|
|
On August 07 2012 10:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Mitt and Ann Romney were easily able to afford a $12-million La Jolla home.
But that didn't insulate them from the winds buffeting the real estate market in the months following their purchase in 2008.
After paying cash for the Mediterranean-style house with 61 feet of beach frontage, they asked San Diego County for dramatic property tax relief.
Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee for president whose wealth is estimated at $250 million, has rejected calls from Democrats and Republicans to release his income tax returns prior to 2010. But San Diego County assessor records shed light on one sliver of the couple's personal taxes during that time: a months-long effort to reduce their annual property tax bill.
Initially, the Romneys asked that their 2009 assessment, $12.24 million, be reduced to $6.8 million, maintaining that their home had lost about 45% of its value in the first seven months they owned it.
Thirteen months later, after hiring an attorney to guide them, the Romneys filed an amended appeal, contending the home had suffered a less-dramatic fall of 27.3%, to $8.9 million.
They also filed an appeal for the 2010 tax year, claiming the house had dropped further, to $7.5 million, 38.7% less than the home's assessed value.
As a result, the Romneys have saved about $109,000 in property taxes over four years. Source
Are you really going to post every garbage, Romney-bashing, class warfare article that gets published as if it is particularly insightful news?
|
On August 07 2012 11:02 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 10:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Mitt and Ann Romney were easily able to afford a $12-million La Jolla home.
But that didn't insulate them from the winds buffeting the real estate market in the months following their purchase in 2008.
After paying cash for the Mediterranean-style house with 61 feet of beach frontage, they asked San Diego County for dramatic property tax relief.
Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee for president whose wealth is estimated at $250 million, has rejected calls from Democrats and Republicans to release his income tax returns prior to 2010. But San Diego County assessor records shed light on one sliver of the couple's personal taxes during that time: a months-long effort to reduce their annual property tax bill.
Initially, the Romneys asked that their 2009 assessment, $12.24 million, be reduced to $6.8 million, maintaining that their home had lost about 45% of its value in the first seven months they owned it.
Thirteen months later, after hiring an attorney to guide them, the Romneys filed an amended appeal, contending the home had suffered a less-dramatic fall of 27.3%, to $8.9 million.
They also filed an appeal for the 2010 tax year, claiming the house had dropped further, to $7.5 million, 38.7% less than the home's assessed value.
As a result, the Romneys have saved about $109,000 in property taxes over four years. Source Are you really going to post every garbage, Romney-bashing, class warfare article that gets published as if it is particularly insightful news?
It's not news about refinancing heck everybody deserves that the issue is he used a lobbyist, has multiple homes and paid cash etc. It makes even tougher for romney to portray himself as a regular joe.
|
And everything Romney has done has been legal... so why is this news?' Romney has all his money offshore, well wouldn't you if it could save you money.... he's just being smart.
|
I understand where you are coming from, but I feel that you are operating under some very common misconceptions and ideological pitfalls. I'll try to explain what I mean.
On August 07 2012 10:42 1Eris1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 10:22 sam!zdat wrote:On August 07 2012 10:11 1Eris1 wrote:On August 07 2012 09:43 sam!zdat wrote:On August 07 2012 08:58 1Eris1 wrote:On August 07 2012 08:46 DoubleReed wrote:On August 07 2012 08:40 1Eris1 wrote:On August 07 2012 08:27 sam!zdat wrote:
As an actual leftist, I think it's really hilarious (by which I mean depressing) that people think Obama is one.
edit: @coverpunch, you raise an interesting comparison there between google and chikin. The real problem, though, is that the combination of universal suffrage, a failed educational system, and mass media (oh, and the electoral college) actually just breaks democracy. What's an actual "leftist"? A social democrat? Because even in Europe that varies tremendously. Well in America it means that you think the government should take care of the people at least in some minor way. If you don't think the government should be torn down, taxes should never raise, and government institutions should be allowed to discriminate then basically you're a commie pinko nazi socialist. Yes, but sam!zdat was suggesting Obama is not one of these people. No, that is a social democrat. Obama is one of those. That's center left, not "leftist." My own politics are a bit more revolutionary. My apologies, I didn't know classical socialists still existed. I thought you guys all died out. Well, I'm certainly not a "classical socialist." I'm a sort of "open-source Marxist-Confucian," I guess. At the very least, I am somebody who has lost all faith in the ability of liberal capitalist democracy to cope with the challenges of the 21st century, which is why I object to people calling Obama a leftist, because he believes in those things. I think we need to begin a serious dialogue on alternative political-economic systems that work in the 21st century, not just blindly adhere to those that worked in the 18th. (I should say I believe in "democracy," just not the American style of it [edit: because american democracy is fascism in democracy's clothing]) Who's we? The US? The World?
