The Cellar - Harry Reid is a Pedophile

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Politics (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Harry Reid is a Pedophile (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=27742)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 832003)

And every GM car dealer that was closed, when GM got into financial problems and had to be saved by the fed's, was a Republican party donor, except one black dealer.

I'm having trouble parsing the conspiracy theory here. It seems to say that Obama shut down one black dealer for not donating to Republicans, or shut down one Republican donor for being black, neither of which make much sense. Or maybe all GM dealers were Republican donors except one black one, who is now the only GM dealer left in the country?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 832003)

Despite the objection by his commerce department, he lent over half a million dollars to a big supporter, to open a solar energy plant. Now they're bankrupt, of course. I wonder if our gov't will get their money back ?? Our money.

Are you talking about Solyndra? If so, there is a lot wrong with the statement.

Either way, you are complaining about a single investment that went bad. It happens and was expected to happen. Smart and investing involves diversification and that is what the Stimulus did. I'm pretty sure we are well above zero if you take all the invested companies into account, not just cherry picked ones.

Quote:

He says he's going to cut taxes for the middle class. Well, he's not, and his many tax "cuts" so far, have been from merely extending the Bush tax cuts, which he keeps trying to chip away at.

Stimulus?

Quote:

His spending will require, sooner or later, a large increase in taxes, and cuts in services. That tends to be how Socialism works - it's great until the money runs out. Then you're screwed.

So Reagan and both Bushes were socialists?!?!?! STARVE THE BEAST!!

Quote:

Obama has taken over $716 million out of senior care, to help fund Obama care.

...

When the fact checkers are giving Obama "4 Pinnoccio's" for his lies while campaigning, you know that:

1) He's lying, big time, and

IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT! IRONY ALERT!

Quote:

Taking Money from Medicare?

Ryan continued the campaign’s false line of attack that Obama had “funneled” money out of Medicare to pay for the federal health care law “at the expense of the elderly.” But that’s contradicted by Medicare’s chief actuary, in a statement at the end of the most recent report of the system’s trustees (our emphasis added):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Medicare Actuary, April 23, 2012

[Obama's] Affordable Care Act makes important changes to the Medicare program and substantially improves its financial outlook …

Medicare’s money isn’t being taken away. The Affordable Care Act calls for slowing the growth in spending, a move that — if successful — would keep the hospital insurance trust fund solvent for longer than if the reductions didn’t happen.

Ryan himself proposed keeping most of these same spending cuts in his most recent “Path to Prosperity” budget. Yet, Ryan criticized Obama’s cuts as “the biggest, coldest power play of all” and suggested seniors would suffer as a result.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryan, Aug. 29

And the biggest, coldest power play of all in Obamacare came at the expense of the elderly. … [T]hey just took it all away from Medicare, $716 billion funneled out of Medicare by President Obama.

The Affordable Care Act calls for a $716 billion reduction in the future growth of Medicare spending over 10 years, with most of that — about $415 billion — coming from a reduction in the future growth of payments to hospitals through Medicare Part A. And Medicare Part A’s trust fund, as we’ve explained before, is in trouble financially. It’s set to be insolvent in 2024, even with these spending cuts. Without them, the trust fund wouldn’t be able to fully pay projected benefits in 2016, the Medicare trustees estimate.

http://factcheck.org/2012/08/ryans-vp-spin/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ed-716-billio/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 832003)

Yes, Romney has flipped on several issues, but Massachusetts is a VERY liberal state, and that's where he was governor.

If you're a pragmatic person, and you believe in states rights, you will be more liberal as it's governor. You aren't just running your own agenda, you're being a true statesman.

Yes, it takes a "true statesman" to lead the state to 47th in job growth, and number 1 state in debt per person.

Oh and good business man Thurston... er, Mitt, saving the Olympics? Bullshit.
The Olympics were saved by $1.5 Billion of our tax money, more than all seven previous American Olympics, even adjusted for inflation.

Worse, how the money was spent.

