tvashtarkatena Posted January 26, 2012 Posted January 26, 2012 In space, no one can hear you shart. Quote
Off_White Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Yea, yea, theres SS/Medicare but that was not caluclated in Mitt's returns either. So as ususal Americans are about their high taxes. Not! Sorry Jim, but you're wrong. It WAS calculated in Mitt's returns, he simply didn't pay any because he didn't "earn" any of his money by working, its almost all investment income of one sort or another. There isn't a snowball's chance in hell he'll ever move to raise the capital gains tax, that tax cut has been the biggest personal bonus plan for him ever. Mitt makes noises like this focus on his income is about hating "success" and implies anyone can have what he has, though he's the ultra rich son of an extremely rich family. Certainly anyone born to vast wealth has an option to expand it, but you'll never get there if you're doing something as mundane as actually working. Mitt is so out of touch with real people, he described his income from giving speeches as "not very much really" and couldn't be bothered to keep track of how much money was involved. While for him, it really is "not very much", most of us would consider $374,000 a year a fair chunk of change. Mitt and his millions and millions doesn't create jobs either,unless you count maids, gardeners, and servants. That's what millionaire "job creators" do. Quote
Coldfinger Posted January 30, 2012 Author Posted January 30, 2012 Good points Senor Off White! So I guess Newt's from the Moon & Mitt's from Mars? Pretty entertaining watching a Polyamorist vs. a Polygamist. You'd think they'd be two peas in a pod. I have learned that if Newt gets his moonbase, it could be pretty fun up there. Meanwhile one of Mr. Barbour's pardoned murderers has show up here in Wyoming. Goddam I-80! Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Mitt is so out of touch with real people, As opposed to Barry, who is sooo in touch with the average Joe... Quote
Fairweather Posted January 30, 2012 Posted January 30, 2012 Mitt is so out of touch with real people, he described his income from giving speeches as "not very much really" and couldn't be bothered to keep track of how much money was involved. While for him, it really is "not very much", most of us would consider $374,000 a year a fair chunk of change. It's not much--when compared to Bill Clinton, who has earned nearly $87 million in speaking fees since 2001. In fact, $374,000 is less than Bill gets for a single event. It is also entertaining to compare Romney's millions in charitable contributions to, say, the last two or three Democrat contenders for the office. Just to be clear, I'm not voting for the guy--or any of the R-lot at this point. Quote
Coldfinger Posted January 31, 2012 Author Posted January 31, 2012 You have to love the irony of Newt riding the Tea Party Rage ticket--he's NOT a DC insider! Quote
Off_White Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Yeah, like I said FW, its not much, unless you're an average citizen, then its a helluva lot. The perception gap is what irks me. A lot of Romney's "charity" giving is tithing to the Mormon church, though its all done through his foundation, which is where that charitable donation mostly goes. I saw an income comparison between Obama, Romney, & Gingrich recently which included charitable giving. While Obama is way in the back with "only" 1.7 million in income, his percentage to charity was the highest. Romney was in the 10% range, and Newt was lower. I did find it amusing that Gingrich rails against "the elites" when he makes well over 3 million a year. Sure, I'm just a working class chump, but that meets my definition of "elite". Would you share who you're thinking of voting for? I think of you as a fairly mainline Republican, not out there on the wild eyed fringes, and I really wonder what the party currently offers those folks. People like my dad, a lifelong Republican who's (relatively) socially liberal but fiscally conservative, and truly offended by the evangelical wing. Where do you go? Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I saw an income comparison between Obama, Romney, & Gingrich recently which included charitable giving. While Obama is way in the back with "only" 1.7 million in income, his percentage to charity was the highest. Romney was in the 10% range, and Newt was lower. I saw a similar comparison and the numbers I remember were Romney and Barry each at around 13-14% and Newt at about 3%. The latter is nothing to be proud of, but for the other two, if you consider they each are just about matching their federal taxes with charitable contributions dollar for dollar, you have to comment them for it (and please, let's not go into nitpicking if one gave to a Church and the other to support the arts or whatever) Quote
Off_White Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I'm sure you meant to type "commend", and I do commend them, its a notable thing. I don't even meet Newt's 3% level, though if I made 3+million a year I would. However, I don't give anyone's church a pass as you suggest. Romney belongs to a religion that mandates a 10% tithe, and to my mind its no more a charity contribution than giving money to the Scientologists, Aryan Nations, or any other cult (including your generic Mega Church or the Pastafarians as well). I suppose my oppostion to tax exempt status for religious organizations is an entirely different subject though, so just for the sake of this thread I'll accept your "don't quibble" request. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I suppose my oppostion to tax exempt status for religious organizations is an entirely different subject though, so just for the sake of this thread I'll accept your "don't quibble" request. Well, I don't know how LDS spends its tithed collections, but assume at least a good portion of it goes towards some "good" whether direct and physical or intangible and emotional/spiritual. And of course there is overhead - LDS like all organizations of course has to pay salaries, and maintenance and upkeep of structures, utilities bills, etc. I do know a few members of this church and they appear to live modestly, and I judge that a lot more favorably than non-church goers that live relatively-more extravagantly. I would agree that there are churches out there that feed a small hierarchy with a pretty good lifestyle (good old Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker's abuses come to mind) Quote
rob Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I suppose my oppostion to tax exempt status for religious organizations is an entirely different subject though, so just for the sake of this thread I'll accept your "don't quibble" request. Well, I don't know how LDS spends its tithed collections, but assume at least a good portion of it goes towards some "good" whether direct and physical or intangible and emotional/spiritual. Exactly. Like keeping gays from marrying. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 Exactly. Like keeping gays from marrying. Let go of the hate, Rob. Quote
G-spotter Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I do know a few members of this church and they appear to live modestly, Given the amount of money they have to give to their leaders every time the leaders proclaim a new apocalypse, that's not surprising. The sheep get fleeced so the pigs can wear wool suits. http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/01/26/b-c-polygamist-tells-court-hes-paid-church-for-15-separate-apocalypses/ Quote
