Tag Archives: taxes

Aug 25 2012

Mitt – just another one of the common folks

Credit: Huffingtonpost.com

Overall, we all know that Mitt has a problem with his Likeability as he trails Obama by over 23 percentage points in the most recent Gallup Likeability Poll.  Not sure why that is any surprise given the way Mitt manages to portray himself to the American public.  Could just be me but Mitt’s efforts to downplay his stature well up near the top of the 1% don’t seem to resonate with him being common folk.

That doesn’t mean he hasn’t tried to relate to the rest of us.

Couple of examples –

Highlighting he hasn’t paid less than a 13% effective tax rate in the last 10 years was no doubt an attempt to show his sharing the same tax bracket as those common folk making $30K or so (at least the single filers – maybe $80K for those married).

His visit to a hardware store in New Hampshire – when asked what he bought, he quickly offered “hardware stuff” – probably to use when he has to do “stuff” around the house.

As he shopped at a grocery store, also in NH, he offered he was going to be doing the cooking that evening and that he had some people coming over.  I guess someone should have informed him that the two ears of sweet corn that he picked up from the stand outside the store would likely fall short in terms of helpings – or maybe he was going to break those ears into several portions – just like the common folk do.

Sure, last time I made a bet with someone, I said , without hesitation, “Bet you $10,000”.

In trying to make connections and show he was one with the myriad of NASCAR fans, he shared that “My friends own NASCAR teams”.  I’m sure we all have friends like that.

Like many of us, the Romney’s own a horse.  We did for a good number of years.  What I missed was anything close to the $77K tax deduction Mitt managed to get for Ann’s dressage horse.  Actually, it wasn’t that my deduction wasn’t close, I never got a deduction.

One of my favorite of Mitt’s attempts to relate to the public was on an early campaign stop in Michigan.  “The trees are the right height,” he said in Michigan, trying to show his love for his native state.  I know I comment on the height of the trees in Pennsylvania all the time.  Is Mitt intimating that Michigan trees are somehow better than trees in other states?

Okay, while not really seen as likeable, Mitt does get the nod when it comes to how people see his ability (vs. Obama) to fix the economy.  Here he beats Obama 52% to 43%.  Of course one key way he will carry out that fix is his management in taxation of Americans.  Oh, Wait – something looks askew…

Undoubtedly looking out for the common man!

Before I go, I can’t ignore another bonehead move by Mitt.  Again showing he is relatively clueless about what he should say and how it makes him look, he cracked a joke about his own birth certificate while campaigning Friday in his native Michigan. “No one has ever asked to see my birth certificate,” Romney said. “They know that this is the place that we were born and raised.”   Given his Likeability ratings among Americans, you would think he would think twice about a comment that immediately puts him alongside one of the biggest assholes ever to grace corporate America – Donny Trump.

Computer generated photo of Mitt and Don – if they had not been separated at birth

Aug 17 2012

Mitt – are you really that stupid?

Mitt – at a fundraising event yesterday in SC. And he needs armed (in combat gear) security because? Maybe because he had a lower tax rate than most Americans over the last decade.

So Mitt shares he has personally gone back to review his taxes (highly doubtful) and he reveals that he has paid taxes contrary to the remarks made by Harry Reid.  Ok – but he also includes the fact that in the last 10 years, he has never paid less than 13% effective tax rate.  Could just be me but I can’t think that telling the America public that he has paid at an even lower tax rate than we all heard previously would seem to be a great strategic move.  I guess it is better than a situation where he paid no tax but not much.  His throwing in that if you count his charitable contributions, he is paying over 20% also doesn’t carry much weight for a couple of reasons.  First, if I recall correctly, most all his charitable contribution went to the Morman Church.  While it works for his church, it somewhat pales in comparison to actually helping others outside your personal circle.  Second, last time I looked, charitable contributions are a deduction from taxes so no matter how you looked at it, he didn’t pay 20% in taxes.  Lastly, giving to charity is a voluntary action.  Unlike, taxes which isn’t really a choice.  So when you add it all up, what Mitt pays falls into the same tax bracket for a single person making less than $35K.  Take a look – and these are for 2012 – obviously much higher than the last decade.  I know it is a bit more complex than this and that tax brackets don’t equate to effective tax rate but directionally not that far off considering his average annual income isn’t even in the six figure range.  Hell, I’m figuring I’ll need to be retired before I see that tax rate – mine hasn’t been below 24% in recently memory.

2012 Tax Brackets

So, for being so stupid and trying to answer one problem by waving a flag elsewhere and actually pointing to another problem, I think it is appropriate tha Mitt get today’s “Head in the Butt” award – I think he should share it with his staff given it is obvious no one said “You know, Mitt, might not be a great idea to tell everyone you are actually paying even less tax”.

Mitt – take a bow – carefully…it’s one thing to have your foot in your mouth.

Aug 14 2012

Keep the Federal Govt away – unless it helps me out.

Bloomberg News

Obama Announces Meat Purchase to Help Farmers Through Drought

President Barack Obama, campaigning in Iowa today, announced $170 million in government meat purchases to help farmers struck by drought, helping to send hog prices to a one-week high.

The purchase of as much as $100 million of pork, $50 million of chicken, and $10 million each of lamb and catfish come on top of $30 million in assistance announced last week. Farmers and ranchers are struggling with the worst combination of heat and dryness since the 1950s, the administration said.

…More than half the counties in the U.S. have been declared natural disaster areas by the Department of Agriculture, and 69 percent of the Midwest last week had moderate to exceptional drought, government data show.

…Obama has pledged a wide-ranging response to the drought. His administration is giving farmers and ranchers access to low-interest emergency loans, opening more federal land for grazing and distributing $30 million to get water to livestock.

