WOW - what a prick!>>>

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,833
47
48
Ohio
Paid $2 million in taxes in 2011.

Donated $4 million to charity.

Guy is a complete asshat.


I'm not a Romney fan as most know but I hardly think he is the demon that the liberals are painting him to be.


Flaming to commence in
3...

2....


1.......
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
The guy knew he was going to run for president. After he loses we will see how much he donates next year. That is what will tell you what kind of man he is.
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,833
47
48
Ohio
Sure, Trampled.

He is pumping the # for his Presidential run.

What about Biden then?

2011 - he gave $5300 to charity.

If this wasn't an election year, would he give 0?


:facepalm:
 

Skulnik

Truth Teller
Forum Member
Mar 30, 2007
20,922
125
0
Jefferson City, Missouri
The guy knew he was going to run for president. After he loses we will see how much he donates next year. That is what will tell you what kind of man he is.



Clinton's old clothes used as tax write-off/Value of donated underwear inflated?

Reuters News Service

WED 12/29/1993 HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Section A, Page 6, 2 STAR Edition


StumbleUpon
WASHINGTON -- President Clinton donated his old underwear to charity in the 1980s and took what may have been inflated tax deductions for it, according to documents published Tuesday.
For at least several years as governor of Arkansas, Clinton gave old socks, long and regular underwear and other secondhand clothes to groups like the Salvation Army and Goodwill Industries.

Like every taxpayer, he was entitled to deduct from his income taxes their fair-market value, or what a willing seller would pay a willing buyer.

Clinton valued three pairs of his old underwear at $6, or $2 a pair, in publicly available documentation supporting his 1986 tax return.

He valued a pair of long johns at $15 in connection with his 1988 return, according to a handwritten inventory of the items published by the Washington Post.

Such lists are typically prepared to support the write-offs in case of an Internal Revenue Service audit.

Current guidelines of the Salvation Army and Goodwill Industries suggest Clinton consistently valued his give-aways at far above their fair-market value.

"We don't get it (used underwear) very often, but usually it will be sorted through to see what's usable, and the rest sold as rags," Salvation Army Major Dewey Alderson, the Little Rock area commander, told the Washington Post.

The market price for rags is 5 cents to 6 cents a pound, the paper reported, citing several Little Rock charity directors.

The head of the IRS, Margaret Richardson, said she knew of no plans to delve into Clinton's write-offs for donated clothes.

"I don't know that we would have any special plans to" investigate, she told a news conference at IRS headquarters called to publicize the start of the new tax-filing season.

"I'll be delighted to take your questions now, except any questions that relate to the fair-market value of long underwear," she said.

A list put together by Clinton for the return filed for 1986 is titled "Salvation Army 12/27."

It shows items numbered 1 through 17, for which he took a deduction of $555.

Item No.1 is "Gabardine Suit -- Ripped pants -- $75."

No. 8 is "Brown Sportcoat -- 100."

No. 10 is "6 pr. socks -- 9."

And No. 12 is "3 pr. underwear -- 6."
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
Sure, Trampled.

He is pumping the # for his Presidential run.

What about Biden then?

2011 - he gave $5300 to charity.

If this wasn't an election year, would he give 0?


:facepalm:

Perhaps. By the way I have no problem with Romney using the tax laws to save cash. However, if you plan to run for president that is not the smartest idea.
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,833
47
48
Ohio
If his charitable contributions were solely for the purposes of tax deductions, he would have stopped at the $2.25M.
 

Trampled Underfoot

Registered
Forum Member
Feb 26, 2001
13,593
164
63
If his charitable contributions were solely for the purposes of tax deductions, he would have stopped at the $2.25M.

Has nothing to do with tax deductions. It has to do with the appearance to the voter that he gives a shit.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Paid $2 million in taxes in 2011.

Donated $4 million to charity.

Guy is a complete asshat.


I'm not a Romney fan as most know but I hardly think he is the demon that the liberals are painting him to be.


