[tantrix]

Originally Posted by engineer151515

Really? You're facing 16 TRILLION dollars of debt on your way to 20 TRILLION (which your children and grandchildren will be paying) and this is what you come up with?

How about this quiz. Guess what your US dollar is going to be worth in 4 more years under a Democrat budget-less spending policy? It rhymes with Mitt too.

http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/

I got a better quiz. Tell me how (if at all) Mittens is going to improve this debt situation.

[Goaltender66]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

And so, interestingly enough, he doesn't claim the full deduction for his charitable donations. Thereby making his tax liabity comply with the 'no less than 13%' proclaimed earlier. Who does that? Who intentionally over-pays their taxes? Didn't he say over-paying his taxes would disqualify him as president?

So let's parse this out. First you dismiss Romney's donations as being motivated only because of the tax deductions gained, then you turn around and dismiss Romney if he doesn't take the full deductions granted by the donations.

Your argument is incoherent.

[Peace Warrior]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

Mitt Romney described the 47% in 3 distinct groups:

Those who pay no federal income tax? Yep. That's me. I'm part of the vast majority who have below average earnings; one of the 9 out of 10 who earn less than $50K

People who get federal benefits? Yep. That's me, too. I believe I am entitled to health care and 'you name it'. I've been contributing to health care and 'you name it' for 30+ years.

Likely Obama Voters? Three for 3. Like me, there are many other Obama supporters who may have supported BHO in '08 but may think he's not the man for the job in '12. Well, Mitt Romney proved he's not interested in them either.

47% is a lot of people, about 30 million voters. A small percentage of them receive food stamps (about 16%). An even smaller number of them (about 2%) are actual fraud or abuse.

Mitt Romney choose to denegrate 29.4 Million people for the actions of 600 thousand.

47% of the USA's population is roughly 147,792,068.7 people, give or take a few thousand either way.

By the way, romney was spot on correct as pretty much 147,792,068.7 people actually do receive some kind of governmental financial assistance. Seems unbelievable huh? Yeah, but it is true. Go look for yourself and stop depending on the hype of the news media and political whores that insist the left or right is so much better than the other side.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am registered to certain party affiliation due to living in Florida, but I do not vote party lines.

(ETA: Some economists and accountants total the percentage receiving assistance as closer to 49%.)

[sheriff733]

Originally Posted by tantrix

I got a better quiz. Tell me how (if at all) Mittens is going to improve this debt situation.

How will Obama improve it?

[.264 magnum]

Originally Posted by tantrix

I got a better quiz. Tell me how (if at all) Mittens is going to improve this debt situation.

1.) Rolling back some of the Obama Regime's first term regulation blizzard.

2.) Internalizing as much of our BTU load as possible - this move would likely create several hundred thousand direct and indirect job - jobs with great pay as well.

3.) Tax credits and deductions to small business would help with UE and quickly as well.

[vtducrider]

Originally Posted by vtducrider

Social Security benefits are not the same as Welfare benefits. I didn't take the 47% to mean people like you. But that maybe where the problem is for Mitt - the media wants people like you to think you are part of that 47%.

Trew2life, I recant my statement. You are one of the 47% that Romney said he did not need focus his campaign on. You will vote for Obama no matter what.

[devildog66]

Never had a chance to begin with. That is, unless there is some secret video of the President with farm animals that has not yet surfaced...

[mj9mm]

i know several families who somewhat fit that statement and they know and also understand what he meant. they agree and are voting for him because they want their lives to get better and that won't happen under the current Democrat way of thinking

[JDennis]

I can see it both ways. It is worse than others in some states/area's.... I know when I go to my local gas station and a mom pulls out the obama card and buys her kids a bunch of candy, soda, ect while having perfect nails, hair and a real coach purse.... Something is wrong....

And agreed tax issues need to change, but where to give and take? I am single, don't own my own home and have no children. I pay over 40% in taxes, I might as well work at wally world and bring home a little less than I do now because I won't be making too much money and drop tax brackets. I don't mind paying a little more in taxes if there are policies that will make sure the money I am giving to other people is for truly their benefit. People that can't truly work, viably need help and are banned from feeding their kids full of junk food on my dime.

All in all I don't think Mitt hurt himself buy saying what he did. Why concentrate on the groups that would never vote for him anyway?

[Trew2Life]

Yes, Averageman. You win the imaginary point you drew by inserting Mitt Romney's charitable donations into the conversation. Which appeared, first, in post#238.

Did you know ... donations to political action groups are tax deductable? So are membership fees and donations to your favorite sports club.

I'm not hating on any of that, but I wouldn't use them as a test of a mans' true character. It doesn't change the fact that Mitt Romney doesn't worry about me if I fall within the 47% margin. Point Blank.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by vtducrider

Trew2life, I recant my statement. You are one of the 47% that Romney said he did not need focus his campaign on. You will vote for Obama no matter what.

And, Romney was right. There is a certain percentage of voters (and it is growing larger all of the time) that see government as the answer to all of their problems.

Romney is not their man, and the Republicans are not their party, and they know it.

[Trew2Life]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

Don't forget Wrights frequent rants against Jews, too.

Of course Obama claims that despite attending that church for 20 years, he had no idea what was being preached!

Awww ... and too bad Romney can't use any of this to his advantage. Seeing how the Mormon church had been discriminating against African American until 1978. And let's not talk about the polygamy issue.

[Averageman]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

Yes, Averageman. You win the imaginary point you drew by inserting Mitt Romney's charitable donations into the conversation. Which appeared, first, in post#238.

Did you know ... donations to political action groups are tax deductable? So are membership fees and donations to your favorite sports club.