Quote:

The most damning aspect of the Salt Lake tab wasn't the final amount, but how it was being spent. In their exhaustively researched Sports Illustrated accounting, Barlett and Steele explain how many Olympics projects amounted to little more than slush funds for wealthy donors to the games. Wealthy Utahns used the games as an excuse to receive exemptions for projects that would otherwise never meet environmental standards, or to receive generous subsidies for improvements of questionable value to the games—but with serious value to future real estate developments. In one example, a wealthy developer received $3 million to build a three-mile stretch of road through his resort. Where'd he get the money? Federal funds that had been deposited in the Utah Permanent Community Impact Fund.

So much more it's sickening.

Slush money and kickbacks were a staple of the Olympics, at the highest level. Just this year, a few more of their highest international directors, were blatantly exposed for it.

In 2000, you either went along with the prevailing way the IOC ran things (and the national IC's beneath them also had problems with this), or you had no olympics - period. Through 2012, that is still true, they are finding out.

Romney saved the Salt Lake City Olympics, when it was hanging with both feet over it's grave.

He didn't do it with great bookkeeping, and he didn't do it for free. When you have to pay contractors for over time, and double time, and triple time, you're damn right, it costs a LOT of money.

The incredible thing, is that he was able to save the Salt Lake City Olympics, at all. And, they are the ONLY Winter Olympics to date, that have shown a profit.

That's another one of those FACTS, that are of no interest to you.

I'm confident that YOU, sitting back in your recliner 12 years later, could have done a MUCH better job, however. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 832016)

Yikes! No.

Numerous dealers had to be shut down, due to GM's fiscal crisis. They had a number of dealers that had to be closed.

To achieve that number of dealer closings, Obama made sure that every GM dealer selected for closing, was NOT a contributor to his party, EXCEPT one black dealer.

The Unions made out because they now are part of the ownership/management of GM. Democrats made out because their dealerships were left open.

Stockholders in GM were screwed, although by law, they should have been protected in some cases.

And the Gov't now tells GM what it wants them to do, since they own a portion of it, as well as having extensive regulatory powers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 832441)

To achieve that number of dealer closings, Obama made sure that every GM dealer selected for closing, was NOT a contributor to his party, EXCEPT one black dealer.

Where were talk show extremists when Consumer Reports said, over a decade ago, that a majority of GM dealerships must be closed. GM has a problem. Too few dealerships did close.

Why attack Obama for not doing something when Consumer Reports is guilty of citing that problem and a solution? Why not attack the messenger? Oh. That would not promote the political agenda.

GM - not Obama - revoked dealership franchises. Should have been done over a decade earlier when the problem was obvious. Helpful is to first learn facts rather than soundbytes.

GM was revoking dealership franchises or made life difficult for any dealer who complained about crap GM products and other 'destroy jobs' GM policies (ie dumping warranty costs on the dealers). Before Obama, GM attacked dealers who best represented the interests of GM and America. Did extremist rhetoric also forget to mention that? Probably. But then soundbytes are a poor source of honesty.

So let's do something that never appears in extremist rhetoric. Numbers. GM's market share was once 50%. When market share dropped to 20%, did the responsible (patriotic) management close dealerships? Of course not. By 2007, GM had increased to 6000 dealerships. Responsible management said that number had to drop to 3600. It probably should have been less. After Obama became president, GM management relented.

GM still has 5000 dealerships. Why so many? Did all those dealerships contribute to the Obama campaign and remain open? A lie best defined by the resulting laughter.

Too many in GM are still business school graduates. Cannot make hard decisions. Even after Obama fired the clearly dumb and wacko extremist Rick Wagoner. If responsible, then another 1000 GM dealerships would be closing. Why did you forget to include these numbers? Apparently your sources are political; not into facts and reality. Business school graduates are poor decision makers. Too many remain in GM even after Obama eliminated the top MBA - the worst of GM's problems. Numbers, that you routinely forget to include, are damning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 832441)

To achieve that number of dealer closings, Obama made sure that every GM dealer selected for closing, was NOT a contributor to his party, EXCEPT one black dealer.

Are you rephrasing what the conspiracy theory is, or trying to claim that it is true?