By "we" I mean both the US and humanity in general. Nationalism is the most egregious of ideologies. I'm not particularly invested in being an "American," and the nation-state as a geopolitical entity is obsolescent anyway. The ultimate goal is global sovereignty - the world is a big integrated system, and we're fooling ourselves (or trying to justify our own exploitative hegemony) in thinking otherwise. We can't solve any of the real problems without a global political order. To be sure, this is just the endgame - we are still a ways off from this.
You'll excuse my reservations, but the last time the wolrd had a serious debate about democratic capitalism, "we" ended up with fascism and authoritarian socialism. That, and hundreds of millions of dead people.
Well, I wouldn't call that a "serious debate." What I have in mind involves more spilling of ink than of blood. But sure, the sentiment which you are evoking here is what we call "the death of the modernist project" in western culture post-1945. It is the feeling that, as Margaret Thatcher put it, "there is no alternative." (this is, of course, not a particularly ringing endorsement of the system in itself).
But I think the idea that "last time somebody had a different idea, things went badly, so nobody should ever have a different idea ever again" is an incredibly poisonous one. I think we can learn our lessons from such fiascos and move forward - anyway, we'll have to, because American style liberal democracy is turning into a police state, and is going to collapse of its own accord (or remain stable as precisely the sort of thing you are accusing me, baselessly, of wanting to create). We need to start thinking about what we will build after that. Of course, serious scholarship of the 20th century is the starting place for this, not something to be ignored. (I would recommend reading Adorno and Horkheimer's _Dialectic of Enlightenment_ if you are interested in the topic).
You'll also have to excuse my reservations regarding "true democracry". Things like that, well nice in idea, are horrific if the participants are ignorant or just plain stupid. And considering the intellectual capacity of the average american...
I'm not sure what you take me to mean here. This is precisely my point about democracy (with the caveat that it is more about a failed educational system and ideology than "intellectual capacity").
I would like to see a system with some democratic elements, but which was much less democratic than what we have now. I don't think democracy makes any sense without direct human relationships (i.e. I think it's absurd to vote for someone you don't personally know, and obviously the scale of american democracy doesn't support that - this is why we have cartoons instead of candidates.)
I'd choose what we have now without a doubt over anarchism, marxism, libertarianism, or whatever you call it.
So a point of terminology: Marxism is not a political or economic system (what you are thinking of is Marxism-Leninism). I am not an anarchist, marxist-leninist, nor a libertarian (and I too would choose what we have over these - thank god they're not the only possibilities!). I am however a Marxist, which is a theoretical orientation but not a political or economic theory. Marx doesn't really set out what he thinks should be done in the future (besides those in the _manifesto_, the importance of which for Marx's overall body of work is blown greatly out of proportion). What Marx primarily does is offer a critique of bourgeois political economy, a philosophy of history, and a critical methodology.
