Mitt Romney and taxes

[wellyes]

I learned, in an NPR story this morning, that Mitt Romney:

1. Has an annual income of about $20,000,000 but, due to entirely legal tax strategies, pays a tax rate of about 14%.

2. Gave $100,000,000 to his sons in a trust fund this year, tax free. Again due to entirely legal strategies. For most people, the first $10,000,000 is tax-free, but the remainder would have been taxed pretty heavily..... most people giving a $100M gift would pay about $31M in taxes.

I have zero problem with Romney taking advantage of loopholes to his advantage. I do the same thing - I itemize, take the mortgage deducation, etc. But I am absolutely disgusted at a system that lets an incredibly wealthy couple pay a much lower tax rate than me.

Next time I hear someone complain that the rich pay most of the taxes in this country, I will think of Romney and how proportionally I am a bigger contributor in terms of giving my fair share than him & his (economic) peers.

[minnie-zb]

Yes, it is sickening.

[arivecchi]

Yeah, it's bull. His income is mostly derived from investments and capital gains which are taxed at 15%. I think it is outrageous that wages get taxed more heavily. I mean really? He gets to pay a 15% tax rate while I am taxed at 35% and would in no way be qualified as wealthy. Lovely.

That's why I admire the fact that Buffet calls himself out on taxes! It is a ridiculous system!

http://money.msn.com/taxes/news.aspx?feed=BLOOM&date=20120123&id=14716762

[AnnieW625]

I completely agree with you on this one. If he is legally paying taxes and paying his fair share then he is doing what the law states, but why it can't be at a higher rate is frustrating too.

[boolady]

Yeah, it's bull. His income is mostly derived from investments and capital gains which are taxed at 15%. I think it is outrageous that wages get taxed more heavily. I mean really? He gets to pay a 15% tax rate while I am taxed at 35% and would in no way be qualified as wealthy. Lovely.

That's why I admire the fact that Buffet calls himself out on taxes! It is a ridiculous system!

http://money.msn.com/taxes/news.aspx?feed=BLOOM&date=20120123&id=14716762

:yeahthat:
As Warren Buffet pointed out, for lots of the superwealthy, it's their money making money, not them. That's not to say that some of those folks haven't worked hard, and don't, but when you get to the point that you derive such a huge benefit from the money you've got just sitting there, something's off.

[mommylamb]

I understand the point of wanting to encourage investment, especially in getting a wide swath of investors involved (and not punishing middle class investors by suddenly hiking their capital gains rates along with the rates for the uber wealthy whose primary income is investment income). I think a happy medium can be found by saying the first $250,000 in investment income (or $500,000 or $1M or whatever) is taxed at the 15 percent rate, and investment income over that is taxed at a higher and graduated rate.

[AngB]

No wonder he didn't want to release his taxes! Not that he's done anything "wrong", but it is sickening.

[elektra]

I understand the point of wanting to encourage investment, especially in getting a wide swath of investors involved (and not punishing middle class investors by suddenly hiking their capital gains rates along with the rates for the uber wealthy whose primary income is investment income). I think a happy medium can be found by saying the first $250,000 in investment income (or $500,000 or $1M or whatever) is taxed at the 15 percent rate, and investment income over that is taxed at a higher and graduated rate.

Makes sense to me!
One of the arguments you hear about raising taxes is that it discourages people from working harder and earning more- that if they are bumped up to a higher tax bracket once their income reaches a certain point, why work harder to earn more? (A point I disagree with but a case can be made for it on a simplistic level.)
But if the uber-wealthy or even just what I would consider wealthy are not even really working and it's their money working for them through the investments, why not tax in such a way as proposed above?

I have no ill will towards Romney for figuring out how to make money in this manner (or copying what his father did at least) since that is how things are structured now. But it sure does suck for the rest of us.

[secchick]

Here's the thing. Yes, his investments are taxed at a lower rate because of the gains. On the flip side, he could also lose his shirt (in theory, I presume Bain uses CDS and hedges, etc., to prevent total losses). I am ok with getting rid of the carried interest exemption, as the vast majority of private equity funding comes from outside sources and it's not really their money, but am 100% ok with the concept of taxing investment gains differently than earned income, as long as capital losses are nondeductible (more than $3K/year).

Keep in mind the vast, vast majority of Americans pay less than 15% in federal income taxes. The headline that Romney paid a lesser % of tax than the "average American" is completely misleading. In 2009, 97% of Americans paid less than 15% in income taxes (and the people who did pay more would not be considered "middle class").

[boolady]

In 2009, 97% of Americans paid less than 15% in income taxes (and the people who did pay more would not be considered "middle class").