Flaming to commence in
3...

2....


1.......

How does what a guy gives to charity defined that individual? Cheney sent close to 5000 kids to their death under all sorts of lies and donates to chariies. I couldn't give a dick how much guys that game the system give to charity. Does Biden game the system like Romney? These assholes who make millions gaming the system probably givve to charity to ease their pathetic conscience. when you are paying 13 percent a year in taxes and im paying close to 40 maybe u should be giving some to charities. SD i know you are not a Romney fan. We all can tell by the way you find faults with a lot of stuff he does :shrug:
 

Jaxx

Go Pokes!
Forum Member
Jan 5, 2003
7,084
88
48
FL
Sure, Trampled.

He is pumping the # for his Presidential run.

What about Biden then?

2011 - he gave $5300 to charity.

:lol:

If this wasn't an election year, would he give 0?


:facepalm:

Biden is such a dumbass its almost funny. I guess Obama got the puppet he wanted. He just did not realize when he pulled the string such stupid crap would come spewing out of his mouth. Debates should be fun. Hard to figure how Romney can keep shooting himself in the foot against these mooks.
Damit man.

:SIB
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,495
256
83
Victory Lane
s-BEST-POLITICAL-JOKES-large300.jpg



you wouldnt buy a used car from this guy but you would elect him as President


:SIB
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,495
256
83
Victory Lane
s-BEST-POLITICAL-JOKES-large300.jpg


WASHINGTON -- Mitt Romney on Friday released a letter from his tax accountant, PricewaterhouseCoopers, promising that Romney paid an "average annual effective federal rate" of 20.2 percent over 20 years. The number is being released instead of the tax returns themselves, and is being used to rebuff Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's charge that Romney didn't pay taxes over a 10-year period.

But it is a meaningless figure.

According to the letter from PwC avowing the number, it is based on Romney's adjusted gross income. That means that, for instance, if Romney made investment profit of $20 million, but had losses of, say, $19.9 million, his adjusted gross income would only be $100,000. Paying 20.2 percent of $100,000 would cost Romney just over $20,000.

If Reid's comment is interpreted strictly -- that Romney paid literally $0 in taxes over 10 years -- then the PwC letter undermines that charge. But if Romney paid only a very small amount -- say, $20,000 on $20 million -- it would be hard to award Reid many pinocchios for calling that nothing.

Such a low-payment scenario is considered quite plausible by tax experts, who noted that investors can pick which investments to realize each year to maximize their tax benefit. In a year such as 2008, when the global markets tanked, an investor would likely have more than enough losses to offset gains. Indeed, Romney's 2010 tax returns show a carryover capital loss credit, meaning he had more losses than he could use the year before.

In other words, without seeing Romney's actual return -- or at least without knowing what Romney declared as his adjusted gross income -- it's impossible to know if the rate he paid bears any relation to Romney's economic reality

..............................................................


So Willard makes a stab at silencing the masses.

But he aint told anything

he is fawking hiding shit


this guy is golden
 

Duff Miver

Registered User
Forum Member
Jul 29, 2009
6,521
55
0
Right behind you
Leave it to skulnutz to get excited about Clinton's underwear. $2 for a pair of shorts? skulnutz would pay twice that just to sniff the crotch.:facepalm:
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,833
47
48
Ohio
Sponge:
I do not want Romney as President but I do not think he is a bad guy.
I think he is Obama-lite and I do not want that.

However, I think the Dems are attacking the man in the wrong manner.

I had dinner last night with friends, a couple, the wife is quite liberal whereas the husband is a registered D but leans independent.

Both thought that the attacks on Romney were making the Dems and Harry Reid, in particular, look foolish.
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Sponge:
I do not want Romney as President but I do not think he is a bad guy.
I think he is Obama-lite and I do not want that.

However, I think the Dems are attacking the man in the wrong manner.

