Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Obama: "FACT: In 2010 and 2011, Romney paid less than 15% in taxes on $42.5 million in income-much less than what many middle-class families pay." Reality: "BULLSHIAT"   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Fail, middle-class families, adjusted gross income, itemized deductions, families pay, middle class, taxpayers, Tax Policy Center  
•       •       •

3613 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jul 2012 at 11:16 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



252 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-07-11 02:48:11 PM  

skullkrusher: The Homer Tax: skullkrusher: a pole tax, amirite?

All I'm saying is she gets three Pinocchios.

you, sir, are a freak of nature


It's out of five, I'm guessing. His condoms must fit like a glove.
 
2012-07-11 02:53:28 PM  

BKITU: skullkrusher: The Homer Tax: skullkrusher: a pole tax, amirite?

All I'm saying is she gets three Pinocchios.

you, sir, are a freak of nature

It's out of five, I'm guessing. His condoms must fit like a glove.


hehe
 
2012-07-11 02:54:25 PM  

WombatControl: So yeah, it is a horse race, and one has to have a huge set of blinders on not to realize it.


What a maroon.
 
2012-07-11 03:01:48 PM  
Hmm. Got my paystub right here, and I pay about 1/3 of my income in various taxes, including state and federal income, payroll, FICA, and Medicare. Take out state income and it's still about 25% Because, like most Americans I don't itemize. That's dollar for adollar a LOT more than romeny pays, so this "fact" is totally true no matter how badly Mr Kessler wants to torture the numbers to make it not so. Which also overlooks the far greater scandal: We are splitting hairs to figure out if a man worth north of $200 million is paying a higher or lower income take rate than someone like me who makes less than $100k/yr. In a society based ona progressive income tax that's a true scandal

(and bTW of the $3 million Mitt gave to charity, most of it was the required tithe to the Mormon church-10% of his income-and they don't allow offshore bank accounts or Bermuda holding corporation to reduce the faithful's "tax liability" to them )
 
2012-07-11 03:11:56 PM  
Dusk-You-n-Me:

Yes, we know that Obama has hit his ceiling, because that's what the polls show. His approval rating has been consistently south of 50% for two years now - but please, convince yourself that all the silly little talking points are right and that any day now Obama will suddenly become popular again.

In nearly every election, late-deciding voters break against the incumbent. Obama has been President for over three years now. Voters know what his record is and have determined that they don't approve of the job he's doing, really don't approve of his record on the economy, and while they may like the President personally, that doesn't mean they think he's qualified to be President.

And so far, the President's tactic has been to attack Romney over and over again on increasingly trivial matters.

To put it the bumper-sticker language that passes for thought here: the American people care more about what Obama has done to their bank accounts than what Mitt Romney has done with his.
 
2012-07-11 03:15:45 PM  

Magorn: Hmm. Got my paystub right here, and I pay about 1/3 of my income in various taxes, including state and federal income, payroll, FICA, and Medicare. Take out state income and it's still about 25% Because, like most Americans I don't itemize. That's dollar for adollar a LOT more than romeny pays, so this "fact" is totally true no matter how badly Mr Kessler wants to torture the numbers to make it not so. Which also overlooks the far greater scandal: We are splitting hairs to figure out if a man worth north of $200 million is paying a higher or lower income take rate than someone like me who makes less than $100k/yr. In a society based ona progressive income tax that's a true scandal

(and bTW of the $3 million Mitt gave to charity, most of it was the required tithe to the Mormon church-10% of his income-and they don't allow offshore bank accounts or Bermuda holding corporation to reduce the faithful's "tax liability" to them )


sounds like you are paying a lot more than you should be in taxes dude
 
2012-07-11 03:18:47 PM  

WombatControl: Dusk-You-n-Me:

Yes, we know that Obama has hit his ceiling, because that's what the polls show. His approval rating has been consistently south of 50% for two years now - but please, convince yourself that all the silly little talking points are right and that any day now Obama will suddenly become popular again.

In nearly every election, late-deciding voters break against the incumbent. Obama has been President for over three years now. Voters know what his record is and have determined that they don't approve of the job he's doing, really don't approve of his record on the economy, and while they may like the President personally, that doesn't mean they think he's qualified to be President.

And so far, the President's tactic has been to attack Romney over and over again on increasingly trivial matters.

To put it the bumper-sticker language that passes for thought here: the American people care more about what Obama has done to their bank accounts than what Mitt Romney has done with his.


