Mitt Romney claims he saved the 2002 Olympic Games. He fails to mention that what he did was to get $1.3 billion in federal money to bailout the most expensive Olympic games ever held.
Now his wife owns a horse that will compete in the 2012 games. It turns out that they used to horse to avoid paying taxes. In 2010 they wrote off $77,000 in expenses to care for the horse.
The Olympic games are seen on TV by most of us because tickets to events can cost hundreds of dollars. In 2002, they sold 1.525 million tickets. The U.S. government subsidy turned out to be $825 per ticket. Of course, the Olympics were successful, we taxpayers subsidized it for the rich to attend.
$77,000 loss in one year on a horse? The mean average U.S. wages for 2010 was $26,000. They lost the same amount of money on a horse in one year than three American workers made.
The Olympic games...paid for by all of us so the rich and powerful can get tax write offs on hobbies.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 20, 2012, 09:47:04 AM
Mitt Romney claims he saved the 2002 Olympic Games. He fails to mention that what he did was to get $1.3 billion in federal money to bailout the most expensive Olympic games ever held.
Now his wife owns a horse that will compete in the 2012 games. It turns out that they used to horse to avoid paying taxes. In 2010 they wrote off $77,000 in expenses to care for the horse.
The Olympic games are seen on TV by most of us because tickets to events can cost hundreds of dollars. In 2002, they sold 1.525 million tickets. The U.S. government subsidy turned out to be $825 per ticket. Of course, the Olympics were successful, we taxpayers subsidized it for the rich to attend.
$77,000 loss in one year on a horse? The mean average U.S. wages for 2010 was $26,000. They lost the same amount of money on a horse in one year than three American workers made.
The Olympic games...paid for by all of us so the rich and powerful can get tax write offs on hobbies.
Can I get an "Amen", here, brother?
Absolutely.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 20, 2012, 09:47:04 AM
Mitt Romney claims he saved the 2002 Olympic Games. He fails to mention that what he did was to get $1.3 billion in federal money to bailout the most expensive Olympic games ever held.
Now his wife owns a horse that will compete in the 2012 games. It turns out that they used to horse to avoid paying taxes. In 2010 they wrote off $77,000 in expenses to care for the horse.
The Olympic games are seen on TV by most of us because tickets to events can cost hundreds of dollars. In 2002, they sold 1.525 million tickets. The U.S. government subsidy turned out to be $825 per ticket. Of course, the Olympics were successful, we taxpayers subsidized it for the rich to attend.
$77,000 loss in one year on a horse? The mean average U.S. wages for 2010 was $26,000. They lost the same amount of money on a horse in one year than three American workers made.
The Olympic games...paid for by all of us so the rich and powerful can get tax write offs on hobbies.
But don't you know? He creates jobs!
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 20, 2012, 09:47:04 AM
Mitt Romney claims he saved the 2002 Olympic Games. He fails to mention that what he did was to get $1.3 billion in federal money to bailout the most expensive Olympic games ever held.
Now his wife owns a horse that will compete in the 2012 games. It turns out that they used to horse to avoid paying taxes. In 2010 they wrote off $77,000 in expenses to care for the horse.
The Olympic games are seen on TV by most of us because tickets to events can cost hundreds of dollars. In 2002, they sold 1.525 million tickets. The U.S. government subsidy turned out to be $825 per ticket. Of course, the Olympics were successful, we taxpayers subsidized it for the rich to attend.
$77,000 loss in one year on a horse? The mean average U.S. wages for 2010 was $26,000. They lost the same amount of money on a horse in one year than three American workers made.
The Olympic games...paid for by all of us so the rich and powerful can get tax write offs on hobbies.
LOL! Not a deduction, a loss, and it was a disallowed loss. The net savings on his taxes that he received as a product of that loss was $49. He paid $4,619,207 in taxes that year. He overpaid 1,609,441 and was eligible for a refund of that amount.
