I was ready for a debate. I'm still ready for a debate. Romney tried to be Reaganesque. Well he remindied me of a flip flopper who couldn't remeber anything he said previously. But tried to appear as presidential as he could. I found him to be less than acceptable.
What happened wasn't a debate and Romney needs to apologise to the President and Jim Leher. He was rude, obnoxious and overbearing, as if he was the only one whose point mattered.
Now I've heard the GOP/TP'ers saying he won. That was not winning it was being stupid on his part. He has not offered any real plans. This link points out points to both candidates statements that were untrue or partially true.
Now I admit I don't like Romney. I in fact had to turn the debate off after he was so rude, because it made me want to yell at him.
I will never vote for an idiot like that.
I'll tell you something else that stuck in my craw. When Romney kept saying his state. His state is rejecting him, and voting for president Obama. He also said he was a succesful business amn for twenty five years. He didn't start with nothing, he had daddy's money, and daddy's help geting contacts.
He isn't a successful business man unless you consider sending work to foreign countries a success. He has made money off of bankrupting companies and firing employees and leaving them with nothing, and we the tax payer with the bills. He also said that American companies don't get tax breaks for doing business abroad. He lied. Check this out
Worldwide tax system – The U.S. taxes its citizens and residents (including domestic corporations) on their worldwide income, from whatever source derived. The U.S. generally permits a credit (the “foreign tax credit”) against U.S. tax for taxes properly paid to other countries on income sourced to such other countries, so long as the effective rate paid to the other country does not exceed the effective rate paid to the U.S. on that same income. Any excess foreign tax paid becomes a carryforward to future years....
Controlled foreign corporations – While a U.S. company is subject to U.S. tax on its worldwide income, the income of a foreign subsidiary of a U.S. company is not necessarily subject to U.S. tax, provided the income is from the active conduct of a business in the foreign country. Passive type income (e.g. interest, dividends, and rents) typically will be subject to current U.S. tax even if in a foreign subsidiary, as will earnings of the foreign subsidiary invested in U.S. property or any earnings actually distributed back to the U.S. parent company or shareholders. In some cases, it is advantageous to structure your foreign operations through an entity that will be recognized as a corporation in the foreign jurisdiction, but treated as a flow-through entity for U.S. tax purposes. This can be advantageous if losses are anticipated from the foreign business which you wish to deduct against U.S. income or as a way of minimizing duplicate taxation (especially if the U.S. parent company is a flow-through entity). In other cases, especially if the business will be subject to little or no tax in the foreign jurisdiction and has a need to accumulate capital, it can be more advantageous to structure the business through a foreign entity that will be treated as a C-corporation for U.S. tax purposes. To the extent that a foreign corporation is controlled by U.S. persons, there are annual reporting requirements with the IRS to enable the IRS to monitor the ownership and financial activities of the foreign corporation and any transactions it has with its U.S. owner(s).
Mitt you are a liar !!! Tax lawyers know how to set these companies up and cheat America out of the taxes. We are not naive Mitt.
Yeah, no tax breaks huh Mitt ?? Just how stupid of a business owner are you ?? You are the CEO and you don't know this type of thing ?? Oh Mitt you lies are the pants on fire type.
Now when president Obama was hammering Mitt on his tax plan and said five trillion dollars, this could be what he means.
From the link:
THE FACTS: Obama's claim that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion doesn't add up. Presumably, Obama was talking about the effect of Romney's tax plan over 10 years, which is common in Washington. But Obama's math doesn't take into account Romney's entire plan.
Romney proposes to reduce income tax rates by 20 percent and eliminate the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax. The Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, says that would reduce federal tax revenues by $465 billion in 2015, which would add up to about $5 trillion over 10 years.
However, Romney says he wants to pay for the tax cuts by reducing or eliminating tax credits, deductions and exemptions. The goal is a simpler tax code that raises the same amount of money as the current system but does it in a more efficient manner.
The knock on Romney's plan, which Obama accurately cited, is that Romney has refused to say which tax breaks he would eliminate to pay for the lower rates.
You see Mitt has not submited any plans, but keeps talking about them. Based on his VP choices tax plans we can safely say that Mitt will cut taxes on the wealthy, which he said he wouldn't do, reduce medicare to a voucher system in the near future allowing the iinsurance companies to profit while denying seniors the health care they paid for all their working lives, as well as raise taxes on the 47% he hates in America that he says will vote for president Obama anyway.
Well Mitt, I actually think Obama cut off the ring on you and you are stuck in the corner you put your self in. Well done Mr. President Obama.
You are going to have to come up with some workable numbers or admit you have no real plan and that president Obama was right, you plan to tax the poor and middle class to make the wealthy more wealthy.
President Obama was right, it is a choice between the plans of Clinton or Bush. President Obama is going with Clintons plan and it worked well for us.
Romney is going with the GW Bush plan as well as the GH Bush plan. They both failed miserably. Read my lips no more Bush plans !!