It's important to note that anybody who would want to take what Marx said should be done in the manifesto and apply it directly to the post-industrial 21st century world would be entirely missing the point of Marx's thought in the first place. You can't take the (totally half-assed) programme in the manifesto, which was written in an early industrial context, and apply it to a post-industrial world. This goes against the most fundamental tenets of Marxist theory. (edit: it's also interesting to note that the bolshevik program goes against fundamental tenets of Marxist as well, so I'm not a Marxist-Leninist BECAUSE I'm a Marxist, not in spite of it)
|
On August 07 2012 10:37 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 10:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 09:28 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 06:55 kwizach wrote:There have been plenty of "American Jobs Acts" which have made it through congress. They are a dime a dozen these days. Erm, no they aren't. Surey they are. We've passed the ARRA, the JOBS act, the HIRE act, the Small Business Jobs act, the Education Jobs Fund and VOW to Hire Heroes act. There have been tons of 'jobs' bills passed and rejected throughout Obama's term. No they aren't. The American Jobs Act that I mentioned was a $447 billion bill. None of the acts you mentioned come even remotely close, except obviously the stimulus bill that was enacted in 2009. So? The ARRA is still ongoing. Combined with all other fiscal policies we're already at $1 trillion+ in government stimulus per year. Oh, but this Jobs act will be the one that fixes everything. Riiiiight. Erm, you're arguing against a straw man again. Who said the American Jobs Act would have fixed everything? I provided the American Jobs Act as an example of a substantial bill embodying Obama's policy orientation that never made it through Congress because of the Republican opposition. Republicans have not let any such substantial policy bill go through since the 2010 elections. You said that this one was special, due to its size. I contend that its size is a red herring due to the existing stimulus in the system and the poor track record of it. Does that clear up my argument for you? Its size makes it a clear example of a substantive product of Obama's economic policies being blocked by Republican opposition, which is what was being discussed. No other such substantive bill has passed since 2010, making your assertion that plenty of such bills have passed and currently pass incorrect. I'm not talking about the various small patches that did pass, I'm talking about actual substantive bills that encapsulate Obama's economic policies, that have/would have had a very clear impact on the economy which can then be/could then have been evaluated. Your assertion that the existing stimulus has a poor track record is also incorrect, unless you expected it to save & create tens of millions of jobs instead of "only" millions.
The fiscal stimulus under Obama has been and continues to be absolutely and relatively gigantic in scale. So what that nothing 'substantive' has been passed since 2010? Even without adding a single dollar it's still huge.
The recovery is incredibly weak. I'm not sure how you can combine a huge stimulus with a tepid recovery and get anything more than a poor record out of it.
|
On August 07 2012 11:09 WniO wrote:
And everything Romney has done has been legal... so why is this news?' Romney has all his money offshore, well wouldn't you if it could save you money.... he's just being smart.
The issue is never about the Romneys trying to take advantage of a situation to save a buck most people who shop Clearance understand this the real issue is about whether or not the average Voter finds themselves in a situation where they get to consider their real estate net worth in millions, talk in millions and save in the hundreds of thousands. Then there's the 12 million plus payment on a home that isn't worth 6 million and asking to be reimbursed for the mistake.
|
On August 07 2012 11:09 WniO wrote:
And everything Romney has done has been legal... so why is this news?' Romney has all his money offshore, well wouldn't you if it could save you money.... he's just being smart.
So maybe we should MAKE it illegal...
He's clearly EMBARRASSED by it. Legality isn't really the issue.
|
On August 07 2012 11:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 11:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 07 2012 10:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Mitt and Ann Romney were easily able to afford a $12-million La Jolla home.
But that didn't insulate them from the winds buffeting the real estate market in the months following their purchase in 2008.
After paying cash for the Mediterranean-style house with 61 feet of beach frontage, they asked San Diego County for dramatic property tax relief.
Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee for president whose wealth is estimated at $250 million, has rejected calls from Democrats and Republicans to release his income tax returns prior to 2010. But San Diego County assessor records shed light on one sliver of the couple's personal taxes during that time: a months-long effort to reduce their annual property tax bill.
Initially, the Romneys asked that their 2009 assessment, $12.24 million, be reduced to $6.8 million, maintaining that their home had lost about 45% of its value in the first seven months they owned it.
Thirteen months later, after hiring an attorney to guide them, the Romneys filed an amended appeal, contending the home had suffered a less-dramatic fall of 27.3%, to $8.9 million.
They also filed an appeal for the 2010 tax year, claiming the house had dropped further, to $7.5 million, 38.7% less than the home's assessed value.
