Forum Thread

Bain Investor told Harry Reid: "Mitt Romney didn't pay any taxes for ten (10) years"

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 30 of 63 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    michaels39301 Wrote: Sabrina,

    This is the statement that I have heard over and over and over and yes over again from the Repubs about the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy:  "Republicans countering that they were safeguarding small businesses and jobs".  However, each and every time I hear it, I want to say to Boehner or whoever that only a very puny number of small businesses earn over $1MM/yr., the wealthy are mostly investors (overseas especially) and all they do is count their money.  I also always want to ask them if these wealthy need the tax cuts to create businesses and jobs, where are these new businesses and jobs now, and where have they been for the past 4 years?  They ARE getting those tax cuts now, so the businesses and jobs should be there now as well.  But they are not and have not been for some time, way before these tax cuts are set to expire.  

    This makes me say that, as you say, bring on the fiscal cliff.....that is my almost sure bet to get the tax cuts for ONLY the bottom 98%.



    You know the funny/sad thing is that the tax on the wealthy would only keep the country going for 8 days. Sounds like a tempest in a teapot, done for political gains. I think we need to deal with the real issue, which is too much spending by both "sides".
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    DON'T use the extra taxes from the rich to run the country, use it to pay down the deficit/debt.  This would be a bigger chunk off the debt than anything I have heard suggested before.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The tax President Obama wants on the "wealthy" would run the country for 8 days. That is miniscule. It is just as miniscule if you used it to pay the defecit down. We are at a 15 trillion plus defecit now. It is increasing by over a trillion a year. The tax on the "wealthy" would then reduce the annual new defecit by 8/365 ths of the 1 trillion plus ! Minutia. The issue is the 15 trillion !!! The President needs to get a budget passed that gets us solvent. Not a novel idea. Just needs leadership.But nobody wants to come clean on the pain we would have to endure to get there-there are no votes in pain. Hello Greece.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Well if that's the case, find some way to get another Dem. majority in the house and senate both, and that will take care of it.  All the Repubs. want is to pad the bank accounts of the rich, thus they are either PROPONENTS of increasing their own pocketbooks or AGAINST anything positive in debt reduction offered by the Dems.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Also, if the tax cuts are removed from the rich, I believe that would amount to ~$800MM/year, or as the pols like to say, ~8 trillion over 10 years.  And there is no way you or anyone can say that is insignificant or miniscule. 
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    michaels39301 Wrote: Also, if the tax cuts are removed from the rich, I believe that would amount to ~$800MM/year, or as the pols like to say, ~8 trillion over 10 years.  And there is no way you or anyone can say that is insignificant or miniscule. 



    not sure where you got your numbers, but I am comfy with mine ! Note that 800M is less than a billion- a billion is 1000 millions-  so I think you are mistakenly converting billions into trillions in your example- eg at 800M a year, 10 years is 8 Billion, not Trillion !
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    michaels39301 Wrote: Well if that's the case, find some way to get another Dem. majority in the house and senate both, and that will take care of it.  All the Repubs. want is to pad the bank accounts of the rich, thus they are either PROPONENTS of increasing their own pocketbooks or AGAINST anything positive in debt reduction offered by the Dems.



    Not to be contrary, but the President ignored the bi-partisan recommendation on he requested and got from Simpson Bowles. The only ones talking at all about the " solution" are Republicans (eg Ryans budget plan) - but nothing will happen till after the election as nobody wants to hear about the pain of fixing this mess.Pain does not bring votes. Hello Greece. After the election the Republicans will cut expenses dramatically and re-invigorate business; President Obama will initially increase taxes on the rich, and then on everybody as there is not enough $ in the rich to fix the issue, even if we confiscated all their wealth.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    my mistake, thanx for catching it, but 8 Billion is still not small change, unless you are Mitt's daughter
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    "8 Billion is still not small change"

    Yep, that's quite a bit of money...for most of us.

    Until you consider the YEARLY national deficit is what, 1.5 TRILLION?   

    For President Obama, and Congress, 8 Billion probably IS small change.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    fenway spoke this:

    “The actual news reporting organizations require things like facts and evidence.”


    fenway, you don’t really believe this do you?  A fact is something that can be proven or disproven, when media reports on facts, this does not mean it is a proven fact, by no means.  Media puts a spin on what they want you to believe; this spin is not a fact at all. 

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Here's a fact:

    When Reid goes on the Senate floor and makes a serious allegation about Romney, he should back it up.

    Harry Reid is not some unknown lowlife on an obscure political forum, he's actually someone who holds a place of importance in the US Gubmint.

    Reid may be a lowlife, but he's able to actually get attention paid to him.

    To make an accusation like that, on the floor of the Senate, then say that he has no proof, and give no source is pretty bad.

    Another example of how low our politicians will stoop.

    Have they no shame? 

    No, they do not.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Go Reid.  We have every right to expect a minimum of 5 ys of tax returns from a man running for prez.  The repubs demanded a minimum of that for minor presidential appointees.  Lets see 10 years of those returns or at least  5 years.  This is not stooping low this is  demaning he put his money where his mouth is.  He is running on the assumption that he was a great businessman during his time at Bain.  Fine now let us look at your moral values.  I suspect there are many years when he did not pay any taxes.  Hopefully this will be a step in the direction of closing the ridiculous tax breaks he has taken advantage of.  People need to wake ip and demand the wealthy pay their fair share.  They  leave their money to their kids in in such fancy ways that they don't even have to pay any taxes on the interest.  Meanwhile we have a savings acct  and we are paying taxes on the interest we receive.  This is not "class envy" this is "class disgust".  If he had  paid his fair share he would be publishing those returns.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Sorry but I have to side with the elephants on this one. In no way should the Senate President put himself in the position of making unsubstantiated statements about anyone. Romney is right on this one- Mr. Reid,now that he has done it, should put up or shut up. If not, whats to stop Romney from saying tomorrow : "Someone said President Obama had sex with an intern in the Oval Office", etc etc etc . Mr Reid crossed the line. Unseemly.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dem,

    I agree with you that he should release more tax returns.

    But he's decided not to, at least for now, and he'll live with the consequences of that decision.

    Reid is the one who looks bad by making claims that he can't or won't back up. 

    Anything to divert attention away from the economy, huh?

    Anyone else see that the unemployment rate went up, that's right UP, again?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I suppose 24 straight months of it going down had to end sometime. The economy will have small fluctuations, Bush left the economy in shambles. Worst since the 1930s. Fixing it is an over night issue. I would love attention on the economy. The private sector is doing well, the public sector is being strangled of cash by the GOP