 

 

Okay – what is wrong with this picture.  So let’s add it up.  Farmers, Ranchers, whatever you call those who raise fish, etc.  getting government help to purchase their products.  Add on top of that the benefits that come with being declared natural disaster areas.  Not to cast a wide net here but I expect a good number of the states, and likely voters, where the loudest noise is based on a desire for less Federal Government in their affairs that are benefiting the most from yet another Federal program that takes my tax dollars and again bails out others who sit dramatically opposite my social and political leanings.  I’ll make it pretty clear – what I pay in Federal tax dollars hurts my brain when I do my taxes every year.  I see little of that back given my earnings have for years placed me outside of almost every break and benefit available.  That’s fine as I realize I get other benefits (but not from outside or government sources).  I don’t mind helping others that need help or are less fortunate but it does gall me to see all these people who are the first to shit on the Federal government and anyone who doesn’t believe in what they do or hold their values but yet they are the first to hold their hands out when times are tough.

Okay – now a little test – take a look at these next two graphics and tell me what looks surprisingly similar.  While not perfect, I will guess there is a bit of overlap in those states with the greatest drought conditions and the Red states.

 

Courtesy of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration –
National Climatic Data Center

 

Recent historical look Red vs. Blue states

 

Now, if I can only figure out how to get my two acres here in Pennsylvania declared a disaster area.  Or maybe I need to start raising some livestock or fish out in the backyard.

 

Oh, and lastly, no sense of anything with Global Warming here.  Interesting, on the subject of that huge hoax of Global Warming – I did read a recent article in our local paper – which on occasion stumbles on some story of value – of course they took it from another publication in PA.  Seems we in the Northeast/Mid Atlantic are seeing some change in our weather – might explain where all that rain from mid-west is going.

Pa. getting ‘extreme’ storms more often

By

LAURA LEGERE

The Times-Tribune

August 06, 2012

Pennsylvania’s heaviest downpours have gotten wetter and more frequent in the last six decades, according to a report released by PennEnvironment.

Between 1948 and 2011, the state has seen a 52 percent increase in the number of “extreme” storms — those that are among the largest in the state in the last 64 years.

Large storms that used to happen once a year in Pennsylvania now happen every eight months, the report found. The amount of rain or snow in the largest storm each year has also grown by 23 percent over the same period.

The findings were based on data from the National Climatic Data Center collected from 3,700 weather stations across the country.

The frequency and severity of Pennsylvania’s storms largely matched the average increase of the Mid-Atlantic region, but surpassed the national average, the report found.

Extreme storms happened 30 percent more often nationally in 2011 than 1948 and the largest annual storms produced 10 percent more rain or snow.

 

Maybe I should be looking for Federal Government flood relief aid….

 

Feb 19 2012

Considering the First Amendment

Okay – I don’t expect the career Republicans in the fray of battle to acknowledge it.  I really don’t expect the majority of the Republican base to understand it as most are lemmings looking for a cliff.  What I don’t understand is those in the media that do the interviews of the politicians and those thinking independents or core Democrats with a voice and the ability to question and challenge.  Not that anyone will change the minds of these people – but there is nothing wrong with making them look like the bigots and jerks they really are.  What am I missing in the defense of religious freedom that draws on the First Amendment and takes a position that the government is treading on religious freedom when it addresses issues such as contraception or gay rights that can be viewed from a perspective equally valid in non-religious terms?  Why is it that imparting or recognizing rights to those not of any particular religious denomination is any less valid than protecting the rights of those whose religion are central to their existence?  How is it that the decision by the Bush debacle to not fund stem cell research (that was based purely on religious beliefs) not seen as an issue by these same people who are having issues with birth control or gay rights?  I know the answer as does anyone that thinks and actually can chew gum and walk at the same time.

What is it that makes it so threatening to these on the right that someone is different, has different beliefs or holds other ideals to be more important.   I would submit that if you were truly of faith and belief, you felt it to your core and you actually followed the teaching of Jesus, we of little faith wouldn’t be seen as the enemy.  You wouldn’t feel the need to have us talk, walk, and look like you.

Interesting fact about Rick Santorum: his wife, Karen Santorum, had an abortion in 1996 during her 19th week of pregnancy Karen Santorum’s fetus caused an infection inside her and had to be removed to save her life. How can Rick Santorum oppose all abortion in all cases when terminating a pregnancy saved the life of his own wife? **

To be honest, I’m okay with the tax dollars of good catholics not funding birth control or abortion because, of course, no catholics use birth control or have abortions.  Equally so, I think, as a long standing atheist, I should have equal say in my Federal tax dollars (now into six figures) not funding anything that smells of organized religion – charities, schools, you name it.  Where do I sign up for that?  Yes – we can write our Senator and Congressperson but that won’t go anywhere because most of them have no balls.  At the end of the day, I would expect that my contribution to the Federal budget wouldn’t be funding the exorbitant medical costs of Rick Santorum’s last child (yes Rick, there is an appropriate time for birth control) – as I would expect given the Santorum’s as the religious poster family, the care is being provided in a Catholic hospital.  You see, it goes both ways.

**Update:  In the spirit of fairness and in anticipation of how the termination of the Santorum’s pregnancy in 1996 could be positioned, it would appear that the Santorum’s, given their pro-life stance, took a different route to terminating the pregnancy.  Rather than a direct abortion, they had the doctor induce the pregnancy using pitocin, which is used to induce labor.  They were aware that there was little (and I mean little) chance of survival of the baby at that age and it did die within two hours.  I have no doubt that Santorum (and pro-life supporters) will have every explanation of why this was not a “true” abortion but, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.