Anonymous wrote:

A second vote for this, Jeff. There is one poster in particular looking for a fight. It can be exhausting and add unnecessary stress to someone who is genuinely seeking support in good faith.

I think many newcomers to DCUM are turned off by this behavior.

I don't think we are prepared to turn DCUM over to 70,000 some moderators. Each post has a button labeled "report". If someone is disrupting your thread, use that button. I will intervene if I feel that it is necessary. If I do intervene, I will then spend the next week and half debating my actions with users who don't think I should ever intervene in a thread. But, that's my problem.

Anonymous wrote:I know who I would vote for in general election, but can I suggest everyone including democrats to go and vote for Newt during the primary!

Sadly, Newt is not on the ballot in Virginia and DC and Maryland have closed primaries. So, the DCUM audience is not very fertile ground for Newt votes.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

jsteele wrote:That data used here is simply wrong. Kerry's tax rate was not 13.1.

That chart apparently came from here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/tax-rates-of-presidential-candidates-in-one-chart/2012/01/24/gIQAOEEeNQ_blog.html

In the text it says that Kerry's and McCain's numbers included their spouses.

Exactly. The article also says, "On his own, Kerry paid 22.9 percent in federal taxes".

You dont file single you file joinlty of you are married.

You can file as "Married filing separately". That appears to be the case with the Kerry's.

I also enjoy conspiracy theories. But, I don't think DCUM can support an entire forum of them. Try posting in the political forum and ignore the haters. Maybe even preface your posts with a disclaimer along the lines of "If you are not interested in conspiracy theories, please ignore this thread".

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

jsteele wrote:That data used here is simply wrong. Kerry's tax rate was not 13.1.

That chart apparently came from here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/tax-rates-of-presidential-candidates-in-one-chart/2012/01/24/gIQAOEEeNQ_blog.html

In the text it says that Kerry's and McCain's numbers included their spouses.

Exactly. The article also says, "On his own, Kerry paid 22.9 percent in federal taxes".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:kerry pays a lower rate than romney. On another note remember when everyone thought hillary was a sure bet for the nomination? I am seeing deja vu on the republican side. Exciting vs drab (Obama vs Hillary) (Newt vs Ronmey)

Kerry's wife pays a lower rate than Romney. Kerry and his wife file separately and Kerry pays a considerably higher rate. Common sense would tell you that Kerry has a salary and, as such, couldn't get away with a 15% rate. Regardless, Kerry was criticized for his wealth and portrayed as being out of touch. Plus, he lost.

In the immortal words of Barney Frank, I haven't lived a good enough life for Gingrich to be the Republican nominee.

And I would bet dollars to donuts that Romney paid a much lower rate in prior years. He closed down his shelters partway into 2010.

That data used here is simply wrong. Kerry's tax rate was not 13.1. As I said before, this would be obvious if you simply used common sense. He receives a Senate salary which is close to $200,000. That is ordinary income. Kerry's wife is more in the Romney camp in the sense that her income is mostly not wage income and, hence, taxed at a lower rate. To get to 13.1, people are averaging Kerry's rate with his wife's rate. But, they file separately, so that is misleading.

But, both Romney and Kerry are playing by the rules as they exist today. The problem is not that they play by the rules, the problem is with the rules. Romney wants to make the rules even worse. Kerry wants to make the rules more equitable. That is the issue.

Anonymous wrote:kerry pays a lower rate than romney. On another note remember when everyone thought hillary was a sure bet for the nomination? I am seeing deja vu on the republican side. Exciting vs drab (Obama vs Hillary) (Newt vs Ronmey)

Kerry's wife pays a lower rate than Romney. Kerry and his wife file separately and Kerry pays a considerably higher rate. Common sense would tell you that Kerry has a salary and, as such, couldn't get away with a 15% rate. Regardless, Kerry was criticized for his wealth and portrayed as being out of touch. Plus, he lost.

In the immortal words of Barney Frank, I haven't lived a good enough life for Gingrich to be the Republican nominee.

Please take a few seconds to vote in favor of Capital City's entry. Cap City is a great school that could really use the support. Ms. Lewton is a tremendous asset to the school who has worked very hard with limited resources to build a terrific drama program. As pointed out above, Cap City is not in competition with any other local schools. So, this is something that everyone in the DC metro area should be able to get behind. You don't have to register or do anything other than click once to vote. So, please, help the school win this grant.

Anonymous wrote:
This is more important to me. I would rather vote for someone who has some sort of faith than none at all like out current President.

Obama is:

a) a person who lacks any sort of faith;
b) a Muslim; or
c) a member of a racist anti-white church.

Please pick one and stick with it. It's tiring trying to keep up with your contradictions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal hate of successful people. The food stamp president.

What a stupid statement! In fact, Democratics tend to win the rich vote. The criticism of Rommey is not that he is successful, but that he is paying taxes at a lower rate that those who do real work. Remember, Reagan eliminates the capital gains tax, and many Republicans support a flat tax of 1-2 marginal rates (all above what Rommey paid).

There's a big difference between Romney as the poster boy for tax unfairness, as Jeff pointed out, and criticism of Romney that he is not paying more taxes. The first is a legitimate issue, and could turn into a very helpful storyline for democrats. The second is, in my view, misplaced. I've not read anything to suggest that Romney has broken any laws (and I'd be shocked if that was the case). Why should Romney the man, or candidate, be criticized for complying with the tax laws currently in effect?

Yes, I agree. Don't hate the player, hate the game. The issue is not that Romney cheated or did anything against the rules regarding his taxes. He didn't. The issue is the unfairness of the tax system. Romney is a visible representative of that unfairness. Moreover, not only supports that system, but wants to make it even more unfair.

Anonymous wrote:How do you write on a dead cat? No, seriously. I am trying to think how I would use my cat (preferably alive) to convey a written message, and the only thing I can come up with would be shaving some fur and writing on the skin.

I'm not going to embed this picture because it is disgusting, but click this link for a picture of the cat:

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2012/01/23-2

Anonymous wrote:Obama has had 4 years to fix the tax issue and.....

Review the differences between a democracy and a dictatorship and then get back to me for further discussion of this issue.

Actually, when you do get back to me, you can answer this question as well: If Obama proposes legislation implementing the Buffet Rule, will you support the bill?

Anonymous wrote:Who cares, really?

I think you are going to find out that a lot of people care. Romney just became the poster child for tax unfairness.

The "Buffet Rule" is the idea that billionaires should not pay a lower tax rate than their secretaries. The "Romney Rule" apparently is that billionaires who pay a tax rate of 13.9% on $21.6 million in income should maintain Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts and run for president on a platform that would lower taxes on people like himself while raising them on lower income earners.

Remember earlier discussions on DCUM when several posters assured us that the Buffet Rule was unnecessary because the wealthy actually do pay their fair share? Mitt Romney is a walking contradiction to that suggestion. An added bonus of Romney's tax release is that we have learned that this year he closed his Swiss and Cayman Island accounts because he is "running for President for Pete's sake".

Anonymous wrote:The people who are making fun of teleworkers only know how they, themselves would behave if they were working at home. If you are supervising someone who thinks this way, watch them, because they can find ways to goof off in the cube, too.

Bingo! One correction: there was only one poster making fun of teleworkers. That poster managed to post 6 separate messages between 10:12 and 10:24. Perhaps it's too early for Judge Judy?