CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

...That Implies Plenty!

This practice by the media is getting more common. Don't know when it is started but increasingly over the last few years I have read or watched a report by different media outlets that tell a story that has nothing news worthy...or gets hype well above the value of the information. They have figured out that being a source of exposing "social woe" you can sight facts and deliver true summations in a frame that intends for the reader or viewer to frame things negatively.

This report on Yahoo is a precise example of this practice, http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/08/why-austrian-keynesian-monetarist-and.html

The grand summation fact is that Romney gave donations to the Mormon Church, and in the end he gave away wealth. He didn't secret away money and use financial instruments to leverage loop holes in the tax code and thereby walk away with more money than he otherwise would have. I have done my taxes for 24 years and have done others for nearly that long as well and I have yet to find a charitable contribution of more than about $12 that benefits a tax payer above that donated level. That is a resultant of the IRS employing brackets for incomes up to $100K and only that, as this creates a modest deviation from a direct and straight percentage. So you could donate $1 or 2 if your income falls at the lower edge of a bracket (these are $50) and save up to $13 or $14...netting about $12. Other than that you have more money when you do not donate anything and pay the tax on that money.

But it cracks me up how many people think their is some magic tax bullet in charity (and many of those attach some negative veil on the practice.)

You actually get more bang for your buck by donating items to charity as opposed to money. Yes, the value of said donated item is well below the purchase price and may people who value donated items use the purchase price as the value as opposed to what you could get by selling it privately, which is what the value should be...but I digress. If you were going to throw something away that was still in pretty good shape you are better of donating it and using that on your taxes as opposed to cash donations. It has worked well for me...got rid of stuff I could not use anymore, donated it to a worthy cause, and got to use it on my taxes...(I never claimed more than $400 in charitable donations anyway...to much paperwork if you go above that amount), it certainly helped on my itemized deductions.

I'm not the biggest Romney fan, because I think we need a conservative, but there is nothing wrong with giving money to your church. Bill Gates has been giving his money away for quite a while and no one seems to be giving him a hard time about it.

Well, I give to my church, and like Elvis Presley, I don't claim it on taxes.

I do take MANY deductions, even writing off a portion of my electric bill since I have a "home Office" and an LLC to go with it.

All of this reporting on Romney is/will be used to destroy him for being a filthy rich Mormon....look for the Mormon church to be ridiculed, demeaned, etc. in an effort to defeat him. All the while completely ignoring Dingy Harry.

I'm not a Romney fan, nor am I a Mormon, but I know intellectual dishonesty when I see it. They can't answer a conservative candidate and the charges that we are destroying our currency so they say "he's rich" or "he's a Mormon, and their nuts".

It's predictable and stupid, but it's where we are in this country.

I've been reading up on where in the world I can go just before we turn into Venezuela.

It is silly for him to be ridiculed for what religion he belongs to or how much money he has accumulated. My problem with Romney has to do with him being closer to Obama in his political beliefs than he is to me. I think he is lots like George W in his fiscal beliefs and that is a problem for me. Our current president inherited a huge debt from the previous administration and he took that debt and tripled it. All that "investment" and what do we have to show for it? Higher energy bills, hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, and a debt that will cause us to default very soon. The fact that the people aren't tossing all of these guys out on their butts amazes me. Then what does the Republicans do? They are going to nominate the most liberal Republican they can find.

Spence wrote:It is sily for him to be ridiculed for what religion he belongs to or how much money he has accumulated. My problem with Romney has to do with him being closer to Obama in his political beliefs than he is to me. I think he is lots like George W in his fiscal beliefs and that is a problem for me. Our current president inherited a huge debt from the previous administration and he took that debt and tripled it. All that "investment" and what do we have to show for it? Higher energy bills, hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, and a debt that will cause us to default very soon. The fact that the people aren't tossing all of these guys out on their butts amazes me. Then what does the Republicans do? They are going to nominate the most liberal Republican they can find.

You just echoed all of my sentiments on the Republican's front running Romney. So we go from the most liberal Dem to the most liberal "Republican"...hard to beat a lose-lose situation! I have thought the masses stupid for quite a while...but they seem to keep striving for record heights!