Yes, because the republican leadership has been stellar since before Obama, and since he was in. They only ran the ship into the ground and were also a large factor in why our credit was downgraded. Who wouldn't want that in charge of our economy.
 
2012-07-11 03:20:52 PM  

Magorn: Hmm. Got my paystub right here, and I pay about 1/3 of my income in various taxes, including state and federal income, payroll, FICA, and Medicare. Take out state income and it's still about 25% Because, like most Americans I don't itemize. That's dollar for adollar a LOT more than romeny pays, so this "fact" is totally true no matter how badly Mr Kessler wants to torture the numbers to make it not so. Which also overlooks the far greater scandal: We are splitting hairs to figure out if a man worth north of $200 million is paying a higher or lower income take rate than someone like me who makes less than $100k/yr. In a society based ona progressive income tax that's a true scandal

(and bTW of the $3 million Mitt gave to charity, most of it was the required tithe to the Mormon church-10% of his income-and they don't allow offshore bank accounts or Bermuda holding corporation to reduce the faithful's "tax liability" to them )


Find your yearly taxes and yearly income. Then account for how much you get back in tax returns. That will show you your effective tax rate. A single paycheck is a bit disingenuous.
 
2012-07-11 03:21:36 PM  

WombatControl: qorkfiend: WombatControl: Looking at the polls, if Obama is running neck-and-neck with Romney now, in polls with laughably high advantages for the Democrats, this race might not even be that close. If you have to assume an electorate that's more Democratic than it was in 2008 to get Obama to be tied with Romney, that's a sign that Obama's in trouble.

Which polls would these be?

This one, for starters.


So poll, singular? Ok.
 
2012-07-11 03:27:59 PM  

WombatControl: Obama has been President for over three years now.


And Romney has been campaigning for over five. Polls show his unfavorables are atrocious. Still. Five years later and still he can't connect with voters. But in the next four months he's going to turn that all around, right? OK. The guy who lost to the guy who lost to Obama. OK.

WombatControl: And so far, the President's tactic has been to attack Romney over and over again on increasingly trivial matters.


Polls show those Bain attack ads are working in swing states. So I guess those aren't trivial matters.

But if you really believe Romney is going to win Americans over by standing on a stage next to Obama and telling them we need to do exactly what George W Bush did (who polls show a majority of people still blame for the economy) except we need to go bigger, then I don't know what to tell you, but it ain't me with the blinders on.
 
2012-07-11 03:44:15 PM  

WombatControl: Dusk-You-n-Me:

Yes, we know that Obama has hit his ceiling, because that's what the polls show. His approval rating has been consistently south of 50% for two years now - but please, convince yourself that all the silly little talking points are right and that any day now Obama will suddenly become popular again.

In nearly every election, late-deciding voters break against the incumbent. Obama has been President for over three years now. Voters know what his record is and have determined that they don't approve of the job he's doing, really don't approve of his record on the economy, and while they may like the President personally, that doesn't mean they think he's qualified to be President.

And so far, the President's tactic has been to attack Romney over and over again on increasingly trivial matters.

To put it the bumper-sticker language that passes for thought here: the American people care more about what Obama has done to their bank accounts than what Mitt Romney has done with his.


You really are going to go with this? Rebuttal:

-Arugula
-Grey Poupon
-Solyndra
-Binder Clips
-57 States
-Teleprompters
-ACORN
-Bill Ayers
-Van Jones
-Beer Summit
-Fox Nation's Infamous "Hip Hop BBQ Didn't Create Jobs"
-No Flag Pin on Sportjacket
-No Sportjacket in Oval Office
-Daughters ate Edamame at School on 12/7
-War on Xmas
-War on Dessert
-War on Salt
-Saul Alinsky

I could go on forever. I could literally go on forever as long as I go on. I.E. - It would take the rest of my natural life to scour google and pull out all the petty crap Fox News and the GOP have dumped on him or distracted us with, and I would still not have posted all of it.
 
2012-07-11 03:44:23 PM  

WombatControl: To put it the bumper-sticker language that passes for thought here: the American people care more about what Obama has done to their bank accounts than what Mitt Romney has done with his.


Name 4 major things economically that Mitt Romney wants to do that are different from what we saw under 8 years of GW Bush. Seriously, my vote is up for grabs right now. Sell me.

Because I saw what that kind of policy did to my bank account, and I can't tell the difference between the two guys policy-wise. I think that, as far as my bank Account is concerned, Obama has done a good job relative to that.

But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I'm a firm believer that you can't do the same thing over again and expect different results. Sell me on the top 4 economic policy differences between Mitt Romney and George W Bush.
 
