Romney: '47% of Americans are dependent on gov't, are victims'

[parafly]

Originally Posted by Piper

Nobody who is offended by that comment was going to vote for him anyway.

I disagree completely. Whether these statements accurately represent Romney's worldview or he was simply pandering to his audience, it will drive away independents, no doubt about it.

Not only was he factually incorrect, he was also insulting and demeaning to an entire subset of Americans which spans from the poorest of the poor to outright millionaires.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

I am still waiting for an answer to MY question:

Why did Obama have $820,000 in foreign tax credits in 2010?
That means he paid that much personal tax to foreign governments.
I would estimate that means he made $2.5 mill to $3.0 mill with money he invested OVERSEAS. That's a minimum or he would have invested here.
To make that much in interest and dividends, as a rule of thumb in the U.S. the principal is 15 times the divedends.
Does Obama have $35mill to Maybe $50mill personally ionvested OVERSEAS? Sounds like HE is the one outsourcing his money to invest elsewhere.
Perhaps Kenyan agriculture bonds? Or perhaps some oil funds on the Nairobi stock exchange? Blind trust. Sure.

Going to venture a guess, that the source of income leading to foreign tax liabillity, was overseas book sales primarily.

I believe Obama's most recent tax filing was released, so I would guess it makes more clear this info there. But I havn't looked at it tbh.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

This site was accurate in 2008:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

How'd he do in 2010? Answer? Awful. He had the House as 60/40 to remain D majority. He blew the most historic blowout victory in 100 years. Silver is a liberal partisan.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by parafly

I disagree completely. Whether these statements accurately represent Romney's worldview or he was simply pandering to his audience, it will drive away independents, no doubt about it.

Not only was he factually incorrect, he was also insulting and demeaning to an entire subset of Americans which spans from the poorest of the poor to outright millionaires.

Those comments won't cost him any votes. Its just media fluff to fill a void. Most independents agree that there are tons of people living off the government teet and abusing the system. Gallup polled this already with independents. 53% said no change. 17% said they are more likely to vote Romney and 24% said less likely. Those numbers say it is a wash.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Going to venture a guess, that the source of income leading to foreign tax liabillity, was overseas book sales primarily.

I believe Obama's most recent tax filing was released, so I would guess it makes more clear this info there. But I havn't looked at it tbh.

He declared his book sales and profit separately on a "self employed" form on his tax returns. His book sales would have been handled through his agent and he would have been paid by them. Usually an author is an "employee: of a publisher. The publisher makes a profit and pays an author based on sales if not a pre arranged total fee.
$820K overseas is a lot of $$ and that's the tax.

[Timmy®]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Those comments won't cost him any votes. Its just media fluff to fill a void. Most independents agree that there are tons of people living off the government teet and abusing the system. Gallup polled this already with independents. 53% said no change. 17% said they are more likely to vote Romney and 24% said less likely. Those numbers say it is a wash.

a wash? when a six percent difference in a presidential election is considered something of a landslide, and 7 percent more people said they are now less likely to vote for him than more likely?

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Timmy®

a wash? when a six percent difference in a presidential election is considered something of a landslide, and 7 percent more people said they are now less likely to vote for him than more likely?

Same 26% of independents that were going for Obama regardless. Just like the 17% that said the opposite were voting Romney regardless. We are talking about 6% of independents that make up 27% of the voting electorate. That actually adds up to around 1.4% of voters but as I said these are folks that were going for Obama regardless.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Going to venture a guess, that the source of income leading to foreign tax liabillity, was overseas book sales primarily.

I believe Obama's most recent tax filing was released, so I would guess it makes more clear this info there. But I havn't looked at it tbh.

Appreciate the nudge to look at 2011 year. Still had a foreign tax credit although it declined a lot.
Obama is a magician. He seems according to hiss forms to buy and sell assets at exactly the sa,e price resulting in neither gain nor loss. Very good.
Southpark would love him as a client. Every form in the book is submitted. More deductions than God. But that's ok. Excepy for Mitt to do.

[Timmy®]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

He declared his book sales and profit separately on a "self employed" form on his tax returns. His book sales would have been handled through his agent and he would have been paid by them. Usually an author is an "employee: of a publisher. The publisher makes a profit and pays an author based on sales if not a pre arranged total fee.
$820K overseas is a lot of $$ and that's the tax.

was this idea cooked up on the Rush Limbaugh show?

Romney also declared himself a self employed author as well




so actually...maybe it is shady since Wilfred is doing it

[MnJetFan]

People below the poverty line has doubled, people on food stamps has doubled. I would say they are victims of Obama's dismal failure of as a President!

