Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: puborectalis who wrote (662144)	7/15/2012 1:17:05 AM
From: i-node	5 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1576664

Americans deserve to know more about that expertise. Like we knew about Obama's expertise when HE was elected? You can go back and look at this thread from the last election. It was abundantly clear to me and many others that Obama was a total stuffed shirt. A snake-oil salesman. And that's precisely what he was. Yet, the mainstream media refused then, and now, to present the facts about Obama. Like what were his connections to known terrorists like Bill Ayers? Like, where did he get the money for a very expensive education? I'm sorry, but you don't go to Harvard Law School on plain old school loans; you've got to have something else. Like was he, as it would appear, an affirmative action admission? Mitt Romney has a public track record of accomplishment that is both crystal clear and substantial. Barack Obama had NOTHING. A failed law career, a time as a third-rate teacher, a time as a state senator (a place filled with insurance agents and small-time lawyers), and a small fraction of ONE TERM as a US senator. There was NOTHING in those qualifications that would suggest any competence to become president. Yet, the liberal media elected him. I'm sorry, but demands from the left that Romney produce more than he already has are utterly absurd. You gave up the right to make such demands when you elected an un-accomplished, incompetent, inexperienced affirmative action president last time. You ran the car into the ditch and now it is up to us to dig it out. Specifically, Americans deserve to know what they have known about every other Presidential candidate in recent history--namely, what's in their tax returns. The man has disclosed one year, will disclose the next year as soon as it has been completed, that's adequate. I do think it is fair to ask him about the IRA, since so many of you are confused about it, and I'm sure he'll address that by stating the obvious -- that it was a rollover contribution from a profit sharing plan at Bain. The so-called "carried interest" rule that you referred to is nothing new; it has been present in sections 701, et.seq., for as long as I can remember and is a fundamental precept of partnership taxation. The idea that you should mystically convert capital assets to ordinary income is something that has been cooked up by an ultra-ignorant left who literally do not comprehend why there is a difference between ordinary income and capital gain taxation in the first place. >> It will also shed more light on just how much some of our tax laws favor the super-rich. More ignorance. Our tax laws overwhelmingly favor the poor, who don't pay any and often get refunds anyway. That wealthy individuals make their money through investments rather than earned income is just a fact of life. Why do you care? Either you're wealthy or your not. Taking more of Romney's money will have no effect, whatsoever, on YOU. Is it just jealousy, envy, or do you actually have some reason for taxing wealthy people for doing what they do best: Taking big risks that benefit us all? I see why everyone on SI has ignored and banned you. You're a fucking idiot and a douchebag on top of it.