2012-07-11 03:45:35 PM  

The Homer Tax: Name 4 major things economically that Mitt Romney wants to do that are different from what we saw under 8 years of GW Bush. Seriously, my vote is up for grabs right now. Sell me.


t2.gstatic.com

/ ;)
 
2012-07-11 03:46:05 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: jehovahs witness protection: So he pays $6,375,000 in taxes for one year.
I wonder how many welfare recipients were propped up by this one evil person.

I wonder how many people were pushed into welfare by the actions taken to make Romney that money.


Touche`
 
2012-07-11 03:53:58 PM  

skullkrusher: t2.gstatic.com

/ ;)


Seriously, if he can show me 4 major economic policy points on which GW Bush and Mitt Romney differ, I will vote for Mitt Romney.

And it can't be like "Candidate Jack Johnson says his opponent's proposed 5% titanium increase goes too far, while Candidate John Jackson says *his* opponent's proposed 5% titanium tax increase doesn't go far enough."

What's the difference between the two? What did the Republicans learn from the most recent economic collapse, and how have they changed their economic policy to reflect that? Show me 4 things that have changed, and I will vote GOP in November.
 
2012-07-11 04:00:33 PM  

The Homer Tax: skullkrusher: t2.gstatic.com

/ ;)

Seriously, if he can show me 4 major economic policy points on which GW Bush and Mitt Romney differ, I will vote for Mitt Romney.

And it can't be like "Candidate Jack Johnson says his opponent's proposed 5% titanium increase goes too far, while Candidate John Jackson says *his* opponent's proposed 5% titanium tax increase doesn't go far enough."

What's the difference between the two? What did the Republicans learn from the most recent economic collapse, and how have they changed their economic policy to reflect that? Show me 4 things that have changed, and I will vote GOP in November.


And more importantly, can he express those 4 things in under 50 sentences. Wombat makes Dickens look like Hemingway.
 
2012-07-11 04:03:13 PM  

The Homer Tax: Seriously, if he can show me 4 major economic policy points on which GW Bush and Mitt Romney differ, I will vote for Mitt Romney.


1. Mitt Romney is for nation building (which candidate GW Bush was against. Actually, as president, he was probably against it too, right up until 11SEP2001, when someone told him now is an EXCELLENT time to de-Saddam Iraq. Oh, and that Benny Lleyton guy over in Soviet Afghan could probably use some killin'.)

2. Mitt Romney is against using American resources to finding bin Laden "dead or alive". I suspect he is, anyway...

3. Mitt Romney would not have bailed out Detroit. Unless you believe the op-ed where he took credit for bailing out Detroit.

4. Mitt Romney would not have VP Dick Cheney. That we know of. (Well, if Romney asks Cheney to head up his VP selection committee, we're farked.)

// 2 and 4 might not count, but can the GOP count on your vote this November?
// both sides are bad, you know...
 
2012-07-11 04:05:24 PM  

The Homer Tax: What's the difference between the two? What did the Republicans learn from the most recent economic collapse, and how have they changed their economic policy to reflect that? Show me 4 things that have changed, and I will vote GOP in November.


you show me the ways that getting kicked in the nuts is better than getting a blowjob and I'll opt for a kicking in the nuts in November.
It's basically the same challenge :)
 
2012-07-11 04:15:41 PM  

The Homer Tax: EatHam: Yes, and I was responding to another user here, not the article. Though I can see how it came across like that.

You were responding to *me.* It' "came across like that" because you quoted me, and then responded.


Dude, I even quoted the user I responded to initially. I replied to you afterward.
 
2012-07-11 04:20:00 PM  
I would consider any family under this category: Fourth 20 Percent ($59,000-$103,500): 18.7 percent
In the "middle class" range. So where did Obama 'lie'?

desperation.
 
2012-07-11 04:21:45 PM  

coeyagi: WombatControl: Dusk-You-n-Me:

Yes, we know that Obama has hit his ceiling, because that's what the polls show. His approval rating has been consistently south of 50% for two years now - but please, convince yourself that all the silly little talking points are right and that any day now Obama will suddenly become popular again.

In nearly every election, late-deciding voters break against the incumbent. Obama has been President for over three years now. Voters know what his record is and have determined that they don't approve of the job he's doing, really don't approve of his record on the economy, and while they may like the President personally, that doesn't mean they think he's qualified to be President.

And so far, the President's tactic has been to attack Romney over and over again on increasingly trivial matters.

