Friday, September 21, 2012

Sometimes Watching Collectivists Eat Crow Is Very Satisfying...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
  -vs- Tyranny

Romney finally released the tax returns so sought after by the collectivists and the media. While not changing my basic position that Mittens is not the guy for the job he is seeking, it certainly gave me great pleasure to know the collectivists are now eating a huge helping of crow.

What will be even more satisfying is watching them go into over drive while they try to spin the facts to suit their statist collectivist agenda.

Townhall - It's official: The Romney campaign possesses a wicked sense of humor and an enviable degree of patience. After months of caterwauling, breathless innuendo and baseless slander, the Democrats and their media allies are being treated to a Friday feast of piping hot crow. The Romney campaign has released a detailed report of the the candidate's 2011 tax returns, as well as an extensive summary of the Romneys' taxes over the last two decades, prepared by analysts at PricewaterhouseCoopers. What do these documents contain? Brad Malt, the Romney family's trustee, summarizes the 2011 data:

- In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.

- The Romneys’ effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.

-The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.

-The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions. The Romneys’ generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 years.

In short, and as Kevin noted, Romney forked over nearly $2 million to Uncle Sam last year and donated more than $4 million to charity. He overpaid his taxes by limiting the charitable deductions he chose to claim, which could have driven his obligations to government even lower. Liberals are now actually complaining that Romney intentionally paid *too much* in taxes to boost his own effective rate, due to his prodigious philanthropic giving. This line of criticism is downright hilarious. It's okay to point and laugh. And what about the last 20 years?

- In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.

-Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

-During the 20-year period covered by the PWC letter, Gov. and Mrs. Romney paid 100 percent of the taxes that they owed.

Let's unpack these numbers. The Romneys owed and paid state and federal income taxes every single year stretching back to at least 1990. Harry Reid's imaginary friend is unavailable for comment. Their effective tax rate, on average, was over 20 pecent (nearly double the average effective rate in America, according to the non-partisan Tax Foundation). Does this qualify as a "fair share"? In the last two decades, the Romney's donated 13.45 percent of their adjusted gross income to charity. This totally dwarfs the long-term giving of the Obamas and the Bidens, in case anyone in the class warfare camp is keeping score. But remember, Mitt Romney is callously dismissive and uncaring toward poor people and the '47 percent.' Overall, the Romney family paid every cent they owed -- and more -- forking over nearly 40 percent of their income to either the government or charitable organizations, including their church. I've got to hand it to the Romney campaign: They played a long game here, and did so masterfully. One of the most obnoxious and relentless arrows in Democrats' attack quiver has been the tax returns issue. See how greedy and secretive Romney is? Even his own father released 12 years of returns! He's probably a tax cheat! That's all gone now, and the whiners look petty, small, and stupid. And Mitt Romney looks like the remarkably generous, law-abiding, productive member of society that he is. Bravo. {Read More}

Yep, the collectivists have been punked and are now relegated to eating crow and spinning. LOVING IT!!!

Via: Memeorandum


  1. I'm not a big fan of Mitt Romney (I, like you, am voting for Johnson). But what Harry Reid did a while back ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, slandering Mr. Romney, was about as low as politics can get (and as we all know the bar is pretty low in politics). Hopefully, the Republicans in 4 years will nominate an individual whose name isn't Sharron Angle and we can once and for all get rid of this virulent scum.

    1. Hopefully Gary's court challenge will be successful and he will blow frick and frack off the stage. Failing that we need to work to increase the Libertarian party exposure in general and Gary Johnson's exposure specifically in preparation for 2016. That is assuming we haven't gone over the cliff by then.

  2. Reid proved himself a liar when he refused to reveal the source or information. It was all a hoax.

    RM: How is there grounds for a court challenge? Isn't the debate a private affair?

    1. Harry Reid is a real piece of work alright.

      Gary Johnson is mounting a challenge and his Libertarian running mate will argue the case.

      The debates might be private. Presidential elections are not. Therefore, in my never humble opinion a candidate who gathers muster and gets on the ballot in 50 states (irrespective of a challenge by one of the two neo fascist parties)ought to be given the stage. The American people deserve nothing less.

      Of course the system is corrupt, it stinks, and it is BY DESIGN so the oligarchs who control events from behind the curtains can continue to screw the pooch. The American People.

      As an aside, again in my never humble opinion, the rEpublican new neo fascist party is without a doubt the best at screwing the pooch.

    2. I'd like to Johnson up there, too, Les. But unless the fellow can get up to 5-6%, who's to say that Green Party candidate, or the Constitution Party candidate shouldn't be up there as well? I just might have to agree with dmarks on this one.

  3. RN: Is there anything in the Constitution? At all?

    I find such a lawsuit to be frivolous and entirely not in keeping with the US Constitution. In fact, it might violate "freedom of assembly".

    While I actually strongly support Johnson being in the debate. But just because I agree with an idea does not mean that I support someone filing a frivolous lawsuit to use the bully power of government to force its will on others.

    And yes, elections ARE a private matter of the people except in certain circumstances which are spelled out in the Constitution. The Constitution has a lot to say about how the candidates "meet" on the ballot, and when. But nothing on meetings they might have outside of this. And no where is the word debate (outside of what happens in Congress) or stage contained in it.

    So here we have the person, you, who is much more strongly Libertarian supporting much more government intrusion. To favor the government forcing what someone thinks is good for someone, without regard to it being unConstitutional. That seems statist, IMHO.

    1. In my never humble opinion this is one time I believe the power of the courts ought to be used to further the cause of broader inclusion in the political process.herefore I support Johnson's attempt and advocate it.

      What you are saying is we must accept the decision of the "Club of the Elite Duopoly" in determining who gets heard. I say BULLSH*T.

      Please point out the clause in the U.S. Constitution that addresses this issue in anyway.

      Your argument, again in my never humble opinion is just another way to support the corrupt fascist duopoly that has has contributed HEAVILY to the bullsh*t we find ourselves in.

      It is time for a change, a REAL BIG AND SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. Not the crap Obama and Mitt The Human Flipper are pushing.

      Until such time as change really happens We the Pooch will continued to get screwed. So, it really is up to the Pooch in these times. Obama, Romney, and the entire duopoly are banking we like getting screwed. Interpretation of screwed; losing our liberties bit by bit and piece by piece.

    2. Now there's Constitutional commitment for you. Right, follow the original intent of the Constitution, except for YOUR candidate. He needs a pass, because he's YOUR candidate. Not surprising to read that you could care less about following the law, especially if YOU want special treatment for YOUR man.

  4. I read that Romney backed off on certain deductions, which would have made his rate less than 13%. He still can (and has 7 years) files an amended form and get those deductions. How much do you want to bet, win or lose, Romney files for those deductions after the election?

    1. We'll just have to wait and see now won't we?


As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 3/4/18 Anonymous commenting has been disabled and this site has reverted to comment moderation. This unfortunate action is necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or irrelevant to the post subject.

While we appreciate and encourage all political viewpoints we feel no obligation to post comments that fail to rise to the standards of decency and decorum we have set for Rational Nation USA.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.