As a result, the Romneys have saved about $109,000 in property taxes over four years. Source Are you really going to post every garbage, Romney-bashing, class warfare article that gets published as if it is particularly insightful news? It's not news about refinancing heck everybody deserves that the issue is he used a lobbyist, has multiple homes and paid cash etc. It makes even tougher for romney to portray himself as a regular joe.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but Romney isn't trying to portray himself as a regular joe. Articles like these serve no legitimate purpose other than demonizing the guy for his financial success and wealth. It is class warfare politics at its worst.
|
On August 07 2012 11:09 WniO wrote:
And everything Romney has done has been legal... so why is this news?' Romney has all his money offshore, well wouldn't you if it could save you money.... he's just being smart.
Its news because abuses like those are a big problem in our country. Someone was able to save themselves a ton of money in ways that the average joe cannot. Why? Because they are rich. That's bad. Being rich shouldn't mean that you are able to bend rules in ways that are technically legal. Those things need to not be legal. So who can we trust to help make reforms happen? Someone who uses those abuses? Probably not.
|
On August 07 2012 11:16 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 11:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 07 2012 11:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 07 2012 10:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Mitt and Ann Romney were easily able to afford a $12-million La Jolla home.
But that didn't insulate them from the winds buffeting the real estate market in the months following their purchase in 2008.
After paying cash for the Mediterranean-style house with 61 feet of beach frontage, they asked San Diego County for dramatic property tax relief.
Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee for president whose wealth is estimated at $250 million, has rejected calls from Democrats and Republicans to release his income tax returns prior to 2010. But San Diego County assessor records shed light on one sliver of the couple's personal taxes during that time: a months-long effort to reduce their annual property tax bill.
Initially, the Romneys asked that their 2009 assessment, $12.24 million, be reduced to $6.8 million, maintaining that their home had lost about 45% of its value in the first seven months they owned it.
Thirteen months later, after hiring an attorney to guide them, the Romneys filed an amended appeal, contending the home had suffered a less-dramatic fall of 27.3%, to $8.9 million.
They also filed an appeal for the 2010 tax year, claiming the house had dropped further, to $7.5 million, 38.7% less than the home's assessed value.
As a result, the Romneys have saved about $109,000 in property taxes over four years. Source Are you really going to post every garbage, Romney-bashing, class warfare article that gets published as if it is particularly insightful news? It's not news about refinancing heck everybody deserves that the issue is he used a lobbyist, has multiple homes and paid cash etc. It makes even tougher for romney to portray himself as a regular joe. Perhaps I am mistaken, but Romney isn't trying to portray himself as a regular joe. Articles like these serve no legitimate purpose other than demonizing the guy for his financial success and wealth. It is class warfare politics at its worst.
What? How many times has Romney tried act like a regular average American, do we really need to visit the youtube vids of him embarrassing himself by saying he is also unemployed, had to get up one morning to iron his shirt..., and of course when shopping goes to the hardware store and buys "hardware" he constantly tried to portray himself or at least connect with the average American.
|
On August 07 2012 10:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Mitt and Ann Romney were easily able to afford a $12-million La Jolla home.
But that didn't insulate them from the winds buffeting the real estate market in the months following their purchase in 2008.
After paying cash for the Mediterranean-style house with 61 feet of beach frontage, they asked San Diego County for dramatic property tax relief.
Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee for president whose wealth is estimated at $250 million, has rejected calls from Democrats and Republicans to release his income tax returns prior to 2010. But San Diego County assessor records shed light on one sliver of the couple's personal taxes during that time: a months-long effort to reduce their annual property tax bill.
Initially, the Romneys asked that their 2009 assessment, $12.24 million, be reduced to $6.8 million, maintaining that their home had lost about 45% of its value in the first seven months they owned it.
Thirteen months later, after hiring an attorney to guide them, the Romneys filed an amended appeal, contending the home had suffered a less-dramatic fall of 27.3%, to $8.9 million.
They also filed an appeal for the 2010 tax year, claiming the house had dropped further, to $7.5 million, 38.7% less than the home's assessed value.
As a result, the Romneys have saved about $109,000 in property taxes over four years. Source
So...?