To put it the bumper-sticker language that passes for thought here: the American people care more about what Obama has done to their bank accounts than what Mitt Romney has done with his.

You really are going to go with this? Rebuttal:

-Arugula
-Grey Poupon
-Solyndra
-Binder Clips
-57 States
-Teleprompters
-ACORN
-Bill Ayers
-Van Jones
-Beer Summit
-Fox Nation's Infamous "Hip Hop BBQ Didn't Create Jobs"
-No Flag Pin on Sportjacket
-No Sportjacket in Oval Office
-Daughters ate Edamame at School on 12/7
-War on Xmas
-War on Dessert
-War on Salt
-Saul Alinsky

I could go on forever. I could literally go on forever as long as I go on. I.E. - It would take the rest of my natural life to scour google and pull out all the petty crap Fox News and the GOP have dumped on him or distracted us with, and I would still not have posted all of it.


Thats a wierd rebuttal.....you're taking what every talking head thats been given 2 minutes of airtime in the last 3 years and are attributing it to Romney....hell you aren't even giving it your all because I don't see anythig that Alex Jones has said about Obama up there.

Might as well go through Fark and list what farkers have been saying about either side and then claiming it came out of the candidates mouths.

Smells desperate....but my allergies are acting up.
 
2012-07-11 04:31:02 PM  

Dr Dreidel: The Homer Tax: Seriously, if he can show me 4 major economic policy points on which GW Bush and Mitt Romney differ, I will vote for Mitt Romney.

1. Mitt Romney is for nation building (which candidate GW Bush was against. Actually, as president, he was probably against it too, right up until 11SEP2001, when someone told him now is an EXCELLENT time to de-Saddam Iraq. Oh, and that Benny Lleyton guy over in Soviet Afghan could probably use some killin'.)

2. Mitt Romney is against using American resources to finding bin Laden "dead or alive". I suspect he is, anyway...

3. Mitt Romney would not have bailed out Detroit. Unless you believe the op-ed where he took credit for bailing out Detroit.

4. Mitt Romney would not have VP Dick Cheney. That we know of. (Well, if Romney asks Cheney to head up his VP selection committee, we're farked.)

// 2 and 4 might not count, but can the GOP count on your vote this November?
// both sides are bad, you know...


1,2,3 were supposed to be different, but they arent... Mitt wants to rebuild Iran after destroying it, Bush wanted to rebuild Iraq after destroying it.... GW Bush said catching Bin Laden "was not a priority, " Romney said "it's not worth moving heaven and earth," Bush didn't bail out Detroit, Romney fought the auto-bailouts... the only guy who was for them was the guy who actually had to take responsibility for them.

So what it boils down to is that GW Bush had a different VP... but Romney still hasn't selected a VP... given that he also hasn't taken a solid position on anything else for his entire life, he may not pick a VP candidate until roughly 2050.
 
2012-07-11 04:31:58 PM  
Jesus, stupid Repub voters seriously need to take some remedial math. And some other stuff. But mainly that.
 
2012-07-11 04:34:49 PM  

Giltric: coeyagi: WombatControl: Dusk-You-n-Me:

Yes, we know that Obama has hit his ceiling, because that's what the polls show. His approval rating has been consistently south of 50% for two years now - but please, convince yourself that all the silly little talking points are right and that any day now Obama will suddenly become popular again.

In nearly every election, late-deciding voters break against the incumbent. Obama has been President for over three years now. Voters know what his record is and have determined that they don't approve of the job he's doing, really don't approve of his record on the economy, and while they may like the President personally, that doesn't mean they think he's qualified to be President.

And so far, the President's tactic has been to attack Romney over and over again on increasingly trivial matters.

To put it the bumper-sticker language that passes for thought here: the American people care more about what Obama has done to their bank accounts than what Mitt Romney has done with his.

You really are going to go with this? Rebuttal:

-Arugula
-Grey Poupon
-Solyndra
-Binder Clips
-57 States
-Teleprompters
-ACORN
-Bill Ayers
-Van Jones
-Beer Summit
-Fox Nation's Infamous "Hip Hop BBQ Didn't Create Jobs"
-No Flag Pin on Sportjacket
-No Sportjacket in Oval Office
-Daughters ate Edamame at School on 12/7
-War on Xmas
-War on Dessert
-War on Salt
-Saul Alinsky

I could go on forever. I could literally go on forever as long as I go on. I.E. - It would take the rest of my natural life to scour google and pull out all the petty crap Fox News and the GOP have dumped on him or distracted us with, and I would still not have posted all of it.

