Harry Reid: Mitt Is Not The Face Of Mormonism

[_Droopy]

Why?

I think Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster, but it can't hold a candle to his fiscal policy, if one can call it that. We spent money on a stimulus that put money we didn't have not into things that would actually stimulate the economy but instead into public-sector jobs and pensions, plus businesses friendly with the administration. We bailed out Wall Street (Bush's fault, too) and Detroit. It's ironic that they claim they "saved" jobs in the auto industry when all they did was ensure that GM and Chrysler did not have to reform and become more competitive. They say Romney would have allowed them to go bankrupt, but they did go bankrupt, except the taxpayers are on the hook to preserve inefficient, noncompetitive companies.

Well and good. Now, let me ask you this question: which is more important to you in an intellectual, psychological, and emotional commitment sense, you conservatism, or your dislike of the Church?

Why, in other words, are you here, as a conservative, in this particular forum?

[_Kishkumen]

I think Obama's foreign policy has been a disaster, but it can't hold a candle to his fiscal policy, if one can call it that. We spent money on a stimulus that put money we didn't have not into things that would actually stimulate the economy but instead into public-sector jobs and pensions, plus businesses friendly with the administration. We bailed out Wall Street (Bush's fault, too) and Detroit. It's ironic that they claim they "saved" jobs in the auto industry when all they did was ensure that GM and Chrysler did not have to reform and become more competitive. They say Romney would have allowed them to go bankrupt, but they did go bankrupt, except the taxpayers are on the hook to preserve inefficient, noncompetitive companies.

Foreign policy has been a disaster?

Why, because he hasn't offered to suck off Netanyahu, or threatened to bomb Iran?

Because he hasn't declared Russia our enemy?

Fiscal policy if you could call it that?

Holy crap. Remind me never to raise the topic of politics with you.

If you think electing Romney promises to be an improvement over Obama, when absofrickenlutely nothing he has said has indicated anything of the sort, then you are deeply mistaken.

I am amazed that cutting taxes on the wealthy or closing unspecified loopholes is to be considered an improvement.

If I promise to make things better, tell a thousand contradictory things in a few weeks, and refuse to reveal my plan for making things better, would you vote for me?

No wonder I am an independent. If this is what "voting for my party's nominee" obligates me to do--cast a ballot for the biggest idiot of a politician since W--then my choice is reaffirmed.

Yikes.

[_Kishkumen]

I should add, for the sake of fairness, that I think Mitt is probably a fine person and someone who is quite capable and talented in other areas--like avoiding taxes (sorry). He is, however, even less talented as a politician than either of the Bushes--he is in Dukakis, Dole, Kerry, and Mondale territory--and he has simply shifted positions too many times for me to be sure what it is he stands for.

How I wish they had nominated Jon Huntsman.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I should add, for the sake of fairness, that I think Mitt is probably a fine person and someone who is quite capable and talented in other areas--like avoiding taxes (sorry). He is, however, even less talented as a politician than either of the Bushes--he is in Dukakis, Dole, Kerry, and Mondale territory--and he has simply shifted positions too many times for me to be sure what it is he stands for.

That I agree with.

How I wish they had nominated Jon Huntsman.

I would have preferred a real conservative.

[_sock puppet]

I should add, for the sake of fairness, that I think Mitt is probably a fine person and someone who is quite capable and talented in other areas--like avoiding taxes (sorry). He is, however, even less talented as a politician than either of the Bushes--he is in Dukakis, Dole, Kerry, and Mondale territory--and he has simply shifted positions too many times for me to be sure what it is he stands for.

That I agree with.

How I wish they had nominated Jon Huntsman.

I would have preferred a real conservative.

Is that as mythical as a unicorn?

[_Jason Bourne]

The problem we are having here is that neither of you are legal academics and you haven't the foggiest clue where Brian Galle is coming from.

So enlighten us. But really Kish, I deal with the tax law every day, in real life, in the real world. Not just in theory.

I happen to have the advantage of both knowing Brian personally and being familiar with his other work. Galle is not contending that what Mitt has done is illegal.

Please show me where I said Galle said Romney is doing something illegal. I simply said including gains,which gains were likely unrealized gains, from his IRA to argue his actual tax rate was lower is a ludicrous argument to make.

He knows the law better than either one of you fine fellows.

He may but you really have no way of knowing whether he knows the tax code better than at least me now do you? How can you gauge that?