I'm not hating on any of that, but I wouldn't use them as a test of a mans' true character. It doesn't change the fact that Mitt Romney doesn't worry about me if I fall within the 47% margin. Point Blank.

The irony is, I am sure he probobly does care what happens to you, he is a good Christian.
I am also pretty sure Mitt would rather see you successful and getting out of the "under 50K" a year and maybe work your way through hard work in to the 1%.
You see then you too could give to the sick and to the poor and recieve what must be a heck of a good feeling when Mitt writes that check and helps the sick and the poor.
It's too bad that more people haven't seen the light like you now have.

[Averageman]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

Awww ... and too bad Romney can't use any of this to his advantage. Seeing how the Mormon church had been discriminating against African American until 1978. And let's not talk about the polygamy issue.

How did they discriminate against Blacks until 1978?
How and why was polygamy necassary for the LDS Church at the time?
Just curious as to your opinion.

[Trew2Life]

Originally Posted by Averageman

How did they discriminate against Blacks until 1978?
How and why was polygamy necassary for the LDS Church at the time?
Just curious as to your opinion.

Research something other than the Crossroads GPS newsletter. You'd learn a thing or two.

[Averageman]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

Research something other than the Crossroads GPS newsletter. You'd learn a thing or two.

I have, care to Man up and make a statement?
Come on and make a charge and let me answer it.
Lets not let you go down the strawman road again, let me help you from making that mistake again.
Calm down and do some research first.

[Averageman]

Come on and I will help you, lets see what you have.

[Averageman]

Silly Rabbit, liberal tricks are for kids!


You know I'm gonna make you work for it and them I am going to prove you wrong,...Again!

But God Bless you, I hope you grow to see the light !

[Trew2Life]

Come back when you have something relevant and/or interesting to add. I'm calling the election 11/6/12 @ 11:17 PM with BHO winning enough EV's to secure re-election. I'm going to love Mitt's concession speech.

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

Did you know ... donations to political action groups are tax deductable? So are membership fees and donations to your favorite sports club.

Your point? Romney's donations are to private charities, not merely "tax deductible entities". His returns are specific on this, as is the PWC affidavit regarding his past two decades of returns.

Why is it so hard for you to simply acknowledge the fact that Romney does, in fact, give a great deal of his private wealth to charity? When you continuously deny obvious facts by insisting against all reason, evidence and linked information that the truth isn't the truth, all you do is ravage your own credibility.

It's like adamantly insisting that Obama isn't a good, caring father to his children in spite of massive evidence to the contrary. Such antics only make one look like a partisan hack.

[Trew2Life]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

Your point? Romney's donations are to private charities, not merely "tax deductible entities". His returns are specific on this, as is the PWC affidavit regarding his past two decades of returns.

Why is it so hard for you to simply acknowledge the fact that Romney does, in fact, give a great deal of his private wealth to charity? When you continuously deny obvious facts by insisting against all reason, evidence and linked information that the truth isn't the truth, all you do is ravage your own credibility.

It's like adamantly insisting that Obama isn't a good, caring father to his children in spite of massive evidence to the contrary. Such antics only make one look like a partisan hack.

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. Charitable donations are a wonderful thing. Churches do wonderful community services. I personally wouldn't measure a mans character based on the charitable donations reported on his tax returns. If you choose to do so that's your choice.

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. Charitable donations are a wonderful thing. Churches do wonderful community services. I personally wouldn't measure a mans character based on the charitable donations reported on his tax returns. If you choose to do so that's your choice.

You made yourself clear by throwing out irrelevant mud about contributions to "sports clubs" and repeatedly trying to claim (hinting at it yet again in the very post I am quoting) that Romney just donates money to the Mormon Church.

The fact that you keep running back to such claims, smears and implications in spite of being shown again and again and again by multiple sources that they simply aren't true doesn't exactly do your credibility any good.

Just sayin'.

[Trew2Life]

Originally Posted by tsmo1066

You made yourself clear by throwing out irrelevant mud about contributions to "sports clubs" and repeatedly trying to claim (hinting at it yet again in the very post I am quoting) that Romney just donates money to the Mormon Church.

The fact that you keep running back to such claims, smears and implications in spite of being shown again and again and again by multiple sources that they simply aren't true doesn't exactly do your credibility any good.

Just sayin'.

If you consider an inherent skepticism of the American Tax code as 'smears and implications', then that's your perogative.

You apparently have a reading comprehension disorder. Can you show post# and/or quote where I said that "Romney just donates money to the Mormon Church".

After that fail, you should realize it's your credibility that is in question.

[tsmo1066]

Originally Posted by Trew2Life

If you consider an inherent skepticism of the American Tax code as 'smears and implications', then that's your perogative.

You apparently have a reading comprehension disorder. Can you show post# and/or quote where I said that "Romney just donates money to the Mormon Church".

After that fail, you should realize it's your credibility that is in question.

So it wasn't you who said the following regarding Romney?

"Nothing is wrong with tithes. Churches do great community services. But those charitable donations as tax deductions don't impress me. That's your 'sin tax'."

Also note that you made that comment several posts after I pointed out that Romney did not merely tithe, but was giving to numerous private charities.

I suppose next you will be trying to argue that your snipe about "sports club" donations was just an irrelevant sidebar that had nothing to do with the thread at all, rather than an attempt at muddying the water and implying that Romney's tens of millions in charitable donations are just gifts to his favorite recreational sporting establishments.

Sorry, but the only "fail" here is yours, and your credibility is suffering for it.

[BSA70]

Romney is way behind in the polls in the buckeye state-Ohio. Can he win without Ohio. I have read that is the key to the election.......