Thats a wierd rebuttal.....you're taking what every talking head thats been given 2 minutes of airtime in the last 3 years and are attributing it to Romney....hell you aren't even giving it your all because I don't see anythig that Alex Jones has said about Obama up there.

Might as well go through Fark an ...


I never attributed it to Romney, I attributed it to his unofficial campaign staff (Fox News).
 
2012-07-11 04:39:52 PM  

mgshamster: Magorn: Hmm. Got my paystub right here, and I pay about 1/3 of my income in various taxes, including state and federal income, payroll, FICA, and Medicare. Take out state income and it's still about 25% Because, like most Americans I don't itemize. That's dollar for adollar a LOT more than romeny pays, so this "fact" is totally true no matter how badly Mr Kessler wants to torture the numbers to make it not so. Which also overlooks the far greater scandal: We are splitting hairs to figure out if a man worth north of $200 million is paying a higher or lower income take rate than someone like me who makes less than $100k/yr. In a society based ona progressive income tax that's a true scandal

(and bTW of the $3 million Mitt gave to charity, most of it was the required tithe to the Mormon church-10% of his income-and they don't allow offshore bank accounts or Bermuda holding corporation to reduce the faithful's "tax liability" to them )

Find your yearly taxes and yearly income. Then account for how much you get back in tax returns. That will show you your effective tax rate. A single paycheck is a bit disingenuous.


I was just about to point this out to him. I can change my deductions each paycheck if I want and change that percentage all I want per paycheck. but my tax filing is where I should be looking :)
 
2012-07-11 04:40:42 PM  

The Homer Tax: WombatControl: To put it the bumper-sticker language that passes for thought here: the American people care more about what Obama has done to their bank accounts than what Mitt Romney has done with his.

Name 4 major things economically that Mitt Romney wants to do that are different from what we saw under 8 years of GW Bush. Seriously, my vote is up for grabs right now. Sell me.

Because I saw what that kind of policy did to my bank account, and I can't tell the difference between the two guys policy-wise. I think that, as far as my bank Account is concerned, Obama has done a good job relative to that.

But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. I'm a firm believer that you can't do the same thing over again and expect different results. Sell me on the top 4 economic policy differences between Mitt Romney and George W Bush.


OK, I'll bite on that:

- W massively increased spending in his two terms. Romney will not have the ability to do that even if he wanted to. In fact, Romney has planned to cap spending at no more than 20% of total GDP. (Which is actually a bit higher than the post-WWII average.) Right now it's an unsustainable 24% of GDP.

- W bailed out the banks through TARP - now, there are some decent arguments that TARP was necessary, but Romney has said that he would not engage in similar bailouts in the future. The implied promise of a government bailout is what creates the whole idea of banks that are "too big to fail."

- W added to the entitlement state by passing Medicare Part D. Romney has (causiously for for now) embraced substantive entitlement reform. Entitlement spending is our biggest fiscal problem right now, and we have to get it under control.

- W passed Sarbanes-Oxley, which made sense in the wake of Enron, but created rules that actively hurt the US economy, especially mid-sized businesses. Romney has said that he would keep SOX for large businesses, but repeal it for mid-sized businesses. Rules designed for publicly-traded megacompanies don't make nearly the same amount of sense when applied to a little firm with 100 employees and few shareholders.

If you want the bumper sticker version it's this: Bush spent like a drunken sailor; Romney will not. Even if Romney wanted to, he couldn't. The whole point of the Tea Party was a backlash against out-of-control federal spending - the sort of big government initiatives that were popular with the GOP establishment prior to 2010 are not popular with the much more fiscally conservative GOP. Note how many of those free-spending Republicans are either no longer in office (Dick Lugar) or have been forced to embrace fiscal responsibility (Orrin Hatch).

Trying to paint today's GOP as identical to the GOP of 2005 just doesn't work - there's been a huge grassroots shift away from the free-spending ways of Bush towards real fiscal discipline. About damn time too, because our economy cannot endure the current levels of spending for now.
 
2012-07-11 04:49:09 PM  
So what it also says is that charitable donations, like many other things, are subsidized by the government. And the wealthier you are, the greater the percentage of the subsidy.
 
2012-07-11 05:02:19 PM  

WombatControl: If you want the bumper sticker version it's this: Bush spent like a drunken sailor; Romney will not.


So you are saying that the difference between Bush and Romney is that Bush spent like a drunken sailor after campaigning on the idea of limited spending, but when Romney also campaigns on the exact same notion of limited spending we should totally believe him.

