[QUOTE=ewmayer;312249]BTW, after the latest mega-gaffe [/QUOTE]Only a 47-gaffe -- not enough to cook a goose (which requires a 325-gaffe), I think.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;312283]While desperately wanting to believe Ernst's judgment on this one, I fear Zeta-Flux may have the more realistic assessment here.[/QUOTE]And Republicans desperately wanted Obama's open mic gaffe with Putin to have an effect. *shrug*

All I ask for is for the news agencies to get their act together and actually report the news instead of trying to create a narrative. Let the people do that. Case in point, the recent attacks on US embassies. The media contrives to create a narrative faulting Romney for the *timing* of his criticism. Any criticism of Obama for, say, not attending security briefings near 9/11? Or the White House's clearly erroneous claim that this was not a premeditated attack?

Just watch after the debates. The spin (and I'm not talking about the campaigns) will make your head hurt.

My sister - a decided liberal (she prefers "progressive") - is also skeptical of the goose-cooked postulate:
[quote]I'm not so optimistic. The 47% Romney was referring to were his base to a great extent, except that the base living in Limbaughbwe does not think they are the 47% he was referring to, rather they think the 47% are some other 47% that it's ok to hate, when really the 47% include all the unemployed rednecks he was really referring to, except that they think they are going to be in the 1% someday really really soon. Denizens of Limbaughbwe and Glennbeckistan see themselves as the almost-1%.
And don't underestimate the hundreds of millions of dirty money from Adelson and Koch et al that are going to be poured onto the airwaves from now until November. Not to mention in a worst case scenario that some billionaire might pay Bibi to bomb Iran before the election or create some piece of mayhem in an attempt to tar Obama as not "keeping US safe".

The problems are so many -- the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine under Reagan. The repeal of Glass-Steagall. The upholding of Citizens United, which is behind so much of the current mischief.

I keep wondering at the people who want to know who the real Romeny is. Sheesh -- all they have to do is open their eyes. He's the guy who bullied a gay classmate, led a blind teacher into a door, abused his dog, took over companies and fired all the workers (and now wonders why they feel entitled to food for chrissakes), who stashed his money overseas, took every tax break he could get (and now wants to make an issue of paying taxes while not showing his returns) and on and on ad nauseum. The guy is an ass. He wants to rule, not govern and thinks he was divinely chosen. It would be amusing if not for the terrifying prospect that he could win.[/quote]

It is opinions like that which really make me question if we can ever have a rational discussion in this country.

Is your sister aware of Obama's own recollections (in his two autobiographies) on bullying, drug use, etc...

I wouldn't want to be judged by her (unless I was running as a Democrat, I suppose).

[quote]...took every tax break he could get (and now wants to make an issue of paying taxes while not showing his returns)...[/quote]Questions for your sister. Is PricewaterhouseCoopers not a reputable source for the summary? What would we get from the actual returns we don't from the summary?

Question for everyone else. Isn't the fact that he is smart, and took the tax breaks afforded by law, a positive quality?

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;312324]Question for everyone else. Isn't the fact that he is smart, and took the tax breaks afforded by law, a positive quality?[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily.

These tax breaks (tax avoidance) are generally only afforded to those who own companies. For example, here in Barbados a Canadian "off-shore" company is taxed at between 1.75% and 2%. The constraints are that the company cannot conduct business within Barbados, nor with any entity in Canada. But, because of the double-taxation agreement between Barbados and Canada, profits can be "repatriated" back to Canada without the nominal tax rate of between 16.5% and 18%.

The point I'm trying to make is while this form of "tax avoidance" is perfectly legal, it is non-trivial, and is not available to those who, for example, actually work for a living.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;312324]
Question for everyone else. Isn't the fact that he is smart, and took the tax breaks afforded by law, a positive quality?[/QUOTE]

In my opinion, yes.

Anyone that isn't shiftless already pays their "fair share" when considering the total annual tax obligation including fed, state, foreign, and local taxes. I don't snub any legal tax breaks.

[QUOTE=AES;312332]I don't snub any legal tax breaks.[/QUOTE]

Even if they're not available to you and the common person?

[QUOTE=chalsall;312333]Even if they're not available to you and the common person?[/QUOTE]

Tax laws are confusing. I'd bet there are many breaks available to the common person, and I'd bet that many of them are claimed by the accountant, meaning the common person has no idea how much they save on tax breaks. (I say this having helped fill out more than a few tax forms.)

Edit: For those who can't afford an accountant, their taxes are probably low enough that legal tax breaks wouldn't be worth that much anyways.

deleted

[QUOTE=chalsall;312333]Even if they're not available to you and the common person?[/QUOTE]

Sorry, I wasn't addressing the tax codes or laws directly. I was speaking on my perception of those who must abide it.