Here is his tax return. You can find the deduction on page 151. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/23835520/Romney1040-2010.pdf
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8158/7408297346_4fa8ccfbfb_z.jpg)
Thanks for playing.
That is your defense?
Fine. His company posted a "loss" of $77,000 on his wife's hobby.
You are right, gaspar. That is much clearer.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 20, 2012, 10:18:21 AM
That is your defense?
Fine. His company posted a "loss" of $77,000 on his wife's hobby.
You are right, gaspar. That is much clearer.
Ugh. That's not his company. That's his personal 2010 return. Rob Rom Enterprises is the LLC set up for his wife's horse under his own SSN. There's nothing seedy here.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 20, 2012, 10:23:35 AM
Ugh. That's not his company. That's his personal 2010 return. Rob Rom Enterprises is the LLC set up for his wife's horse under his own SSN. There's nothing seedy here.
"These aren't the droids you're looking for..."
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-plrdb_sHeTk/TijgJ7h8BoI/AAAAAAAAEdU/fmE5pBOG0VY/s1600/obi-wan.jpg)
OK. He set up a LLC under his own SSN.
I said it was his company. Are LLC's not companies? I know corporations are people but you say limited liability companies are not companies?
Again, that is your defense?
There is plenty to go after Romney on, so really this is not a big deal. It is just a way for you to portray him as an out of touch rich dude, as if pretty much every other person running for federal office is not out of touch with the "average American" whatever that means.
Quote from: erfalf on June 20, 2012, 10:37:44 AM
There is plenty to go after Romney on, so really this is not a big deal. It is just a way for you to portray him as an out of touch rich dude, as if pretty much every other person running for federal office is not out of touch with the "average American" whatever that means.
Portray him?
You think betting a fellow debater $10,000 on something during one of the Republican debates doesn't already do that for him?
In fact, the Olympics (the main point of the thread) should portray him as a government type that can get the funding. I've heard a criticism of Romney being that he only gets the private sector (even though he was a Governor of a significant state?) and doesn't understand how the government machine works.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 10:39:21 AM
Portray him?
You think betting a fellow debater $10,000 on something during one of the Republican debates doesn't already do that for him?
Again though, does it really matter? We crucify those running for political office who have had financial problems in the past, we crucify them for having too much money. What is it going to take to make someone happy?
Quote from: erfalf on June 20, 2012, 10:41:17 AM
In fact, the Olympics (the main point of the thread) should portray him as a government type that can get the funding. I've heard a criticism of Romney being that he only gets the private sector (even though he was a Governor of a significant state?) and doesn't understand how the government machine works.
Right. So it's ok to suck on the gubmint teat as long as a Republican is doing the sucking. Got it.
Quote from: erfalf on June 20, 2012, 10:42:36 AM
Again though, does it really matter? We crucify those running for political office who have had financial problems in the past, we crucify them for having too much money. What is it going to take to make someone happy?
Not getting the point? Perception is everything. How does the person making minimum wage perceive that statement if he or she is trying to pick a candidate for their best interests?
I know what my answer would be.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 20, 2012, 09:47:04 AM
Mitt Romney claims he saved the 2002 Olympic Games. He fails to mention that what he did was to get $1.3 billion in federal money to bailout the most expensive Olympic games ever held.
Now his wife owns a horse that will compete in the 2012 games. It turns out that they used to horse to avoid paying taxes. In 2010 they wrote off $77,000 in expenses to care for the horse.
The Olympic games are seen on TV by most of us because tickets to events can cost hundreds of dollars. In 2002, they sold 1.525 million tickets. The U.S. government subsidy turned out to be $825 per ticket. Of course, the Olympics were successful, we taxpayers subsidized it for the rich to attend.
$77,000 loss in one year on a horse? The mean average U.S. wages for 2010 was $26,000. They lost the same amount of money on a horse in one year than three American workers made.