Asking for a reassessment isn't weird. Having a home that lost value recently isn't weird either. This isn't news.
|
On August 07 2012 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 11:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 07 2012 11:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 07 2012 11:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 07 2012 10:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Mitt and Ann Romney were easily able to afford a $12-million La Jolla home.
But that didn't insulate them from the winds buffeting the real estate market in the months following their purchase in 2008.
After paying cash for the Mediterranean-style house with 61 feet of beach frontage, they asked San Diego County for dramatic property tax relief.
Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee for president whose wealth is estimated at $250 million, has rejected calls from Democrats and Republicans to release his income tax returns prior to 2010. But San Diego County assessor records shed light on one sliver of the couple's personal taxes during that time: a months-long effort to reduce their annual property tax bill.
Initially, the Romneys asked that their 2009 assessment, $12.24 million, be reduced to $6.8 million, maintaining that their home had lost about 45% of its value in the first seven months they owned it.
Thirteen months later, after hiring an attorney to guide them, the Romneys filed an amended appeal, contending the home had suffered a less-dramatic fall of 27.3%, to $8.9 million.
They also filed an appeal for the 2010 tax year, claiming the house had dropped further, to $7.5 million, 38.7% less than the home's assessed value.
As a result, the Romneys have saved about $109,000 in property taxes over four years. Source Are you really going to post every garbage, Romney-bashing, class warfare article that gets published as if it is particularly insightful news? It's not news about refinancing heck everybody deserves that the issue is he used a lobbyist, has multiple homes and paid cash etc. It makes even tougher for romney to portray himself as a regular joe. Perhaps I am mistaken, but Romney isn't trying to portray himself as a regular joe. Articles like these serve no legitimate purpose other than demonizing the guy for his financial success and wealth. It is class warfare politics at its worst. What? How many times has Romney tried act like a regular average American, do we really need to visit the youtube vids of him embarrassing himself by saying he is also unemployed, had to get up one morning to iron his shirt..., and of course when shopping goes to the hardware store and buys "hardware" he constantly tried to portray himself or at least connect with the average American.
So what? Those are photo ops that all politicians do. It is not like Romney is pretending that he is not rich.
|
On August 07 2012 11:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 10:37 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 10:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 09:28 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 06:55 kwizach wrote:There have been plenty of "American Jobs Acts" which have made it through congress. They are a dime a dozen these days. Erm, no they aren't. Surey they are. We've passed the ARRA, the JOBS act, the HIRE act, the Small Business Jobs act, the Education Jobs Fund and VOW to Hire Heroes act. There have been tons of 'jobs' bills passed and rejected throughout Obama's term. No they aren't. The American Jobs Act that I mentioned was a $447 billion bill. None of the acts you mentioned come even remotely close, except obviously the stimulus bill that was enacted in 2009. So? The ARRA is still ongoing. Combined with all other fiscal policies we're already at $1 trillion+ in government stimulus per year. Oh, but this Jobs act will be the one that fixes everything. Riiiiight. Erm, you're arguing against a straw man again. Who said the American Jobs Act would have fixed everything? I provided the American Jobs Act as an example of a substantial bill embodying Obama's policy orientation that never made it through Congress because of the Republican opposition. Republicans have not let any such substantial policy bill go through since the 2010 elections. You said that this one was special, due to its size. I contend that its size is a red herring due to the existing stimulus in the system and the poor track record of it. Does that clear up my argument for you? Its size makes it a clear example of a substantive product of Obama's economic policies being blocked by Republican opposition, which is what was being discussed. No other such substantive bill has passed since 2010, making your assertion that plenty of such bills have passed and currently pass incorrect. I'm not talking about the various small patches that did pass, I'm talking about actual substantive bills that encapsulate Obama's economic policies, that have/would have had a very clear impact on the economy which can then be/could then have been evaluated. Your assertion that the existing stimulus has a poor track record is also incorrect, unless you expected it to save & create tens of millions of jobs instead of "only" millions. The fiscal stimulus under Obama has been and continues to be absolutely and relatively gigantic in scale. So what that nothing 'substantive' has been passed since 2010? Even without adding a single dollar it's still huge. The recovery is incredibly weak. I'm not sure how you can combine a huge stimulus with a tepid recovery and get anything more than a poor record out of it.
