed in the fall of 2008. Do you really think that unemployment would have planed off all by itself? Do you really think a total collapse of the financial system could have happened in 2008, and we'd somehow be better off now?

But again why don’t I hear Obama talking about this if it is a hallmark of his presidency?

The campaign trail has just begun Jason, chilax. Do you really think Obama ia AVOIDING this issue? Like he thinks he won't have to defend it at any point in time? You know, like their big debate in November? Do you expect him to expound upon all his accomplishments in every single speech? Since Romney was nominated, I can count Obama's speeches on one hand.

I will give you these though I am not sure Dodd-Frank is a great law yet. It seems too far reaching.

Check out the other 43 accomplishments listed at the link. Say whaveter you want about the significance of these things, but the fact is Obama is a worker. He isn't just sitting on his hands. Romney on the other hand admits getting paid for a job he doesn't even do.

If you read my comments above I said he should release his tax returns but I also noted he is in a no win situation in this regard.

What I got from your comments is that he should release them, but not that it would matter since there is probably nothing wrong with them. I also got from your comments that Obama is only focusing on this because Obama has no record to run on.

Yep I am speculating just like many are here. But can you really dispute my point that making an assumption that there is nothing illegal or untoward in them that they will likely contain things that are very complex and hard for the average person to understand.

Do you really think voters are generally going to go through his tax returns for themselves? Come on. You know verey well these tens of thousands of pages will be scrubbed by qualified tax lawyers on both sides. They'll provide their analysis and determine if there is anything amiss. We don't need you to tell us we're all too stupid to undertand these documents, therefore we should just stop requesting them. The fact that Romney keeps holding out is telling. His argument that he won't provide them because they'll be misrepresented is a lame cop out that even his own Republican cohorts aren't buying. Could they possibly be misrepresented more than he has misrepresented Obama's recent remarks about business creators? I mean you have to be an idiot or a liar to sit there and say Obama said what Romney attributed to him. So pick your poison. Which one of these best describes Romney?

And if he earns his wealth in ways that are different and beyond the norm so what? Did Kennedy earn his wealth the way most Americans did/do?

Well let's see the forms tell us first before speculating. Oh wait, we can't. Romney won't show them.

Romney should have owned what Bain did.

But why do you think he didn't? I mean the contradictions between what he has said, what his wife has said, what the business documents have said, all point to the irrefutable conclusion that someone is intentionally lying. But you're spending most of your time criticizing Obama for pointing this out, because, as you said, he has no record to run on.

[_beastie]

Obviously?

Well, there is an alternative. He could be incredibly inept politically.

Romney has been taking intense heat over this issue all week. He even did what he normally avoids - talked to the press a LOT last weekend about it. The shooting has taken the heat off of him, but it's temporary. The heat will be back on. Unless he's a completely incompetent politician, he's made a deliberate calculation, that the heat for not disclosing is less than the heat would be if he disclosed.

How do the wealthy avoid paying taxes? Do most of them actually avoid paying taxes? According to stats the top 1% paid over 36% of all income tax in 2009:

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

I didn't say the wealthy pay NO taxes. But the very wealthy can hire tax lawyers who help them take advantage of every loophole.

by the way, how much of our nation's wealth do the bottom 50 hold?

[_Kevin Graham]

How do the wealthy avoid paying taxes? Do most of them actually avoid paying taxes? According to stats the top 1% paid over 36% of all income tax in 2009:

It doesn't matter what percentage of the whole they pay. I'm so tired of this Right Wing argument. What matters is that they pay an amount proportionate to the amount of wealth they've accumulated. What does it matter if the bottom 1% pay 36% of all taxes if that same 1% owns 75% of all wealth? The bottom 90% may pay a smaller piece of the overall pie, but individually they pay a higher tax rate. Why is this so difficult to understand.

And the fact is Romney doesn't pay as much in taxes as most working Americans. You know perfectly well that the more money you have, the more you can afford tax attorneys who game the system to your advantage. Hiding money off shore is only one popular tactic the Rich use to avoid paying taxes. Romney should be held accountable for that.

[_EAllusion]

Obviously?

Yes. Otherwise they would have been released. But, in the current political environment, the tax returns indicating just how filthy rich he is might be the problem. We don't know. I have no problem with the man being wealthy, but that certainly is campaign fodder.

How do the wealthy avoid paying taxes? Do most of them actually avoid paying taxes?

They pay a lower margin than people not as well off due to a large % of their income deriving from investments that are taxed differently and due to having sophisticated accounting techniques at their disposal.

It's the comfortably upper middle-class that get hosed on taxes.