The Olympic games...paid for by all of us so the rich and powerful can get tax write offs on hobbies.
That pales in comparison to the $3 billion subsidy given Genital Motors for the Chevy Volt, plus the $7500 subsidy given to the wealthy buyers of Chevy Volts, which may well be $10K now. I've not followed the story closely as there are so many things to dislike about the Obama administration, it's a bit overwhelming keeping up with all the boners they pull.
QuotePresident Barack Obama is touting a new series of green-tech subsidies in North Carolina Wednesday, simultaneously trying to goose his prospects in the swing-state and to jump-start his stalled plan to minimize the nation's use of gasoline.
The new subsidies include an expansion of the $7,500 subsidy for the wealthy buyers of the Chevy Volt.
If Congress approves Obama's proposal, the government will be giving $10,000 in taxpayer money to people wealthy enough to buy novel green-tech autos that are powered by batteries or natural-gas.
The new $10,000 credit, according to a White House statement, should "be applied to additional types of technologies, not currently covered."
The average household income of Chevy Volt buyers is $170,000. White House officials did not estimate the total cost to taxpayers of the proposed subsidy, which will also be given by buyers of commercial trucks.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/07/obama-proposes-bumping-chevy-volt-subsidy-up-to-10k/#ixzz1yLgJxRof
I also think you are missing the point on the race horse: The Romneys got a whopping net deduction on their taxes of $49 over the $77,000 in expenses for the horse. Their horse racing is set up as a business just like anyone else in horse racing. If the implication is he's trying to cheat his taxes by owning race horses, a $49 tax break isn't very compelling. In fact it's simply petty sniping. I can't believe someone went to the trouble to even write about it in the first place.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 10:43:06 AM
Right. So it's ok to suck on the gubmint teat as long as a Republican is doing the sucking. Got it.
Just pointing out the lunacy in some of the criticisms of Romney.
I think you know my position on government reliance, I didn't realize I needed to explicitly state it.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 10:44:24 AM
Not getting the point? Perception is everything. How does the person making minimum wage perceive that statement if he or she is trying to pick a candidate for their best interests?
I know what my answer would be.
But is a person making minimum wage ever going to have a candidate that really knows what there best interest are due to "walking in their shoes". I'd say it's pretty unlikely.
Quote from: erfalf on June 20, 2012, 10:49:27 AM
But is a person making minimum wage ever going to have a candidate that really knows what there best interest are due to "walking in their shoes". I'd say it's pretty unlikely.
But asking a fellow debater to bet 10 grand on something when trying to win over voters? Not really very smart.
Quote from: Hoss on June 20, 2012, 10:44:24 AM
Not getting the point? Perception is everything. How does the person making minimum wage perceive that statement if he or she is trying to pick a candidate for their best interests?
I know what my answer would be.
I would be
hopeful that the person making minimum wage understands that their perceived poverty is not a permanent state, just as I did when I made minimum wage.
I would also
hope that they would be intelligent enough to understand the wisdom in voting for a leader who shows leadership skills in such arenas as business and economics.
I would also
hope that the person making minimum wage has learned from personal experience, the outcome of choosing a candidate without marketable success and business skills, and how that choice affects their own ability to find work and make a living.
Unfortunately the currency of
hope is about as valuable as a bag of sand, and though I might
hope that the person making minimum wage understands that too, I'm not holding my breath.
RM made an excellent post here and you are correct, the Democratic party will find momentum here to continue to manipulate the perceptions of their base. It is what they do.
From MittRomney.com...
"Excessive government spending is also harming the economy by skewing the market place and creating high levels of uncertainty. As federal funds slosh through the economy, they lift up some enterprises at the expense of others. In an environment where the government is picking winners and investing huge sums in projects of questionable value, private entrepreneurs across the economy cannot have confidence that their own investments will pay off."
