Politico publishes lists of Republican and Democratic mega-donors.
Romney's camp has a lot to say about Obama and military early voting; but what's Romney's position?
Look who else got RNC speaking slots.
President Obama would back a measure to exempt Olympians from taxes on their winnings.
There are statewide and local primary elections today in Kansas, Michigan, Missouri and Washington.
More about the victims of the Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin.
A NATO employee in Germany is charged with spying.
Leave a Comment:
Getting out the vote for Trevor Thomas here in Michigan's 3rd!
If Olympians are going to be charged taxes on their medal, it follows that every expense incurred pursuing that medal is deductible. It would be unsurprising if the IRS/Treasury lost money on the deal, especially since it turns out the gold medal isn't really gold. The cash prize notwithstanding.
The next story about this will be some medal winner having to sell his award to pay for the taxes.
Shooter I found something I can agree with you on.If your man Romney can take a $77,000 business deduction for his wife's dressage horse,can the parent's of the kid's participating in the Olympics take the same business deduction?
joca41: Did Mitt really take a $77,00 deduction for his wife's horse? I don't recall seing any BAIN logos on the horse (I doubt they'd even be allowed), so I wonder how he justified it (if he actually took it), especially in such a large amount. Was that in the one return he did disclose? No wonder he's holding back on all the othrs.
Yes it was on the taxes he disclosed, which had to be from 2010 because he has'nt a full disclosure on 2011 as yet.I think it was a business expense it was filed under.Seen it on the Ed Show etal.
I don't believe the type of deduction for the $77,000 horse expense has been identified. It may be a medical expense deduction for Mrs. Romney. It is possible their assumed private doctor authorized the horse as a medical necessity and thus eligible as a deductible medical expense. I say private doctor because I don't think you could get such an authorization from, say, Kaiser or any large operation.
1. Shooter242 is right on the money.
2. Ever notice that when when Mitt isn't lying, he's refusing to answer? This is a leader?
Hard to believe how "misguided" some people can be.
Olympic medal winners are not being taxed on the medal. They are being taxed on the monetary honorarium they receive from the US Olympic Committee. Now, because of how that money is paid, it looks like they are being taxed at about a 40% tax rate. I think it would be fairer to tax them at their regular tax rate (Michael Phelps is going to pay more because of his overall income due to his endorsement deals than Missy Franklin who is a student athlete without similar sources of income).
I have no problem with them paying taxes. You earn money for doing something, you pay taxes on it whether it's pumping gas, selling stocks or winning the lottery. I can understand wanting to exempt Olympic heroes from the taxes due because of what they have done for our country, but that opens another discussion about what kind of contributions to the country are more beneficial and worthy of exemption from taxes. I'm sure that people like the Koch Brothers and Mitt Romney feel their contributions to society should score them a zero tax rate. I would disagree.
No. They may initially be taxed at a 40% rate (like with gambling winnings) but they will be taxed at their standard rate when they file their 2012 tax returns. Just like anybody else.
(Think "big refund.")
Don't fall for the propaganda from the right. NONE of it.
I believe that their contributions should be held in the same regard as those of our military - also tax exempt. If, in the course of becoming successful Olympians they acquire a few corporate sponsors and endorsement deals then they should rightly pay their fair share of taxes from that income, but not from the medals awarded.
The elimination of early voting will also make lines waiting to vote, even longer. Wonder if any of these states are purchasing more voting machines to accommodate the additional voters having to vote in a more limited period of time? This is another way to discourage certain groups from voting. Has this problem even been addressed yet, or is everyone prepared to be surprised and sorry on election day?
5 minutes ago · Like
As predicted, they're playing the "Dan Rather" game on Harry Reid to distract from Mitt's achilles heel. (And Mitt IS a heel, unquestionably.)
Politifact’s Toxic Fiction – Let The Swiftboating of Harry Reid Begin
http://wp.me/p5dEo-4yT
Report says 15 percent of Mitt Romney Twitter followers are paid fakes
http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/08/mitt-romney-fake-twitter-followers/
Full report:
http://www.barracudalabs.com/wordpress/?p=2989
Who cares??? Since when is twitter an official baromater of anything? It is a toy used mostly by people to tell other people that they are "eating at this cool new restaurant" or "I am so stoked that the USA won another medal" or .....need I go on? What a waste of time - both twitter and anyone doing research on twitter. Although it is intriquing that twitter may be helping keep the unemployment figure down:
"Based on the above distinguishable features, we believe most of these recent followers of Romney are not from a general Twitter population but most likely from a paid Twitter follower service," Barracuda Labs Research Scientist Jason Ding wrote in the report.
