Justin Ruben: Mitt Romney's Koch Problem (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/justin-ruben/mitt-romneys-koch-problem_b_1654775.html)

No, Mitt Romney's Koch problem isn't what the Koch brothers are doing for him -- it's what he'll do for them, and the possibility that voters will find out.

Romney's approach to the economy boils down to this: the ultra rich deserve even more advantages, and the poor and middle class should foot the bill. It's how he approached his job as a vulture capitalist at Bain Capital, buying up companies, laying off their workers, outsourcing their jobs, and saddling them with debt, all so he could extract wealth for his rich investors.

Now he wants to do the same thing to our country. Romney would lay off teachers and firefighters and expand the deficit in order to fund more tax privileges for the richest 1%. Romney would gut safeguards that protect consumers from reckless Wall Street traders. And he'd end Medicare, throwing countless seniors into poverty to pay for more tax loopholes for Big Oil (which not-so-coincidentally happens to be where the Kochs got their money).

No wonder the Koch brothers are bankrolling Romney's bid.

Unfortunately for Romney, voters are starting to wise up to what his presidency would mean for the middle class. Recent polls in presidential swing states show that the more voters learn about Romney's dealings at Bain Capital -- and how he'd bring the same approach to governing the country -- the more they turn away from him. In swing states where the race was tied just a month ago, President Obama has opened a modest but significant lead.
:coffee:

LOL! Keep pushing that line. Socialists trying to define capitalism.

Just ask Lenin or Castro how well socialism worked for them.

Or on second thought, try to get prenatal care in Canada. You are having a fetus, aren't you?

Oooh, a political opinion piece from that bastion of unbiased news reporting, the Huffington Post! And oh, look! The writer is Justin Ruben, the Executive Director of MoveOn.org. :bigwhoop:

At least this ignorance and juvenile play on words pronounces their name correctly.

It's interesting how some people look to the government to solve the problems created by the government.

I like how they keep saying crap like "the poor and middle class should foot the bill" when the poor don't pay any part of the bill to begin with.

Obama has a George Soros Problem... :coffee:

Sarah Palin is glad the Koch brothers came along and took the boogeyman role from her.

I like how they keep saying crap like "the poor and middle class should foot the bill" when the poor don't pay any part of the bill to begin with.

The bottom half pay nothing; the lowest quintile actually gets money BACK they didn't pay in.

I am forever tiring of the way Democrats think about money. Right now, Obama is bragging about a tax cut he is offering - which is to say, he is NOT going to raise taxes, so that's a tax CUT.

They generally discuss how to "pay" for tax cuts - which only ever makes sense if you regard your taxes as their legitimate income - you're an employee, and they think they're giving you a raise. How do you PAY for taking less money?

Tax cuts are universally called "tax cuts for the rich" - which frankly are just about the only ones who can collect cuts, because they're the ones paying them. When you pay 'negative' taxes - you collect rather than pay at tax time - it's impossible to cut your taxes.

I like how they keep saying crap like "the poor and middle class should foot the bill" when the poor don't pay any part of the bill to begin with.

Exactly. A large part of the middle class pays little of nothing in taxes.

What amazes me no end is how small and limited some minds are that they actually suck up that kind of drivel; there was nothing in that entire piece that was not factually stretched well beyond the breaking point.

A lot of them must read this a lot....

Zombie » The Little Blue Book: Quotations from Chairman Lakoff (http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/07/09/the-little-blue-book-quotations-from-chairman-lakoff/?singlepage=true)

It's interesting how some people look to the government to solve the problems created by the government.

Indeed. It's straight out of the Communist Manifesto.

So rich people who develop resources and create jobs are a problem but rich people who don't develop anything are OK? :confused:

The bottom half pay nothing; the lowest quintile actually gets money BACK they didn't pay in.

Exactly. A large part of the middle class pays little of nothing in taxes.