I had dinner last night with friends, a couple, the wife is quite liberal whereas the husband is a registered D but leans independent.

Both thought that the attacks on Romney were making the Dems and Harry Reid, in particular, look foolish.

Only someone totally ignorant of what the point is could possible think they are foolish. How you think this guy is a decent man when he runs out one lie after another and his platform is the same trickledown platform that got us into this mess is beyond me. Every time Obama makes a comment (like not being able to fix Washington from the inside) Romney comes out like an attack dog and sure enuf one day later we see a clip from Romney saying the exact same thing just a couple of years ago. Im starting to think Obama does this on purpose and Romney falls for it over and over again.
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,833
47
48
Ohio
You make my argument for me, Sponge.

I said I think Romney is Obama-lite and you point out that the things Romney attacks, he championed a few years prior.

Do you realize that all politicians 'lie' in order to be elected?

When was the last time an elected official fulfilled their election goals?
 

The Sponge

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2006
17,263
97
0
Yeah i know they mislead just like you do when you post those bad numbers like Obama is responsible for them all. You like most will blame him for anything when in fact the republican congress is filibustering at historical levels. :shrug: Something you always seem to leave out.:shrug: No party will get anything done if one party keeps pulling this nonsense. The Vet bill is a prime example. Not one Republican thought this was an okay bill? Just to be the assholes the Vets get dicked because this might have helped one of them and of course might have helped Obama also. Bush gets blamed because his policies got thru Congress. Obama gets blamed while anything he tries to does not gets thru. Go figure. Could you explain to me why 99 percent of the Republicans shot down the outsourcing bill where the tax loopholes would have been closed and also in the bill if Companies wanted to setup shop back in American, they would actually get a tax break? To vote that one down you have to be a real piece of shit but hey they have their supporters. Im not sure there could possibly be a more anti American worker bnill to get shot down..
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,495
256
83
Victory Lane
You make my argument for me, Sponge.

I said I think Romney is Obama-lite and you point out that the things Romney attacks, he championed a few years prior.

Do you realize that all politicians 'lie' in order to be elected?

When was the last time an elected official fulfilled their election goals?

thats the differance between you and me

Willard is not Obama lite

Williard is George W extra heavy
 

THE KOD

Registered
Forum Member
Nov 16, 2001
42,495
256
83
Victory Lane
Yeah i know they mislead just like you do when you post those bad numbers like Obama is responsible for them all. You like most will blame him for anything when in fact the republican congress is filibustering at historical levels. :shrug: Something you always seem to leave out.:shrug: No party will get anything done if one party keeps pulling this nonsense. The Vet bill is a prime example. Not one Republican thought this was an okay bill? Just to be the assholes the Vets get dicked because this might have helped one of them and of course might have helped Obama also. Bush gets blamed because his policies got thru Congress. Obama gets blamed while anything he tries to does not gets thru. Go figure. Could you explain to me why 99 percent of the Republicans shot down the outsourcing bill where the tax loopholes would have been closed and also in the bill if Companies wanted to setup shop back in American, they would actually get a tax break? To vote that one down you have to be a real piece of shit but hey they have their supporters. Im not sure there could possibly be a more anti American worker bnill to get shot down..

honestly I think we have to change the decision making process in Washington

we cannot allow this to happen like this

we have to take this power away from two dumb ass partys and make them come to the best decision for the American people

instead of whats good for party money affiliations
 

ssd

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 2, 2000
1,833
47
48
Ohio
KOD -
Need a legitimate third party to break the stalemate.
Screwed in US til that happens.

Sponge - it is obvious that you are too angry and irate to have a rational conversation so you vomit letters on to the screen.
The economic #'s under Obama are what they are whether you like them or not. To think everything is worse after driving the deficit up another $6T is mind-numbing to me.

Your mind is made up. Fine.

Personally, I don't think Romney or Obama is the correct choice.

I also don't think someone who donates $4million to charity is a 'bad guy', either.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top