It just makes it hard to draw a contrast. Romney is going to be the guy and maybe he can figure out a way not to look like John McCain the 2nd, but it seems to me that Obama already has a blue print for this election. Romney, to me, is fiscally no different than JW Bush and I believe we need someone who knows the economy and the tax structure inside and out to get through our current situation. We are so very close to defaulting on our debt and the current administration's "way out" is to tax the "rich". What they won't tell you is that even if they seized all the wealth of the top 1% they couldn't put a dent in mountain of debt that has been built. Bush grew the deficit to an outrageous amount and Obama, not to be out done spent more in three years than has been spent, in total, since the founding of this country. If something isn't done to control this now and in the future, we are going to be finished as a country. We have almost no industry any more. We have become a completely consumption based economy and our days as a world power are numbered. Our days as a free people may be numbered at this point. We just keep giving away freedom to the social elitists and we seem to be glad to do it.

Spence wrote:It just makes it hard to draw a contrast. Romney is going to be the guy and maybe he can figure out a way not to look like John McCain the 2nd, but it seems to me that Obama already has a blue print for this election. Romney, to me, is fiscally no different than JW Bush and I believe we need someone who knows the economy and the tax structure inside and out to get through our current situation. We are so very close to defaulting on our debt and the current administration's "way out" is to tax the "rich". What they won't tell you is that even if they seized all the wealth of the top 1% they couldn't put a dent in mountain of debt that has been built. Bush grew the deficit to an outrageous amount and Obama, not to be out done spent more in three years than has been spent, in total, since the founding of this country. If something isn't done to control this now and in the future, we are going to be finished as a country. We have almost no industry any more. We have become a completely consumption based economy and our days as a world power are numbered. Our days as a free people may be numbered at this point. We just keep giving away freedom to the social elitists and we seem to be glad to do it.

And I believe this is why that Obama WANTS Romney to be the nominee. Regardless of what the silly polls show, he would be the easiest to beat in their minds.

We constantly hear that..."A true conservative can't win anymore"....and I find that to be a complete pant load.

Derek wrote:

Spence wrote:It just makes it hard to draw a contrast. Romney is going to be the guy and maybe he can figure out a way not to look like John McCain the 2nd, but it seems to me that Obama already has a blue print for this election. Romney, to me, is fiscally no different than JW Bush and I believe we need someone who knows the economy and the tax structure inside and out to get through our current situation. We are so very close to defaulting on our debt and the current administration's "way out" is to tax the "rich". What they won't tell you is that even if they seized all the wealth of the top 1% they couldn't put a dent in mountain of debt that has been built. Bush grew the deficit to an outrageous amount and Obama, not to be out done spent more in three years than has been spent, in total, since the founding of this country. If something isn't done to control this now and in the future, we are going to be finished as a country. We have almost no industry any more. We have become a completely consumption based economy and our days as a world power are numbered. Our days as a free people may be numbered at this point. We just keep giving away freedom to the social elitists and we seem to be glad to do it.

And I believe this is why that Obama WANTS Romney to be the nominee. Regardless of what the silly polls show, he would be the easiest to beat in their minds.

We constantly hear that..."A true conservative can't win anymore"....and I find that to be a complete pant load.

I just wish one year the Republicans would nominate a conservative and test that theory out. We have not had a conservative president since Reagan.

It is looking like Santorum is surging. I have said all along that he is probably the best trade off in being pretty smart, conservative, and electable...not too mention a bit youthful (which can be good or bad, probably just a bit more good this time around).

WoVeU wrote:It is looking like Santorum is surging. I have said all along that he is probably the best trade off in being pretty smart, conservative, and electable...not too mention a bit youthful (which can be good or bad, probably just a bit more good this time around).

I don't think he has time.

Well if he doesn't have time...yet outpaces Romney going into the nomination then we can get ready for 4 more years of Obama. He will branded the party's very first lame duck and rich man's liberal Republican Nominee. Mitt would not be able to overcome that unless the US economic woe seriously worsens. And either of those outcomes paint a very grim future for this country!