What "huge stimulus" are you even talking about?
|
On August 07 2012 11:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 07 2012 11:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 07 2012 11:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 07 2012 11:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 07 2012 10:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Mitt and Ann Romney were easily able to afford a $12-million La Jolla home.
But that didn't insulate them from the winds buffeting the real estate market in the months following their purchase in 2008.
After paying cash for the Mediterranean-style house with 61 feet of beach frontage, they asked San Diego County for dramatic property tax relief.
Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee for president whose wealth is estimated at $250 million, has rejected calls from Democrats and Republicans to release his income tax returns prior to 2010. But San Diego County assessor records shed light on one sliver of the couple's personal taxes during that time: a months-long effort to reduce their annual property tax bill.
Initially, the Romneys asked that their 2009 assessment, $12.24 million, be reduced to $6.8 million, maintaining that their home had lost about 45% of its value in the first seven months they owned it.
Thirteen months later, after hiring an attorney to guide them, the Romneys filed an amended appeal, contending the home had suffered a less-dramatic fall of 27.3%, to $8.9 million.
They also filed an appeal for the 2010 tax year, claiming the house had dropped further, to $7.5 million, 38.7% less than the home's assessed value.
As a result, the Romneys have saved about $109,000 in property taxes over four years. Source Are you really going to post every garbage, Romney-bashing, class warfare article that gets published as if it is particularly insightful news? It's not news about refinancing heck everybody deserves that the issue is he used a lobbyist, has multiple homes and paid cash etc. It makes even tougher for romney to portray himself as a regular joe. Perhaps I am mistaken, but Romney isn't trying to portray himself as a regular joe. Articles like these serve no legitimate purpose other than demonizing the guy for his financial success and wealth. It is class warfare politics at its worst. What? How many times has Romney tried act like a regular average American, do we really need to visit the youtube vids of him embarrassing himself by saying he is also unemployed, had to get up one morning to iron his shirt..., and of course when shopping goes to the hardware store and buys "hardware" he constantly tried to portray himself or at least connect with the average American. So what? Those are photo ops that all politicians do. It is not like Romney is pretending that he is not rich.
are you kidding me? that's the definition of trying to PORTRAY yourself as something you aren't. cheesy grits anyone?
|
Let's not forget about Ann "I don't feel rich" Romney.
Pretty weak news article nonetheless considering they should be talking about the fact that everything he says is a lie of some sort.
|
On August 07 2012 11:28 DamnCats wrote:
Let's not forget about Ann "I don't feel rich" Romney.
Pretty weak news article nonetheless considering they should be talking about the fact that everything he says is a lie of some sort.
Not a lie. They're called "flip-flops." Romney dodges a lot of bullets, but not usually by lying.
|
On August 07 2012 11:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 10:37 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 10:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 09:28 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 06:55 kwizach wrote:There have been plenty of "American Jobs Acts" which have made it through congress. They are a dime a dozen these days. Erm, no they aren't. Surey they are. We've passed the ARRA, the JOBS act, the HIRE act, the Small Business Jobs act, the Education Jobs Fund and VOW to Hire Heroes act. There have been tons of 'jobs' bills passed and rejected throughout Obama's term. No they aren't. The American Jobs Act that I mentioned was a $447 billion bill. None of the acts you mentioned come even remotely close, except obviously the stimulus bill that was enacted in 2009. So? The ARRA is still ongoing. Combined with all other fiscal policies we're already at $1 trillion+ in government stimulus per year. Oh, but this Jobs act will be the one that fixes everything. Riiiiight. Erm, you're arguing against a straw man again. Who said the American Jobs Act would have fixed everything? I provided the American Jobs Act as an example of a substantial bill embodying Obama's policy orientation that never made it through Congress because of the Republican opposition. Republicans have not let any such substantial policy bill go through since the 2010 elections. You said that this one was special, due to its size. I contend that its size is a red herring due to the existing stimulus in the system and the poor track record of it. Does that clear up my argument for you? Its size makes it a clear example of a substantive product of Obama's economic policies being blocked by Republican opposition, which is what was being discussed. No other such substantive bill has passed since 2010, making your assertion that plenty of such bills have passed and currently pass incorrect. I'm not talking about the various small patches that did pass, I'm talking about actual substantive bills that encapsulate Obama's economic policies, that have/would have had a very clear impact on the economy which can then be/could then have been evaluated. Your assertion that the existing stimulus has a poor track record is also incorrect, unless you expected it to save & create tens of millions of jobs instead of "only" millions. The fiscal stimulus under Obama has been and continues to be absolutely and relatively gigantic in scale. So what that nothing 'substantive' has been passed since 2010? Even without adding a single dollar it's still huge. The recovery is incredibly weak. I'm not sure how you can combine a huge stimulus with a tepid recovery and get anything more than a poor record out of it.