[sg3]

Originally Posted by MnJetFan

People below the poverty line has doubled, people on food stamps has doubled. I would say they are victims of Obama's dismal failure of as a President!

Is Mn Maine or Minn??

Makes no diff I guess since thanks to rejecting Paul and nominating Willard and his golden tablets we are going to get crushed by Obama in both

Sent from my SGH-T679 using Tapatalk 2

[Jetdawgg]

Originally Posted by MnJetFan

People below the poverty line has doubled, people on food stamps has doubled. I would say they are victims of Obama's dismal failure of as a President!

The bottom of this economy fell out in Sept 2008 when that idiot GWB was still in office. The issue here is that the r's still want to run on those policies that already failed.

[21st Amendment]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

How'd he do in 2010? Answer? Awful. He had the House as 60/40 to remain D majority. He blew the most historic blowout victory in 100 years. Silver is a liberal partisan.

Where do you get your information from? He never said anything like that about the 2010 elections.

His column November 1st, 2010:

Republicans are well-positioned to win control of the House of Representatives in tomorrow’s elections, and quite possibly to achieve the largest gain made by either party in a Congressional election since World War II.

Our forecasting model, which is based on a consensus of indicators including generic ballot polling, polling of local districts, expert forecasts, and fund-raising data, now predicts an average Republican gain of 54 seats (up one from 53 seats in last night’s forecast), and a median Republican gain of 55 seats. These figures would exceed the 52 seats that Republicans won from Democrats in the 1994 midterms.

Moreover, given the exceptionally large number of seats in play, the Republicans’ gains could be significantly higher; they have better than a one-in-three chance of winning at least 60 seats, a one-in-six chance of winning at least 70 seats, and have some realistic chance of a gain exceeding 80 seats, according to the model.

[21st Amendment]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...rcent/?print=1

Romney’s final share of the vote? You guessed it: 47 percent.
By Aaron Blake , Updated: November 26, 2012

Call it irony or call it coincidence: Mitt Romney’s share of the popular vote in the 2012 presidential race is very likely to be 47 percent.

Romney’s campaign, of course, was doomed in large part by comments made on a hidden camera in which he suggested that 47 percent of the country was so reliant on government services that those people would never vote for him.

The words ’47 percent’ came to define what was already evident: that Romney struggled to connect with lower- and middle-income voters and with groups such as Latinos. And in the end, it looks like 47 percent also just happens to be the share of the vote that Romney will get.

The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent noted a few days ago that Romney was flirting with 47 percent, and now it appears to be happening.

According to the latest numbers tallied by David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report, President Obama has expanded his share of the popular vote to 50.8 percent, while Romney has fallen to 47.49 percent.

By virtue of rounding, Romney’s share of the popular vote will be recorded here and elsewhere as 47 percent, so long as it doesn’t rise above 47.5 percent again.

That seems unlikely. Wasserman projects that Romney’s vote share will actually head more toward 47 percent flat — 47.1 percent or 47.2 percent — because many of the outstanding ballots in the presidential race come from California and New York, which both voted for Obama by a large margin.

And Obama’s popular vote margin, in the end, is likely to be 51 percent to 47 percent.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by Jetdawgg

The bottom of this economy fell out in Sept 2008 when that idiot GWB was still in office. The issue here is that the r's still want to run on those policies that already failed.

I thought Obama was in the majority Democratic Government that won both the Senate and the House in 06 and were fully entrenched in power when the economy caved in? Did I miss the 2006 election?

[21st Amendment]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

I thought Obama was in the majority Democratic Government that won both the Senate and the House in 06 and were fully entrenched in power when the economy caved in? Did I miss the 2006 election?

Republicans controlled the speakership from 1995-2007 (12 years, thats more than a decade) George W. Bush had the House of Representatives for 6 of 8 years of his presidency and the Senate for 4 of 8 years. George W. Bush and the Republicans controlled the White House, the House of Representatives, and U.S. Senate from 2003-2007. Economy started to sputter in 2006, but crashed in November of 2008.

[WestCoastOffensive]

Yeah, that was worth the wait.

[WestCoastOffensive]

This thread is open for business...21st thinks it's relevant. Let's see.

[21st Amendment]

Thank you again WCO, I was curious about this post made by chiefst2000. I have no idea why he thought Silver predicted the House Democrats to hold onto control in 2010.

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

How'd he do in 2010? Answer? Awful. He had the House as 60/40 to remain D majority. He blew the most historic blowout victory in 100 years. Silver is a liberal partisan.