Yeah, there's a winning strategy right there.

/Hey, did you ever dig up that citation for your story about the horribly oppressive $10,000 building permit fee that your friend's college roommate or whatever it was had to pay to install a single shower?
 
2012-07-11 05:02:32 PM  

skullkrusher: you show me the ways that getting kicked in the nuts is better than getting a blowjob and I'll opt for a kicking in the nuts in November.
It's basically the same challenge :)


1) Getting kicked in the nuts is statistically less likely to give you a disease than getting a blowjob.
2) A stranger kicking you in the nuts won't cause your wife to divorce you (probably).
3) You can kick a stranger in the nuts while maintaining your heterosexuality, if you're feeling insecure.
4) You are less likely to get bitten by a crazy person when getting kicked in the nuts than when getting a blow job.
5) Other people do not envy you as much when you get kicked in the nuts, and in fact, may feel sympathy for you. Very few people ever get sympathy for receiving a blow job.
6) Getting kicked in the nuts rarely involves a dental dam.
 
2012-07-11 05:05:55 PM  

palelizard: skullkrusher: you show me the ways that getting kicked in the nuts is better than getting a blowjob and I'll opt for a kicking in the nuts in November.
It's basically the same challenge :)

1) Getting kicked in the nuts is statistically less likely to give you a disease than getting a blowjob.
2) A stranger kicking you in the nuts won't cause your wife to divorce you (probably).
3) You can kick a stranger in the nuts while maintaining your heterosexuality, if you're feeling insecure.
4) You are less likely to get bitten by a crazy person when getting kicked in the nuts than when getting a blow job.
5) Other people do not envy you as much when you get kicked in the nuts, and in fact, may feel sympathy for you. Very few people ever get sympathy for receiving a blow job.
6) Getting kicked in the nuts rarely involves a dental dam.


+1
 
2012-07-11 05:09:54 PM  

runwiz: So what it also says is that charitable donations, like many other things, are subsidized by the government. And the wealthier you are, the greater the percentage of the subsidy.


So you are in favor of taking money from soup kitchens and sick kids to feed the Government eat-beast? For shame.

/channeling my inner liberal
 
2012-07-11 05:28:20 PM  

Daraymann: So he pays more in taxes per year then most of you will make in a lifetime and it's still not enough for you?

Awesome how liberals always think somebody else should have to pay more.


Awesome how if you disagree with a republican, you MUST be "liberal", despite democrats being middle/right.

Also awesome how republicans NEVER think anyone has to pay more taxes, especially the rich!
 
2012-07-11 05:55:28 PM  

coeyagi: While I do agree they do some good, their overhead is pretty high and they do some pretty despicable things to offset their good works, such as baptize the dead regardless of the dead's next of kin's wishes and prevent Boy Scout policy from allowing homosexual leaders into their ranks.


Just for perspective, the Mormon Church are touting that they've spent a billion dollars in charity since 1980. According to these charity releases, they spend 70% of their donations in overheads (paying pastors, buying property). By contrast, the Red Cross spends 7% of their donations in overheads.

The mormon church may do good things, but the amount of good that they do is ridiculously small compared to the amount of good they could be doing with the same resources.

(By the way, this is not unique to the Mormon church - this is very typical of churches' claiming their operational costs as spent for charity purposes.)
 
2012-07-11 05:58:10 PM  

Citrate1007: The Mormon church is not a charity.

 
2012-07-11 06:02:38 PM  

Giltric: Glenn Beck Knows a Strawman: I would like to point out that i find it amazing that people are so quick to defend Mittens.... I mean really?

Is Rmoney breaking the law or is he doing someting that hurts your feelings......


I do no understand this.... I mean what purpose did it serve? It seems that you put no thought into your posts and are only trying to agitate others. I think there is a word for that.... but I tell you what. You can respond to to my question from upthread, as detailed below, or I write you off as troll and put you on ignore. Funny how you can skip a simple question but respond oddly to my statement/question. So please follow the discussion that follows, and please respond thoughtfully.


Giltric: Fubar: Imperialism: First, one can see that for all the rhetoric about high taxes in the United States, most Americans pay a relatively small percentage of their income in taxes.


I hate this BS. most Americans pay a relatively small percentage of their income in income taxes. These people always seem to forget things like sales taxes and other regressive taxes...