I guess bailing out the Olympics for Romney so he can spend a billion dollars over budget doesn't count as excessive spending. If he was $100 million dollars a day over budget on games, what kind of Chief Executive will he be?
Quote from: Gaspar on June 20, 2012, 10:52:57 AM
I would be hopeful that the person making minimum wage understands that their perceived poverty is not a permanent state, just as I did when I made minimum wage.
I would also hope that they would be intelligent enough to understand the wisdom in voting for a leader who shows leadership skills in such arenas as business and economics.
I would also hope that the person making minimum wage has learned from personal experience, the outcome of choosing a candidate without marketable success and business skills, and how that choice affects their own ability to find work and make a living.
Unfortunately the currency of hope is about as valuable as a bag of sand, and though I might hope that the person making minimum wage understands that too, I'm not holding my breath.
RM made an excellent post here and you are correct, the Democratic party will find momentum here to continue to manipulate the perceptions of their base. It is what they do.
And the Republicans don't? Got it. Again.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 20, 2012, 10:55:37 AM
From MittRomney.com...
"Excessive government spending is also harming the economy by skewing the market place and creating high levels of uncertainty. As federal funds slosh through the economy, they lift up some enterprises at the expense of others. In an environment where the government is picking winners and investing huge sums in projects of questionable value, private entrepreneurs across the economy cannot have confidence that their own investments will pay off."
I guess bailing out the Olympics for Romney so he can spend a billion dollars over budget doesn't count as excessive spending. If he was $100 million dollars a day over budget on games, what kind of Chief Executive will he be?
Funny RM, you don't seem to be the least bit concerned about the billions & trillions this administration has been blowing, yet you are obsessing about a little over a billion dollars for the U.S. to host the olympics.
How much of that was for permanent infrastructure improvements? The Olympics is a PR boon for the hosting country and brings in un-told tourism dollars from all over the globe. How much did that add up to in additional local, state, and federal tax receipts? There is a tangible return on investment in attracting tourism.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on June 20, 2012, 10:55:37 AM
If he was $100 million dollars a day over budget on games, what kind of Chief Executive will he be?
Less expensive than the present occupant of the White House.
fyi....Dressage is to horse racing as pussy's are to boxing.
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 20, 2012, 12:40:32 PM
Less expensive than the present occupant of the White House.
Before Romney they were operating a $379 million dollar deficit. He ended up turning that into a $100 profit by the end.
I know it's hard for liberals to get, but intensions are not results.
These posts are the same as I've seen on other threads.
Hell, you can reverse them if the thread's about a democrat or liberal.
We should just put together a template for political threads and save time.
"Cut and Paste" is our friend!!
QuoteThese posts are the same as I've seen on other threads.
Hell, you can reverse them if the thread's about a democrat or liberal.
We should just put together a template for political threads and save time.
+100
Then maybe we could talk about Tulsa on Tulsanow.org
Quote from: Red Arrow on June 20, 2012, 12:40:32 PM
Less expensive than the present occupant of the White House.
Not likely - he wants to cut taxes again.
And the present occupant is half as expensive as the previous, so how to resolve the problem...
Quote from: jacobi on June 20, 2012, 04:23:07 PM
+100
Then maybe we could talk about Tulsa on Tulsanow.org
Is Tulsa still open for business??
Quote from: erfalf on June 20, 2012, 10:49:27 AM
But is a person making minimum wage ever going to have a candidate that really knows what there best interest are due to "walking in their shoes". I'd say it's pretty unlikely.
Obama's work on the southside of Chicago is exactly why persons making the minimum wage should support him...
http://2012.candidate-comparison.org/?compare=Romney&vs=Obama&on=Career
QuoteObama's first official job was as a financial writer for a New York-based international consulting firm, Business International Corporation. He joined the firm soon after graduating from Columbia University in 1985.