You can do that by studying its impact and by imagining what the situation would have been had it not been passed (i.e. things would be much worse). A vast majority of economists agree that the stimulus has considerably helped the American economy and saved jobs. In fact, many will tell you that the stimulus was not big enough.
What do you mean "So what that nothing 'substantive' has been passed since 2010"? That's precisely what I was discussing before you jumped into the discussion - the Republican blocking of bills that would have carried out Obama's economic policies.
|
On August 07 2012 11:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 11:18 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 07 2012 11:16 xDaunt wrote:On August 07 2012 11:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On August 07 2012 11:02 xDaunt wrote:On August 07 2012 10:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Mitt and Ann Romney were easily able to afford a $12-million La Jolla home.
But that didn't insulate them from the winds buffeting the real estate market in the months following their purchase in 2008.
After paying cash for the Mediterranean-style house with 61 feet of beach frontage, they asked San Diego County for dramatic property tax relief.
Romney, the presumptive GOP nominee for president whose wealth is estimated at $250 million, has rejected calls from Democrats and Republicans to release his income tax returns prior to 2010. But San Diego County assessor records shed light on one sliver of the couple's personal taxes during that time: a months-long effort to reduce their annual property tax bill.
Initially, the Romneys asked that their 2009 assessment, $12.24 million, be reduced to $6.8 million, maintaining that their home had lost about 45% of its value in the first seven months they owned it.
Thirteen months later, after hiring an attorney to guide them, the Romneys filed an amended appeal, contending the home had suffered a less-dramatic fall of 27.3%, to $8.9 million.
They also filed an appeal for the 2010 tax year, claiming the house had dropped further, to $7.5 million, 38.7% less than the home's assessed value.
As a result, the Romneys have saved about $109,000 in property taxes over four years. Source Are you really going to post every garbage, Romney-bashing, class warfare article that gets published as if it is particularly insightful news? It's not news about refinancing heck everybody deserves that the issue is he used a lobbyist, has multiple homes and paid cash etc. It makes even tougher for romney to portray himself as a regular joe. Perhaps I am mistaken, but Romney isn't trying to portray himself as a regular joe. Articles like these serve no legitimate purpose other than demonizing the guy for his financial success and wealth. It is class warfare politics at its worst. What? How many times has Romney tried act like a regular average American, do we really need to visit the youtube vids of him embarrassing himself by saying he is also unemployed, had to get up one morning to iron his shirt..., and of course when shopping goes to the hardware store and buys "hardware" he constantly tried to portray himself or at least connect with the average American. So what? Those are photo ops that all politicians do. It is not like Romney is pretending that he is not rich.
How can you even say this? Do you watch/read any news at all?
Why should we elect someone who takes advantage of the system, and does not pay the fair share of taxes like everybody else? It may be a legal loophole, but it's not moral at all. For example, my father is a Realtor. There is no set comssion that you have to charge the seller but the average here in California is 6% of the home price (generally split 3% for buying/selling agent, it flucuates around these #s depending upon how fast you want to sell the house, ie, offer 3.5% to buying agent for quick sale) but comssion is 100% negiotable. You could talk people into giving more, even 100%, and that is 100% legal to do, but it's not moral because you're essentially stealing money from these people. Romney is essentially stealing money from the gov't because the gov't is missing money they would otherwise have.
|
On August 07 2012 11:14 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 11:09 WniO wrote:
And everything Romney has done has been legal... so why is this news?' Romney has all his money offshore, well wouldn't you if it could save you money.... he's just being smart. The issue is never about the Romneys trying to take advantage of a situation to save a buck most people who shop Clearance understand this the real issue is about whether or not the average Voter finds themselves in a situation where they get to consider their real estate net worth in millions, talk in millions and save in the hundreds of thousands. Then there's the 12 million plus payment on a home that isn't worth 6 million and asking to be reimbursed for the mistake.
