I'm concerned about Mitt Romney

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by spence

A fund manager get's to set the initial value of profit they're entitled as part of their contract at zero if they want and be listed as a partner...even if they know the value should be higher...

It's even more crazy when you look at Romney's retirement account. He can then take these "worthless" profit shares and sell them into his 401K, where they grow like mushrooms tax free and circumvent contribution limits.

Worse, Romney then cut a deal where he gets his profit share for 10 years after employment...even though he's not working? These aren't priced options that any top exec would get...they're special.

I'm still curious to understand if he's really used Cayman firms so his IRA can invest back in Bain and avoid the tax hit.

Bottom line...there's a lot of tax talking points out there...but we're talking about someone who doesn't even reflect the 1%.

This is like fingers on one hand kind of stuff.

-spence

You'll have to complain to the IRS,or better yet have them change the rules.

[spence]

Originally Posted by justplugit

You'll have to complain to the IRS,or better yet have them change the rules.

The money guys get to make the rules, that's the entire point.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The money guys get to make the rules, that's the entire point.

-spence

For all of 2009, Obama and the Democratic Congress made the rules. If they had issues with the tax code, they could have changed it. They chose not to. So why, then, is it fair to attack Romney for playing by the rules that the Democrats indirectly endorsed, by opting not to change them when they had the opportunity to change them?

[zimmy]

Filibuster proof majority from September 24, 2009 to February 10, 2010. The two years and "all of 2009" statements are incorrect.

There were more than 100 Republican filibusters in 2009.
How Filibusters Are Strangling the Senate - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Filibuster proof majority from September 24, 2009 to February 10, 2010. The two years and "all of 2009" statements are incorrect.

There were more than 100 Republican filibusters in 2009.
How Filibusters Are Strangling the Senate - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

(1) What happens while the MN Senate seat wwas contested? Who voted for that seat? No one?

(2) Regardless of how long there was a fillibuster-proof majority...unless the GOP defeated a proposed immigration bill by fillibuster, Obama cannot blame the GOP for killing immigration reform. He just can't. There has been no immigration reform because the Democrats didn't propose any such bill, not because of the GOP.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

(1) What happens while the MN Senate seat wwas contested? Who voted for that seat? No one?

No one. It was empty until July 7, 2009.

(2) Regardless of how long there was a fillibuster-proof majority...unless the GOP defeated a proposed immigration bill by fillibuster, Obama cannot blame the GOP for killing immigration reform. He just can't. There has been no immigration reform because the Democrats didn't propose any such bill, not because of the GOP.

People should stop throwing around that democrats had the white house and majority in congress for two years or one year or 13 months. It isn't true. The dream act doesn't count as a proposed bill? The house passed a version of it in 2010. Reid proposed a version of it in 2011

dfas

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

dfas

Zimmy, the Democrats absolutely had the White House and the majority of Congress. They did not have a fillibuster-proof majority, but they absolutely, 100% had a mathemaytical majority until January 2010.

The DREAM Act is not immigration reform. It's another entitlement program.