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoxNews.com via FactCheck via Lamplighter

A preliminary study by FOXNews.com found that the data do not support the charges. Among the dealerships set to close, 12 percent of a random 50 selected for review donated to Republicans and 8 percent to Democrats. Of the dealerships remaining open, 14 percent of a random 50 selected donated to Republicans and 10 percent to Democrats. In both samples, the average size of donations was similar for both parties.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 833342)

Are you rephrasing what the conspiracy theory is, or trying to claim that it is true?

Adak will not answer this question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adak (Post 832440)

..Romney saved the Salt Lake City Olympics, when it was hanging with both feet over it's grave.

He didn't do it with great bookkeeping, and he didn't do it for free. When you have to pay contractors for over time, and double time, and triple time, you're damn right, it costs a LOT of money.

The incredible thing, is that he was able to save the Salt Lake City Olympics, at all. And, they are the ONLY Winter Olympics to date, that have shown a profit....

Of course, we'll never know exactly HOW he "saved" the Olympics because he ordered all the files destroyed.

Oops.

Quote:

Romney Avoids Taxes via Loophole Cutting Mormon Donations
By Jesse Drucker - Oct 29, 2012 12:01 AM ET

In 1997, Congress cracked down on a popular tax shelter that allowed rich people to take advantage of the exempt status of charities without actually giving away much money.
Individuals who had already set up these vehicles were allowed to keep them. That included Mitt Romney, then the chief executive officer of Bain Capital, who had just established such an arrangement in June 1996.
The charitable remainder unitrust, as it is known, is one of several strategies Romney has adopted over his career to reduce his tax bill. While Romney’s tax avoidance is legal and common among high-net-worth individuals, it has become an issue in the campaign. President Barack Obama attacked him in their second debate for paying “lower tax rates than somebody who makes a lot less.”
In this instance, Romney used the tax-exempt status of a charity -- the Mormon Church, according to a 2007 filing -- to defer taxes for more than 15 years. At the same time he is benefitting, the trust will probably leave the church with less than what current law requires, according to tax returns obtained by Bloomberg this month through a Freedom of Information Act request.
In general, charities don’t owe capital gains taxes when they sell assets for a profit. Trusts like Romney’s permit funders to benefit from that tax-free treatment, said Jonathan Blattmachr, a trusts and estates lawyer who set up hundreds of such vehicles in the 1990s.

Near Zero

“The main benefit from a charitable remainder trust is the renting from your favorite charity of its exemption from taxation,” Blattmachr said. Despite the name, giving a gift or getting a charitable deduction “is just a throwaway,” he said. “I used to structure them so the value dedicated to charity was as close to zero as possible without being zero.”
When individuals fund a charitable remainder unitrust, or “CRUT,” they defer capital gains taxes on any profit from the sale of the assets, and receive a small upfront charitable deduction and a stream of yearly cash payments. Like an individual retirement account, the trust allows money to grow tax deferred, while like an annuity it also pays Romney a steady income. After the funder’s death, the trust’s remaining assets go to a designated charity.
Romney’s CRUT, which is only a small part of the $250 million that Romney’s campaign cites as his net worth, has been paying him 8 percent of its assets each year. As the Romneys have received these payments, the money that will potentially be left for charity has declined from at least $750,000 in 2001 to $421,203 at the end of 2011.

Tax Returns

The Romney campaign declined to answer written questions about the trust.
“The trust has operated in accordance with the law,” Michele Davis, a campaign spokeswoman, said in an e-mail.
Paul Comstock, a financial adviser to LDS Philanthropies, an arm of the Mormon Church, said that while he wasn’t familiar with the trust, Romney and his trustee might arrange to compensate the church for the dwindling amount with other gifts.
“It may be that they’ve made provisions for the charity someplace else that will make up for what this isn’t going to give them,” Comstock said.
Bloomberg News obtained the trust’s tax returns from 2007 to 2011 from the Internal Revenue Service. Romney hasn’t disclosed the trust’s tax returns and is under no legal obligation to do so. He did make some disclosures about the trust’s investments in Massachusetts filings from 2002 to 2007 and as a presidential candidate in the current campaign.