Romeny pays sales tax and the other regressive taxes everyone else does based on what he buys doesn;t he? Do the wealthy get a special Tax ID that lets them avoid sales and regressive taxes?
If you buy a Bentley or Donzi or G650 you also pay a luxury tax.....


Something like 57% of Americans do not pay income tax.......wouldn't Romney then be paying more then most Americans since most Americans do not pay income tax?

Ok.... the point he was trying to make is this:

You - Income 50K a year, buy a $1000 tv and pay 5% sales tax (whatever it may be).
Romney - Income 20 million a year, buy a $1000 tv and pay a 5% sales tax.

Who paid more of a percentage of their income to the sales tax?
 
2012-07-11 06:03:05 PM  
No, the "reality" is Romney doesn't know whether he has 200 or 300 million dollars in the bank and is a total 19th century throwback social prude.

You have no business voting for him. Period.
 
2012-07-11 06:33:19 PM  

TalenLee: coeyagi: While I do agree they do some good, their overhead is pretty high and they do some pretty despicable things to offset their good works, such as baptize the dead regardless of the dead's next of kin's wishes and prevent Boy Scout policy from allowing homosexual leaders into their ranks.

Just for perspective, the Mormon Church are touting that they've spent a billion dollars in charity since 1980. According to these charity releases, they spend 70% of their donations in overheads (paying pastors, buying property). By contrast, the Red Cross spends 7% of their donations in overheads.

The mormon church may do good things, but the amount of good that they do is ridiculously small compared to the amount of good they could be doing with the same resources.

(By the way, this is not unique to the Mormon church - this is very typical of churches' claiming their operational costs as spent for charity purposes.)


I am on my corporations charity giving board and we would never give to a charity that had that much waste and overhead. I would also like to point out that I don't think they are even an accredited charity. I could be wrong, but a search of BBB shows no information.
 
2012-07-11 06:49:44 PM  
So... what Obama said was technically correct?

Hmm, if I only knew what kind of correct that could be considered...
 
2012-07-11 07:52:58 PM  

Glenn Beck Knows a Strawman: I am on my corporations charity giving board and we would never give to a charity that had that much waste and overhead. I would also like to point out that I don't think they are even an accredited charity. I could be wrong, but a search of BBB shows no information.


I'm trying to find a written cite for this, by the way. In the mean time, here's the episode of the podcast where I got this information from. Double-check my information.
 
2012-07-11 08:00:17 PM  

TalenLee:
I'm trying to find a written cite for this, by the way. In the mean time, here's the episode of the podcast where I got this information from. Double-check my information.


FTB huh.... I knew i liked the cut of your jib (PZ fan here). I am now interested in the LDS charitable donations and how wasteful they are.... I think I will attempt to do some googling.
 
2012-07-11 08:25:51 PM  

Glenn Beck Knows a Strawman: I am now interested in the LDS charitable donations and how wasteful they are...


The LDS has trumpeted the fact they've given over a billion dollars to charitable causes between 1985 to 2008, which, divided equally is about 45 million a year. Thing is, that is, apparently, is point seven percent of their annual income over that twenty-three year span. Holy crap. I mean, I thought I was being unfair to them, but the numbers here are frigging catastrophic.

Again, by comparison: the American Red Cross spend 7.9% on operational costs, which is huge and employs a large number of people.

(This is, basically, copied from the podcast. I'm not able to get you hard link cites for this info. I also doubt anyone cares.)
 
2012-07-11 08:35:02 PM  

WombatControl: Dusk-You-n-Me: Until now. Obama +3.

Yup, in a poll of registered voters with a 2% MOE. Great consolation for Obama...


Your first poll from WaPO ABC had a 4% margin of error so does that make your poll invalid too or is that only the case when the poll says something you don't want it to say?
 
2012-07-11 10:19:32 PM  
But we are also reminded of Judge Learned Hard's observation in 1935

Learned Hard? WHO STOLE MY PORN NAME?

/ hear comes the Judge
 
2012-07-11 10:59:28 PM  

Imperialism: First, one can see that for all the rhetoric about high taxes in the United States, most Americans pay a relatively small percentage of their income in taxes.

Great, so we're all for raising taxes then, right?

Right?


Yes. If you want to fund a gigantic military and have a society with all of the infrastructures costs that go with that then taxes have to rise.
 
2012-07-12 12:18:19 AM  

kg2095: Imperialism: First, one can see that for all the rhetoric about high taxes in the United States, most Americans pay a relatively small percentage of their income in taxes.

Great, so we're all for raising taxes then, right?

Right?