Less than two years later, Obama moved to South Side, Chicago, to take up the position of Director for the Developing Communities Project in Roseland and Altgeld Gardens in Chicago's South Side, a church-based social action group dedicated towards enhancing the living conditions of people in the outlying neighborhoods. His responsibilities ranged from the mundane, day-to-day support service (utilities, regulatory, legal, employment), to those involving organizing and developing outreach and educational programs for the community.
...and for anyone stuck in a minimum wage job, there is a clear difference between Obama versus Romney, the Republicans, and Wall Street oligarchists like Larry Kudlow...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/05/romney-no-need-to-raise-the-minimum-wage/
QuoteFormer Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Monday that he was against raising the federal minimum wage, which is currently $7.25 per hour.
The Republican presidential candidate had previously said that he supported automatic increases in the federal minimum wage based on inflation.
"A lot of conservatives led by the Wall Street Journal editorial page were horrified when you said you want to index the minimum wage for inflation," CNBC host Larry Kudlow said.
Under Reagan, the federal minimum wage was frozen at 3.35 per hr throughout his entire presidency. Under Clinton, the minimum rose to 5.15 per hour starting in 1997, but under George W. Bush, the minimum wage was frozen at $5.15 per hour until June 24, 2007, when Democrats in Congress raised it to it's current level.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on June 22, 2012, 01:00:07 PM
Obama's work on the southside of Chicago is exactly why persons making the minimum wage should support him...
http://2012.candidate-comparison.org/?compare=Romney&vs=Obama&on=Career
...and for anyone stuck in a minimum wage job, there is a clear difference between Obama versus Romney, the Republicans, and Wall Street oligarchists like Larry Kudlow...
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/05/romney-no-need-to-raise-the-minimum-wage/
Under Reagan, the federal minimum wage was frozen at 3.35 per hr throughout his entire presidency. Under Clinton, the minimum rose to 5.15 per hour starting in 1997, but under George W. Bush, the minimum wage was frozen at $5.15 per hour until June 24, 2007, when Democrats in Congress raised it to it's current level.
Minimum wage laws hurt the very people they are intended to help.
No one is "stuck in a minimum wage job" unless they
continue to choose to be stuck there.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 22, 2012, 01:16:10 PM
Minimum wage laws hurt the very people they are intended to help.
No one is "stuck in a minimum wage job" unless they continue to choose to be stuck there.
How long, Lord. How long?
This crap has been floating since the inception of minimum wage. Do away with it and watch the chaos ensue.
Quote from: Gaspar on June 22, 2012, 01:16:10 PM
Minimum wage laws hurt the very people they are intended to help.
No one is "stuck in a minimum wage job" unless they continue to choose to be stuck there.
What a wonderful delusional fantasy world to live in! (Have you ever mentioned what color the sky is there?)
And the reality IS, the place raises the price, by the incremental increase + 10%, then writes the boss a big bonus check! This is what we see across the board with the likes of the CEO of Abercrombie & Fitch who received $125 million in pay and "incentives" in a year when the corporation reported net income of $250,000. Two hundred fifty thousand.
But hey,...still nice to hear the delusions from time to time...
Kind of goes to the FACT that if someone is running a company such that they cannot afford to pay that wage, then they are doing something wrong. The job as structured is being done wrong. They should be evaluating what/how they do things, because it just ain't working right for them. (And no, sending the job to China is NOT the best solution.) Perhaps a different procedure. Different fixtures, machine tools, fryer or grill, training, lighting over the workbench - something that exhibits the use of a brain in business rather than just doing the same old thing over and over. Progress. Increases in productivity.
Oh, wait - that increase in productivity is EXACTLY what has been happening in this country for what...about the last 70 years or so? And the extra cash from those increases has obviously shared with the people who made those increases possible! Oh, wait - again - the wages in this country have been actually been going down in real terms for the last 30+ years! I wonder where the difference went?
People believe the Big Lie sooner than the little one. And if repeated enough, people sooner or later will always believe it! Like the minimum wage video. (Elections anyone?)