What he does is pose the question, as he has done in the past with the LDS Church's tax exempt status, of whether the law as it stands is in everyone's best interests and equitable.

Did he do that in the article I read?

Law academics are not required to treat the standing law and the behavior that it legitimizes as sacrosanct and thus above criticism.

Nor are tax practitioners. Nor do they.

So, fulminate all you like, but you are talking out of your asses.

Oh please. Really? As are you my friend if you continue to defend his IRA example.

Oh, and I would like for you to point out where Galle said that Mitt had cheated on his taxes.

Perhaps you are not talking to me but I never said he said that

[_Jason Bourne]

And do you really think legal academics know the law better than practicing lawyers?

Not all of them, but, yes, some do.

Sure some do and some don't. Their are crappy tax attorneys and CPAs and there are very good ones. There are great tax professors and lousy ones. Galle may be a great tax professor but the one example I take issue with was a bad example no matter how bright a teacher of tax law he is.

[_Kishkumen]

So enlighten us. But really Kish, I deal with the tax law every day, in real life, in the real world. Not just in theory.

So what does being a tax practitioner teach you about being an academic, other than the usual scorn practitioners heap on academics for being academics?

So, you are really very qualified to deal with questions of law as an academic would because you deal with tax law in the "real world."

Gotcha. Well, listen here, that is little more than the boiler plate disdain that many clueless dicks have about academics.

I am sorry you share that attitude.

Please show me where I said Galle said Romney is doing something illegal.

I am sorry, is Cicero your sock? Am I missing something here?

I simply said including gains,which gains were likely unrealized gains, from his IRA to argue his actual tax rate was lower is a ludicrous argument to make.

I, of course, am not a tax lawyer. All I can tell you is that I know something of how Galle thinks, and why he thinks that way. My guess, based on my personal knowledge of him, is that there is something behind his statement that you are not keyed into.

You should not assume you know exactly what he was saying and why based on a quote in a blogpost. We all know how accurate newspaper quotes are. Having been quoted in a major newspaper lately, I have some experience with that as well.

He may but you really have no way of knowing whether he knows the tax code better than at least me now do you? How can you gauge that?

So is it your tax lawyer ego that set you off here, Jason? You have nothing to prove to me. I am simply disappointed that you would jump to conclusions about someone you don't know based on a source that might be giving you garbled information.

Did he do that in the article I read?

I would guess yes. The guy, from everything I have seen, is a fairly complex thinker. How one would capture that in a journalist's quote is beyond me. My real issue here is with your trust of a journalist's quote, and, not knowing the man, you rush out to call him an "idiot."

Well, I happen to know he is not. And, you see, unlike you, I know the guy.

Nor are tax practitioners. Nor do they.

I wouldn't figure that people who make a living finding every loophole and concocting ways of helping billionaires and corporations pay as little in taxes as they possibly can would treat it as sacrosanct.

What would ever possess you to think that I did think such?

Just because I say one thing about tax law academics does not imply the opposite about tax lawyers--just for clarification.

Oh please. Really? As are you my friend if you continue to defend his IRA example.

You should think twice before jumping to conclusions. All you are doing is behaving like a dick based on a quote distilled from one news source.

[_Kishkumen]

Sure some do and some don't. Their are crappy tax attorneys and CPAs and there are very good ones. There are great tax professors and lousy ones. Galle may be a great tax professor but the one example I take issue with was a bad example no matter how bright a teacher of tax law he is.

Well, it may be crappy from your perspective. You may not have the full story, and, it may be that he was not quoted accurately, or that the full context is missing. Does the quote look problematic on its face? Yes.

Does that make Galle an idiot? No.

[_sock puppet]

IRAs (not Roth ones) defer taxation. So in a future year, when investment earnings might be 8% on $1,000,000 or $80,000, if the IRA owner withdraws that $1,000,000, he or she will taxed on $1,000,000. If he or she pays 30% tax, that's $300,000 tax in a year in which the investments only earned $80,000. Did he really pay 250% tax? $300,000 tax on $80,000 of income?

Of course not. Because the tax is deferred (not avoided), it is misleading to include the current investment earnings in one's income against which you compute the overall rate of tax that is paid. A tax law professor would know that doing so would skew the results.

With a Roth IRA, the government gets its tax dollars before the owner gets to use the rest. In exchange for paying the tax now and the owner agreeing to hold off until retirement before spending the Roth IRA balance, the investment earnings between having paid the tax and withdrawing the Roth IRA funds are not taxed.