Bain Investor Claims Romney Paid No Taxes for 10 Years

There is no independent thinking for some, guess they prefer to save & not exercise their brains & just let Beck do it for them while on his way to several more million.

Yes, because all independent thinkers I know really, really, really want to keep throwing money down a rat hole.

How much money can your government waste before you say "No mas"?

I'm assuming you guys can use a pen, feel free to send a check to Tim Geithner, you know, the guy that doesn't pay his taxes.

homecomfort wrote:if romney is elected, he will be setting tax policy. so legal or not, for you less than super rich folks, and I am sure that is most of you, it is fine for you middle class tax payers to pay triple the "rate" than your rich master. funny how limited some peoples minds are when it comes to independent thinking.

I'm really fighting the urge to say what I really want to say to you. I'll just say you would seem to be the poster boy for limited thinking.

homecomfort wrote:if romney is elected, he will be setting tax policy. so legal or not, for you less than super rich folks, and I am sure that is most of you, it is fine for you middle class tax payers to pay triple the "rate" than your rich master. funny how limited some peoples minds are when it comes to independent thinking.

The nut houses are full of independent thinkers. you should try logical thinking instead.

IF, romney gets into office, "stranger things have happened in politics" (Bush), then he, Romney, can let every middle class tax payer in on his TAX AVOIDANCE, but legal tactics, and then a tax break would not be needed, as no one would be paying any taxes,like him, resulting in the limited, wait, " No" government, that republicans crave.

homecomfort wrote:IF, romney gets into office, "stranger things have happened in politics" (Bush), then he, Romney, can let every middle class tax payer in on his TAX AVOIDANCE, but legal tactics, and then a tax break would not be needed, as no one would be paying any taxes,like him, resulting in the limited, wait, " No" government, that republicans crave.

Your posts are very difficult to answer because they are based on wild leaps of imagination without any basis in reality. Often they are self contradictory as this one is. I understand you do service work which I believe requires a certain amount of logical thought. If you wish to convince others of the rightness of your position you will have to use that logic. Different opinions are fine because they keep a discussion going and if based on fact can be educational. Rational left wing thought is welcome. Read Sam's posts who frequently does a good job without going bonkers.

franco b wrote:Rational left wing thought is welcome.

He made perfect sense to me. Isn't that the stated purpose of the rightest-of-the-right-wing: To remove government by starving it? Which really means, to turn control of society over to the rich and powerful, by crippling the mechanism that might restrain them.

Et Tu. You feel it is rational to believe conservatives want anarchy controlled by a wealthy oligarchy?

Doesn't leave much room for discussion. You have been too sensible in the past for me to believe that.

I've never heard of "no government" being a Republican policy. That's totally ridiculous. They are Federalists bar none.

coalkirk wrote:

homecomfort wrote:Mitt Romney will not produce more than the last 2 years tax returns because he knows that most likely he is going to lose his bid for the presidency, and after he loses, he may have to explain his tax situation to the I.R.S, where the response of "MAYBE" will not cut it. he may trade in his car elevator equipped home for a 6 x 6 cell will no elevator.

I hate to break this to you homecomfort, but the IRS already has Romneys tax returns. Not exactly a slueth, are you?

hate to break it to you, mr sleuth, but it is not terribly difficult to hide income from the irs, when one can hire the worlds best accountants. what the infernal revenue service doesn't know, they cannot persue on now can they?

rberq wrote:

franco b wrote:Rational left wing thought is welcome.

He made perfect sense to me. Isn't that the stated purpose of the rightest-of-the-right-wing: To remove government by starving it? Which really means, to turn control of society over to the rich and powerful, by crippling the mechanism that might restrain them.

So you want rich and powerful men to restrain rich and powerful men?

If this make sense to you, wait a second while I pour a stiff drink. Clearly I haven't had enough.

jpete wrote:So you want rich and powerful men to restrain rich and powerful men?
If this make sense to you, wait a second while I pour a stiff drink. Clearly I haven't had enough.

You must have had the drink before you read my post. I said no such thing.
However, since you bring it up: One of the arguments 40+ years ago was whether the "Power Elite" (book title) cooperated among themselves to dominate our economy; or whether they restrained one another's excesses by competing among themselves and preying on one another (J. K. Galbraith, "American Capitalism"). One of the "countervailing forces", said to counteract the rich and powerful, was the labor unions. You tell me: which model is closer to the truth today?

rberq wrote: One of the arguments 40+ years ago was whether the "Power Elite" (book title) cooperated among themselves to dominate our economy; or whether they restrained one another's excesses by competing among themselves and preying on one another (J. K. Galbraith, "American Capitalism"). One of the "countervailing forces", said to counteract the rich and powerful, was the labor unions. You tell me: which model is closer to the truth today?

You construct a fantasy scenario shot through with disclaimers (whether, and said to) and want an answer.
It is so typical of left wing thought to set up a straw man that is easy to knock down.

The answer is: if there might be a conspiracy by the power elite I would expect them to be in government.

rberq wrote:

jpete wrote:So you want rich and powerful men to restrain rich and powerful men?
If this make sense to you, wait a second while I pour a stiff drink. Clearly I haven't had enough.

You must have had the drink before you read my post. I said no such thing.
However, since you bring it up: One of the arguments 40+ years ago was whether the "Power Elite" (book title) cooperated among themselves to dominate our economy; or whether they restrained one another's excesses by competing among themselves and preying on one another (J. K. Galbraith, "American Capitalism"). One of the "countervailing forces", said to counteract the rich and powerful, was the labor unions. You tell me: which model is closer to the truth today?

You want Congress(rich and powerful men) to keep Big Business(rich and powerful men) under control.

That's EXACTLY what you said.

On a side note, Galbraith was a dick breath.

Ever see the comedian Louis C.K.? He was going on about the stuff we complain about in this country. The littlest things. He said people in other countries say, " Are they coming to cut our heads off today?" HAHAHAHAHAHA

Syria ya later