I do not really believe it though, and even if it is true how much would a person be paid to tweet - especially if you are not a celebrity. :)
Oh Skippy... you care enough to post a reply.
This "toy" is used for benign communications, but you're lying to yourself if you think social media (which also includes Faceboook, RSS feeds, Reddit, etc.) isn't important to global communications:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter#Use_and_social_impact
The Library of Congress archived Twitter messages:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126086325 (audio available)
Heck, here's Fox News using Twitter:
http://twitter.com/FoxNews
I mean, really, you could stand there with old-man-itis, with your fingers in your ears while singing lalalala to drown out any sounds, but a lot of us stopped using CB radios to communicate with others a while back ago.
And you can be sure with a large global userbase, people are out there finding ways to monetize this application, even if that means resorting to creating fake twitter accounts for pay. For example, kittykat1234 above would be using his time better if he got paid for creating Twitter accounts instead of Newsvine accounts. Or, maybe he does after all.
Last night in her interview with Steve Kornacki, Rachel praised the Abramoff crew's return to politics and praised their "survival" as testament to how good they are at playing the political game. She said liberals can't "match" the "hard nosed" survival instincts and hardball politics of the far right, and asked if she was just being "liberal" about that, and she asked if the left is just "as good" at playing these political games. She said the far right bad guys like Ralph Reed's survival should perhaps be seen as testament as to how good they are at playing the political game. . Well, here's a thought ... actual "liberals" don't praise the far right bad guys like Abramoff and Reed and give them praise for their underhanded ways, like Maddow did last night. We don't see Reed's renewed political efforts as testament to his survival instincts. We see folks like Reed and Abramoff, who engage in nefarious and even criminal activities as infamous bad guys worthy of profound disrespect. We ask ourselves why is she offering praise to Reed and Abramoff in the name of "liberals." The overwhelming peculiarity of Doctor Maddow's comments once again give pause to ask the question ... who is Rachel Maddow ... really.
Was your selective hearing so thick that you didn't hear the disdain in her voice and choice of words? Was the sarcasm over your head? Did you internally edit out "sleazeballs"?
Or, are you doing word gymnastics of Glenn Beckian proportions (i.e. hear the facts, but come about a stunningly wrong conclusion) in order to arrive at your agenda of painting Maddow as a undercover non-liberal? Andrew Breitbart might shake your hand, bless his soul.
Here we go with the questions that you can't and won't answer: Even if she was a hardcore Republican conservative, is any of her news reporting invalid?
Also, you can stop trying to narrowly define what a liberal is or isn't. Being able to call out the political gaming is as important as having an ideology.
So, when you ask "who is Rachel Maddow... really?", the answer is: "Someone who is far more informative than whoever reveal5 is." reveal5... now there's a misleading name.
You're a wacko!
With all due respect, Doctor Maddow is now 2nd in ratings behind Lawrence O'Donnell at MSNBC. She has been losing ground for months and here's a prediction, with more praising of Ralph Reed and Jack Abramoff, for instance, and more revelation of the hollowness and sheer peculiarity of Maddow, she's destined to drop further. I'm a good weather vane. My guess is Maddow will continue trending downward, and that Dems. are continuing to wise up to Maddow jive. Gobama!
No, you're not. You obscured the segment deliberately, which makes you a bad person, or misinterpreted it, which degrades your analysis of the segment.
Yer'goofy!
After giving praise to right wing "cretins" ... Maddow asked Kornacki ... "Am I just being "liberal" about that?" Ha, the answer is clearly no, Maddow is not being "liberal" about that. She's just being wacky. She's showing her "corporate liberal" tendencies. Maddow showed with her words that she views underhanded and unprincipled tactics as praiseworthy and as proof of survival instinct. Wow! She's revealing her true core, imo., and it ain't pretty. .
So you disregard nearly an entire segment, interpret some discussion from whatever skewed perspective you're trying to present, and conclude... actually, I'm not sure what you're trying to conclude. It must be a pretty wacky world inside your head.
You're wacky.
I'm still waiting for someone - preferably a respected reporter - to ask Romney or any other Republican spokesperson this: "please look directly into the camera and tell the American people how you justify giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest members of our society while increasing taxes on the middle class and cutting benefits to the elderly. " Somebody? Please??