But that isn't true. They don't pay their fair share because they pay considerably less than people that make more money, but they do pay "part of the bill" - they do pay taxes. We don't need to exaggerate reality to the point of being misleading or inaccurate in order to fairly make the case that those who make a lot of money generally pay more than they should have to relative to those that don't make as much.

There are lots of taxes other than income taxes and then, of course, there are payroll income taxes. A large majority of people that earn income pay taxes on it, and most everyone pays some other taxes.

But that isn't true. .

I was referring to fed income taxes. It certainly is true...I don't always keep my pen knife so frog-hair splitting sharp like you always do.:buddies:

Here... maybe pictures will help.

But that isn't true.

Cut me some slack - you know I was referring to federal income tax. At the national level, it's pretty much the only tax that the President and Congress have much influence over.

So if the President talks about a tax cut, he is not talking about sales tax, or state income tax, or payroll tax. And when he talks about "tax cuts for the rich" he is not talking about sales tax or state income tax or property tax and so forth.

But that isn't true. They don't pay their fair share because they pay considerably less than people that make more money, but they do pay "part of the bill" - they do pay taxes. We don't need to exaggerate reality to the point of being misleading or inaccurate in order to fairly make the case that those who make a lot of money generally pay more than they should have to relative to those that don't make as much.

There are lots of taxes other than income taxes and then, of course, there are payroll income taxes. A large majority of people that earn income pay taxes on it, and most everyone pays some other taxes.

Actually, according to IRS figures there is somewhere around 10% of the bottom tax rate returns that receive more money back than both their withheld and their payroll taxes...

Most tax payers don't think about the part of the payroll tax paid by their employer (which was supposed to cover SS)... They only care that at the end of the year, how much Uncle Sam kept from their withholding and how much of it they got back...

Looking at the 2012 Tax Brackets, it is kinda hard to figure out where the middle class is... Is it purely the 15% bracket? Or is it everything except the 10% and 35% brackets?

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700
15% Bracket $17,400 – $70,700 $8,700 – $35,350
25% Bracket $70,700 – $142,700 $35,350 – $85,650
28% Bracket $142,700 – $217,450 $85,650 – $178,650
33% Bracket $217,450 – $388,350 $178,650 – $388,350
35% Bracket Over $388,350 Over $388,350

Actually, according to IRS figures there is somewhere around 10% of the bottom tax rate returns that receive more money back than both their withheld and their payroll taxes...

Most tax payers don't think about the part of the payroll tax paid by their employer (which was supposed to cover SS)... They only care that at the end of the year, how much Uncle Sam kept from their withholding and how much of it they got back... Indeed.

Looking at the 2012 Tax Brackets, it is kinda hard to figure out where the middle class is... Is it purely the 15% bracket? Or is it everything except the 10% and 35% brackets?

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700
15% Bracket $17,400 – $70,700 $8,700 – $35,350
25% Bracket $70,700 – $142,700 $35,350 – $85,650
28% Bracket $142,700 – $217,450 $85,650 – $178,650
33% Bracket $217,450 – $388,350 $178,650 – $388,350
35% Bracket Over $388,350 Over $388,350

Yes, and that's part of why I said 'a large majority of' rather than 'all'.

I was referring to fed income taxes. It certainly is true...I don't always keep my pen knife so frog-hair splitting sharp like you always do.:buddies:

Cut me some slack - you know I was referring to federal income tax. At the national level, it's pretty much the only tax that the President and Congress have much influence over.

So if the President talks about a tax cut, he is not talking about sales tax, or state income tax, or payroll tax. (Not for nothing, but didn't they recently cut payroll taxes?) And when he talks about "tax cuts for the rich" he is not talking about sales tax or state income tax or property tax and so forth.

I'm not splitting hairs and I wasn't noting an error just because it existed. I wasn't making a technical correction, so to speak.