[Guest]

I know the building you are referring to Elphaba. I am still sad that it burned down.

Hi Cicero,

I was heartbroken when heard the news. Excluding my encounter with Ann Romney and a few other smugs, the time I spent in Cambridge was absolutely magical to me. It was the first time I'd ever seriously considered there may be something to reincarnation because the moment I arrived in Boston in the summer of '72, I felt like I'd come home. For example, did you ever go into one of the buildings at Harvard that still had the original wood on the walls, and felt overwhelmed by how pungently ancient it smelled? I swear, something deep inside me remembered that smell,though I'd never been there before, nor did I recall ever smelling it anywhere in So. Cal. where I grew up. But, my soul knew that smell, and it was wondrous to me.

As I said, I had grown up in So. Cal. and the church there is very similar to the church in Utah, but as you probably realize, it was very different in Cambridge. The building and grounds had that beautiful New England charm, and I absolutely loved the stimulating environment that encouraged intellectual discussions over rote lessons plans. Additionally, I made many, many wonderful friends who showed me a side of myself I'd never seen before, and it changed my life. I thrived while I was in Cambridge, and I miss everything about it terribly.

So, do you know if they rebuilt it to look the old chapel? Also, when were you there? Maybe we knew some of the same people.

Elphaba

Edited to fix typos and a punctuation error.

[_Cicero]

They pay a lower margin than people not as well off due to a large % of their income deriving from investments that are taxed differently and due to having sophisticated accounting techniques at their disposal.

It's the comfortably upper middle-class that get hosed on taxes.

Yep

Keep in mind that with assets (real estate, securities, etc.), you are only taxed when you actually realize an investment. So, for example, if you bought 1000 shares of Apple for $10 a share in 1979, the value of those shares would have increased by approximately $590,000, BUT you would have paid exactly zero in taxes on all that gain if you never sold any of the shares (you would have to pay tax on any dividends). Even better, you can get banks to loan you money using those shares as collateral and, in some cases, actually deduct the interest from your taxable income!

If you have assets, you can very easily get cash from loans to support a lavish lifestyle while avoiding taxes. And here is the real kicker: when you die you can pass those Apple shares onto your kids and they can then sell them TAX FREE (at the value they were at when you died). Good deal huh? Keep that in mind the next time someone tells you that we need to get rid of so-called "death" taxes.

[_Elphaba]

They've both made obtuse comments during the campaign, related to money and their seeming inability to recognize the difference between their lifestyles and the lifestyles of the vast majority of Americans (much less the rest of the planet).

Hi beastie,

Oh, I completely agree, though, as it turns out, Ann apparently said "people" instead of "you people," so I retract my statement above that her saying "you people" was an example of how she had treated me.

However, her behavior in the interview still makes it abundantly clear that the sense of privileged entitlement she displayed forty years ago is still part of her makeup. Her dismissive presumption that we need no further information about Mitt is offensive given her reason is that Romney is honest because he pays 10 percent of their income to their church (without explaining it is more of a corporation than a religion), and he took no salary while he was manager of the Olympics and governor of Massachusetts. I find this smug and obtuse because their wealth is obviously so massive none of those things presented any hardship whatsoever. In fact, I suspect that not taking salaries was a bit of political positioning on his part. There's nothing wrong with that, but bragging about it to distract others from asking hard questions is pretentious, and the fact that they don't see that is telling.

I believe the Romney's shock that Americans and the press (who have made it very clear THEY are the ones who get to choose the questions, not the Romney's), is a direct result of the decades Romney, and therefore Ann, were surrounded by people who were not allowed to question Mitt because he was both an authority figure in the Mormon Church and CEO of a massively successful company. Further, every time someone praised him at church for being such a wonderful bishop/SP, it reinforced his belief that God had ordained him to be the leader, the one who should not be questioned because God guides him, even unto the presidency. I'm not saying he is responsible for creating that culture, but that is the culture nonetheless. No wonder his ego is the size of a planet.

Bleh.

Is it possible that you were a 17-year-old cutie that she didn't like Mitt being friendly with?

You know, that never occurred to me! But, I highly doubt it. Like I said, I wasn't the only one she treated that way, and the only common variable was our low non-student social status.

Also, it was always crystal clear that Mitt and Ann adored each other. They were often both physically and verbally affectionate with each other in public, and it was a delight to watch them together. I both envied and marveled at them, because I had never seen anything like it. So, I never saw anything to make me suspect she felt threatened by me or any other woman. He truly only had eyes for her, and it appears they are as lovely together today as they were forty years ago.

Elphaba