Yes. If you want to fund a gigantic military and have a society with all of the infrastructures costs that go with that then taxes have to rise.


Grover Norquist thinks you have chosen.... poorly.

//for the record, Grover Norquist can get f*cked by a STD-ridden whore that pays no taxes
 
2012-07-12 02:14:02 AM  

Fubar: Imperialism: First, one can see that for all the rhetoric about high taxes in the United States, most Americans pay a relatively small percentage of their income in taxes.


I hate this BS. most Americans pay a relatively small percentage of their income in income taxes. These people always seem to forget things like sales taxes and other regressive taxes...


+1
 
2012-07-12 02:39:32 AM  

the_foo: And another good one: We figure that without those donations to charity, his effective tax rate would be at least 19 percent.

So when Obama discussed what Romney paid in taxes, he should instead have used a hypothetical tax rate based on an alternate version of events?


this is a fairly standard republican practice. they have to invent an alternative reality for their arguments to appear valid.
 
2012-07-12 06:52:42 AM  

crab66: Citrate1007: The Mormon church is not a charity.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020479240457722717388805 6 682.html

si.wsj.net

The Department of Defense recently visited the new storehouse to find out how the Mormons are able to mobilize so quickly, and there is an almost military sense of efficiency and strategy to the church's efforts. When Hurricane Katrina struck, for instance, the church had positioned its fully loaded trucks in a kind of semicircle from South Carolina to Texas because no one knew how the storm was going to move. The church used reserves of fuel that it has placed around the country, and drivers were able to bring full tanker trucks into New Orleans, powering rescue vehicles and even chain saws to remove tree limbs.

Just say you dont like mormons, or you think they are kooky but spouting untruths makes you sound like a dumbass
 
2012-07-12 08:20:34 AM  

WombatControl: If you want the bumper sticker version it's this: Bush spent like a drunken sailor; Romney will not. Even if Romney wanted to, he couldn't. The whole point of the Tea Party was a backlash against out-of-control federal spending - the sort of big government initiatives that were popular with the GOP establishment prior to 2010 are not popular with the much more fiscally conservative GOP. Note how many of those free-spending Republicans are either no longer in office (Dick Lugar) or have been forced to embrace fiscal responsibility (Orrin Hatch).

Trying to paint today's GOP as identical to the GOP of 2005 just doesn't work - there's been a huge grassroots shift away from the free-spending ways of Bush towards real fiscal discipline.


This bit made me chuckle.
 
2012-07-12 10:13:20 AM  

Glenn Beck Knows a Strawman: Giltric: Glenn Beck Knows a Strawman: I would like to point out that i find it amazing that people are so quick to defend Mittens.... I mean really?

Is Rmoney breaking the law or is he doing someting that hurts your feelings......

I do no understand this.... I mean what purpose did it serve? It seems that you put no thought into your posts and are only trying to agitate others. I think there is a word for that.... but I tell you what. You can respond to to my question from upthread, as detailed below, or I write you off as troll and put you on ignore. Funny how you can skip a simple question but respond oddly to my statement/question. So please follow the discussion that follows, and please respond thoughtfully.


Giltric: Fubar: Imperialism: First, one can see that for all the rhetoric about high taxes in the United States, most Americans pay a relatively small percentage of their income in taxes.


I hate this BS. most Americans pay a relatively small percentage of their income in income taxes. These people always seem to forget things like sales taxes and other regressive taxes...

Romeny pays sales tax and the other regressive taxes everyone else does based on what he buys doesn;t he? Do the wealthy get a special Tax ID that lets them avoid sales and regressive taxes?
If you buy a Bentley or Donzi or G650 you also pay a luxury tax.....


Something like 57% of Americans do not pay income tax.......wouldn't Romney then be paying more then most Americans since most Americans do not pay income tax?

Ok.... the point he was trying to make is this:

You - Income 50K a year, buy a $1000 tv and pay 5% sales tax (whatever it may be).
Romney - Income 20 million a year, buy a $1000 tv and pay a 5% sales tax.

Who paid more of a percentage of their income to the sales tax?


Please put me on ignore. You ask stupid questions designed for the lowest common denominator to invoke some sort of emotional response of "thats not fair"

WHy the fark is the guy making 50k spending 2% of his income on a TV set when there are TVs out there for 200$?

That just shows me you or the example you use in your post make bad decisions with their money.

Maybe you should submit your 50k salary guy who wants to buy a $1000.00 TV to Suze Ormans show for the bit "Can I Afford It?"
 
Displayed 50 of 252 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report