The point is that it matters. If we're talking about whether respective people pay taxes - whether they pay part of the bill - we should include payroll taxes. Why wouldn't we? Payroll taxes account for a large part of our revenue - not too much less than other individual income taxes do. Their being called payroll taxes doesn't much change that, and it represents money taken out of the checks of people that pay them just as much as other income taxes do.

It is misleading to suggest that the bottom half pays nothing. It's picking what to count or not count in order to create the impression, and advance the position, we want. We discredit our valid points when we selectively ignore certain realities like this. This isn't about busting chops over technical errors in wording, it's about trying to make the overall conversation a little more honest and a little more meaningful.

Oh, and Gilligan, just to show what splitting hairs might look like (in a good natured way, of course)... Payroll taxes are federal income taxes. :smile:

:buddies:

... snip

Their being called payroll taxes doesn't much change that, and it represents money taken out of the checks of people that pay them just as much as other income taxes do.

It is misleading to suggest that the bottom half pays nothing. It's picking what to count or not count in order to create the impression, and advance the position, we want. We discredit our valid points when we selectively ignore certain realities like this. This isn't about busting chops over technical errors in wording, it's about trying to make the overall conversation a little more honest and a little more meaningful.

Oh, and Gilligan, just to show what splitting hairs might look like (in a good natured way, of course)... Payroll taxes are federal income taxes. :smile:

:buddies:

There are two 'payroll taxes' and they are different... One is withholding that is taken out of your check... the other is paid by the EMPLOYER... One is federal income tax, one is not. We know from the IRS that a portion receives back more than was withheld, and a smaller portion receives more than their withholding AND the employer portion.

The answer to the debate would be What percentage of the bottom 10% gets back 100% of what was withheld from their check? (effectively pays no federal income tax)...

There are two 'payroll taxes' and they are different... One is withholding that is taken out of your check... the other is paid by the EMPLOYER... One is federal income tax, one is not. We know from the IRS that a portion receives back more than was withheld, and a smaller portion receives more than their withholding AND the employer portion.

The answer to the debate would be What percentage of the bottom 10% gets back 100% of what was withheld from their check? (effectively pays no federal income tax)...

That's a fair point, but the portion I'm referring to is the portion that is income tax. When people suggest that half of income earners don't pay any federal income taxes, they generally aren't even including those payroll taxes that are taken out of people's checks. I'd also note that in my case, and in that of many others, it is all income tax - we pay the self-employment tax in lieu of the employer's and employee's share.

..snip.... I'd also note that in my case, and in that of many others, it is all income tax - we pay the self-employment tax in lieu of the employer's and employee's share.

You win that round... lol... and I'm sorry, most of the guys I know self-employed like you, get screwed even worse than I do...

It’s all about intentions. If you have good intentions, regardless of results, then you’re given a pass because you’re ‘compassionate’. Al Gore being a good example. His intentions are so good to solve the globes demise due to man-made global warming. He made a movie, wrote a book, toured around the world selling both, and made millions doing so. Oh, I forgot to mention he toured around in his private Gulfstream jet, leaving a carbon footprint in one day larger than 20 SUVs in a month.

How about our wonderful ‘Jobs Czar’ (Jeffrey Immelt)? CEO of GE. GE has received billions in subsidies so they can make their wonderful and environmentally safe CFL bulbs. Of course it’s fair to mention our government attempted to ban incandescent bulbs in favor of these ‘spaghetti’ bulbs. Talk about government being in the pocket of BIG BUSINESS. But their intentions were good so the FAT CAT Immelt get a pass. Not to mention he is the jobs czar – tasked to improves jobs in the US – all while he throws tens of thousands of GE jobs overseas. But again, his intentions are good……….. pass.

LOL! Keep pushing that line. Socialists trying to define capitalism.

Just ask Lenin or Castro how well socialism worked for them.

Or on second thought, try to get prenatal care in Canada. You are having a fetus, aren't you?

Do you even know what socialism is? And isn't it ironic your bound for Costa Rica that has OMG SOCIALIZED medicine.

Are you really that ignorant? Are you going to learn the language gringo?