Well then wtf every politician ever is always 20x richer than the average Joe, this shouldn't be brought up at all, unless like someone says Romney is the common man - but even then. Like may e all gore reverse sides a sec with hi owning 20 cars and flying private jets and his home uses 30 times the power that most people use yet he's promoting saving the envirenment and everyone needs to chip in, if it was that then it could be maybe a small anecdote - these races are such BS from both sides. Its li,e that movie ides of march.
|
On August 07 2012 11:31 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2012 11:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 10:37 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 10:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 10:11 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 10:05 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 09:28 kwizach wrote:On August 07 2012 09:02 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 07 2012 06:55 kwizach wrote:There have been plenty of "American Jobs Acts" which have made it through congress. They are a dime a dozen these days. Erm, no they aren't. Surey they are. We've passed the ARRA, the JOBS act, the HIRE act, the Small Business Jobs act, the Education Jobs Fund and VOW to Hire Heroes act. There have been tons of 'jobs' bills passed and rejected throughout Obama's term. No they aren't. The American Jobs Act that I mentioned was a $447 billion bill. None of the acts you mentioned come even remotely close, except obviously the stimulus bill that was enacted in 2009. So? The ARRA is still ongoing. Combined with all other fiscal policies we're already at $1 trillion+ in government stimulus per year. Oh, but this Jobs act will be the one that fixes everything. Riiiiight. Erm, you're arguing against a straw man again. Who said the American Jobs Act would have fixed everything? I provided the American Jobs Act as an example of a substantial bill embodying Obama's policy orientation that never made it through Congress because of the Republican opposition. Republicans have not let any such substantial policy bill go through since the 2010 elections. You said that this one was special, due to its size. I contend that its size is a red herring due to the existing stimulus in the system and the poor track record of it. Does that clear up my argument for you? Its size makes it a clear example of a substantive product of Obama's economic policies being blocked by Republican opposition, which is what was being discussed. No other such substantive bill has passed since 2010, making your assertion that plenty of such bills have passed and currently pass incorrect. I'm not talking about the various small patches that did pass, I'm talking about actual substantive bills that encapsulate Obama's economic policies, that have/would have had a very clear impact on the economy which can then be/could then have been evaluated. Your assertion that the existing stimulus has a poor track record is also incorrect, unless you expected it to save & create tens of millions of jobs instead of "only" millions. The fiscal stimulus under Obama has been and continues to be absolutely and relatively gigantic in scale. So what that nothing 'substantive' has been passed since 2010? Even without adding a single dollar it's still huge. The recovery is incredibly weak. I'm not sure how you can combine a huge stimulus with a tepid recovery and get anything more than a poor record out of it. You can do that by studying its impact and by imagining what the situation would have been had it not been passed (i.e. things would be much worse). A vast majority of economists agree that the stimulus has considerably helped the American economy and saved jobs. In fact, many will tell you that the stimulus was not big enough. What do you mean "So what that nothing 'substantive' has been passed since 2010"? That's precisely what I was discussing before you jumped into the discussion - the Republican blocking of bills that would have carried out Obama's economic policies.
I think it is a fine argument that the initial government stimulus should have been bigger since the recession was deeper than expected. I think it is a much weaker argument that during a weak recovery that additional government stimulus (on top of the existing $1 trillion+ this year) is advisable. There are limits to stimulus and I think we've hit that limit.
As for the post 2010 discussion I think it is relevant that many policies Obama put in place in his first two years are still in effect and many other policies that he singed into law haven't come into affect yet - Obamacare and Dodd-Frank are still being rolled out. So even without new policies we've yet to feel the full effect of Obama's policies (good or bad).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