rob Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I do know a few members of this church and they appear to live modestly, Given the amount of money they have to give to their leaders every time the leaders proclaim a new apocalypse, that's not surprising. The sheep get fleeced so the pigs can wear wool suits. http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/01/26/b-c-polygamist-tells-court-hes-paid-church-for-15-separate-apocalypses/ And he didn't even get to clear his body thetans???!!!! What a gyp. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted January 31, 2012 Posted January 31, 2012 I do know a few members of this church and they appear to live modestly, Given the amount of money they have to give to their leaders every time the leaders proclaim a new apocalypse, that's not surprising. The sheep get fleeced so the pigs can wear wool suits. http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/01/26/b-c-polygamist-tells-court-hes-paid-church-for-15-separate-apocalypses/ FLDS not LDS. Mitt is in the mainstream version. As for fleecing, left-wing non-church goers have their own apocalypses they peddle, no? You know like the "crisis" of global warming which will destroy the world if we don't pay hundreds of billions now and for ever... Quote
Off_White Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Yeah, science, belief in the coming of god's son 18,000 years ago in the new world, Native American's dark skins due to original sin, gravitational theory, germ theory of disease: its all the same, right? Quote
AlpineK Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 There are a few religious folks who think climate change is a problem. It ain't just god haters WASHINGTON – An interfaith body of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish leaders announced a pact to fight global warming in a statement delivered to the White House and Congress on Monday. The religious leaders, including Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, agree that humans are a major contributor to global warming based on scientific evidence. Moreover, “An Interfaith Declaration on the Moral Responsibility of the U.S. Government to Address Global Warming” called on legislators to enact mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions and make earth care a priority. “Global climate change is one of the largest and most important issues facing all people,” said Jefferts Schori, in a statement. “If we take seriously our own tradition’s teaching about interconnectedness, we cannot fail to see that poverty and hopelessness is intimately linked to climate change. We must challenge the world to do what we can to minimize its effects on the least of us.” The declaration closely follows the release of the most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change, which claims humans are largely responsible for climate change and its effects including natural disasters, disease outbreaks, and massive forced migration. Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, noted that global warming is not simply a “scientific or political issue – it is a moral issue.” http://www.christianpost.com/news/us-religious-leaders-unite-to-fight-global-warming-27553/ Leave the world nicer than you found it. Seems like a good idea. Quote
billcoe Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 .....Personally, I would love to see Paul get the nomination. The quality of the debate would certainly go way up, and the GOP could certainly use some of his principles, even if shoved down their throats. Although I almost agree with that I'd have to call bullshit on that statement Pat. You'd be horrified. Hell, I'd be horrified and me being much closer to being a nutjob: as you know, I espouse a lot of what he says. I know that we both like to see some of those major issues he'd bring to the table be in the debate though. It looks like it won't happen. Anyway, he doesn't have a chance for the nomination, and he's older than Reagan was before Reagan got alzheimers....there is that....and the button. Hope I got them commas right for Miss panitesinabunchpunctuation up there. Regards to all. Quote
Coldfinger Posted February 1, 2012 Author Posted February 1, 2012 Not to change the subject but Off White got me wondering when he mentioned the 18,000 year old messiah holiday in America thing....... Anybody care to explain Newt and/or Mitt's position on evolution? That's a perfectly good nut-job-litmus question for me. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Not to change the subject but Off White got me wondering when he mentioned the 18,000 year old messiah holiday in America thing....... Anybody care to explain Newt and/or Mitt's position on evolution? That's a perfectly good nut-job-litmus question for me. Do you actually think Newt is an Evangelical? Quote
Fairweather Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Yeah, like I said FW, its not much, unless you're an average citizen, then its a helluva lot. The perception gap is what irks me. A lot of Romney's "charity" giving is tithing to the Mormon church, though its all done through his foundation, which is where that charitable donation mostly goes. I saw an income comparison between Obama, Romney, & Gingrich recently which included charitable giving. While Obama is way in the back with "only" 1.7 million in income, his percentage to charity was the highest. Romney was in the 10% range, and Newt was lower. I did find it amusing that Gingrich rails against "the elites" when he makes well over 3 million a year. Sure, I'm just a working class chump, but that meets my definition of "elite". Would you share who you're thinking of voting for? I think of you as a fairly mainline Republican, not out there on the wild eyed fringes, and I really wonder what the party currently offers those folks. People like my dad, a lifelong Republican who's (relatively) socially liberal but fiscally conservative, and truly offended by the evangelical wing. Where do you go? House Rep: [x] Norm Dicks Senator: [x] Maria Cantwell (probably) Governor: [x] Rob McKenna President: [ ] None of them. Quid pro quo, where does a good liberal go when their guy continues targeted assassinations overseas, dramatically increases drone strikes on ill-defined terrorists (and their families), pulls out of Iraq two years past his promise, now fully embraces neo-liberal economic policy, and has completely reneged on his promise to close Guantanamo Bay? Edited February 1, 2012 by Fairweather Quote
Crux Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 A good liberal will vote Republican when that's the best option. That's why I'm going to vote for Obama. Quote
AlpineK Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 I'd have to say I had more respect for McCain than I do for the current group of repubs. I wasn't going to vote for him, but I did think he had the right experience and skills to be a candidate. Of course picking Sarah Palin as his first act was a really bad decision. Still... Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 1, 2012 Posted February 1, 2012 Who's Mitt gonna take as VP then? Rubio. Who is Barry going to take? The stuttering old coot again? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.