After Death

Funds held by Romney’s trust are scheduled to be distributed after the death of Romney and his wife to “a charitable organization to be designated by Romney,” according to the 2007 filing, disclosing assets he held while governor of Massachusetts. “In the absence of such a designation the funds will go to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.”
Davis declined to comment on whether Romney has designated another charity since then.
Romney has been an active member of the church, which expects members to donate 10 percent of their income. Over the years, he has donated millions of dollars of stock in Bain-owned companies to the church, securities filings show.
The church recommends such trusts on its website as one of many options for donors.
“Probably one of the advantages of a charitable remainder trust is that it helps with capital gains tax,” said Carl McLelland, an attorney in the planned giving office for LDS Philanthropies.

Capital Gains

CRUTs were more common in the 1990s when capital gains rates were higher. In 1996, when Romney set up his trust in Massachusetts, the federal rate was 28 percent, compared with 15 percent today. At the time, a Massachusetts state resident who sold shares for a gain of $1 million could have faced a combined state and federal capital gains tax of as much as 40 percent, reducing his take to $600,000.
By contrast, if he contributed the stock to a CRUT, and it sold the shares, it typically wouldn’t owe any tax since it is a charitable trust. The CRUT could reinvest the $1 million and earn a return on the full amount.
“The power of this is the tax deferral,” said Jay A. Friedman, a partner at accounting firm Perelson Weiner LLP in New York. “The money is all growing tax free and he only pays tax on what is distributed to him.”
Concerned that CRUTS weren’t sufficiently philanthropic, Congress mandated in July 1997 that the present value of what was projected to be left for charity must equal at least 10 percent of the initial contribution. Existing CRUTS weren’t affected by the new law.

Dwindling Principal

Romney’s trust was projected to leave to charity an amount with a present value of a little less than 8 percent of the initial contribution, according to an analysis by Friedman. Thus, the specifics of Romney’s trust wouldn’t have passed legal muster if it had been set up 13 months later, he said.
Because the trust’s investments have been earning a return far below its annual payouts to the Romneys, its principal has dwindled rapidly.
In 2001, five years after it was established, the trust had a value of between $750,000 and $1.25 million. Since then, it has pursued a conservative investment strategy -- regardless of the ups and downs of the stock market -- buying a mix of money- market funds, federally-backed bonds and federal bond funds. Since 2007, it has moved its assets entirely into cash. By 2011, its investments earned a return of $48, down from between $60,001 and $100,000 in 2001. It paid $36,696 to the Romneys in 2011.

Romneys Favored

The current investing strategy favors the Romneys over the charity because they get a guaranteed payout, said Michael Arlein, a trusts and estates lawyer at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.
“The Romneys get theirs off the top and the charity gets what’s left,” he said. “So by definition, if it’s not performing as well, the charity gets harmed more.”
The trustee for Romney’s CRUT is R. Bradford Malt, chairman of the law firm Ropes & Gray LLP, and manager for Romney’s various family trusts as well as his personal attorney. Ropes & Gray has also been for years the main outside counsel for Bain Capital.
If the CRUT maintains the same investing strategy, assets will continue to shrink, said Jerome M. Hesch, a tax and estate planning attorney at the law firm Carlton Fields. The trustee acted prudently in protecting against losses during a stock market decline, he said.
Nevertheless, “what’s going to go to charity is probably close to nothing,” Hesch said.

waiting for your retraction, classic!

It must be fun to be the fox in charge of the hen house.

You know, if you want to talk about gerymandering, you should talk to a Qld'er. We were in a gery state for about 20 years during my childhood and early adulthood. Some electorates only had about 5 people living in them! And they were the ones the National party relied on to get them into power every election for 2 decades.

Whether the party did a good job or not is beside the point. When the farmers are getting the say in how the state is run wholus bolus and people in other industry and urban areas have no say, life is not good for some. Many in fact. And that's not even talking about the criminal corruption evident at the time!