This is entirely dependent on where you live. In a high COL area, many, many "middle class" people pay more than 15%. In 2009, the 25% tax bracket was up to $137,050, for married filing jointly. In major metropolitan areas and their immediate suburbs, given the incredible COL, that's not an upper class income at all.

[arivecchi]

Another interesting article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/us/politics/romneys-tax-returns-show-21-6-million-income-in-10.html?_r=1&hp

Graph showing candidates' tax return numbers:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/24/us/politics/the-candidates-tax-returns.html

I've never believed in the double taxation argument used by capital gain tax proponents. I too get to pay double taxes on my wages and I do it (real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc.) It is not an accident that the "double taxation" on investments gets preferential treatment in the tax code.

Love how Krugman can always break it down:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/opinion/krugman-taxes-at-the-top.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[secchick]

This is entirely dependent on where you live. In a high COL area, many, many "middle class" people pay more than 15%. In 2009, the 25% tax bracket went up to $137,050. In major metropolitan areas and their immediate suburbs, given the incredible COL, that's not an upper class income at all.

But what I am saying is that even people at the top of the 25% bracket are only paying 25% on half their income, and that is after deductions, exemptions, etc as to final tax liability. But yes, people in HCOL areas always get hosed on taxes.

[California]

I thought the report must be a boon to the Occupy protesters because it sure spells out the problem with our tax system. The people with the most money have the most power and have skewed the system to benefit themselves. I knew this before but reading it so point blank really drove it home for me.

[boilermakermom]

It is incredibly sickening. I am not completely educated on the candidates, however, it seems like Ron Paul is far more honest then the others.

[sntm]

Here's the thing. Yes, his investments are taxed at a lower rate because of the gains. On the flip side, he could also lose his shirt (in theory, I presume Bain uses CDS and hedges, etc., to prevent total losses). I am ok with getting rid of the carried interest exemption, as the vast majority of private equity funding comes from outside sources and it's not really their money, but am 100% ok with the concept of taxing investment gains differently than earned income, as long as capital losses are nondeductible (more than $3K/year).

Keep in mind the vast, vast majority of Americans pay less than 15% in federal income taxes. The headline that Romney paid a lesser % of tax than the "average American" is completely misleading. In 2009, 97% of Americans paid less than 15% in income taxes (and the people who did pay more would not be considered "middle class").

Excellent points! One thing to also keep in mind is that he did pay $8 million in taxes. $8 million. That is huge. None of us here will pay that much in our whole lives. he did it in (can't remember 1 or 2) year(s).

And honestly, I absolutely completely buy the argument that people would be much less likely to invest money if their return on it (due to higher-than-current tax rates on capital gains) was lower. The risk/benefit ratio starts favoring sticking it in the mattress or spending it on other things. If there aren't tax breaks on saving or investing money, people are much less likely to save or invest. As a minor correlate, how many of us would be saving for retirement or college if the money was taxed the same as the money we spend on new computers, cars, etc, and all earnings were also taxed the same? How many of us forego tax breaks for which we qualify?

I'm not a Romney supporter at all (am a mostly socially liberal Republican who basically dislikes all the GOP candidates this year), but I think the focus on his taxes and his earnings is distracting from the issues and making this about class warfare.

[wellyes]

From the NY Times article:
Mr. Romney’s own tax proposals would cut his federal income taxes by about 40 percent — but Mr. Gingrich’s proposal, which would abolish capital gains taxes, would almost entirely eliminate them. Whoa.
Funny, then, that Gingrich is attacking him for his wealth and his role at Bain.


Here's the thing. Yes, his investments are taxed at a lower rate because of the gains. On the flip side, he could also lose his shirt (in theory, I presume Bain uses CDS and hedges, etc., to prevent total losses)..About 40% of his income was from his retirement package from Bain. Bain carries the risk, Romney's income is guaranteed. Yet the money is taxed like a long-term capital gain.
And honestly, I absolutely completely buy the argument that people would be much less likely to invest money if their return on it (due to higher-than-current tax rates on capital gains) was lower

Don't know if you're old enough to remember the 1980s - but - the higher capital gain rate then did not seem to be much of a disincentive.

[ha98ed14]

And people wonder why there are class wars. I cannot hide my distain for the Rs, their preservation of wealth for the wealthy, and their completely hypocritical stand on "family values". Hello, Mr. Speaker.

[khalloc]

I listened to NPR this morning too.

Whats even worse is that other republicans are using Romney's taxes against him. And I heard that under Gingrich's "tax plan" Romney wouldnt even pay taxes because Gingrich wants to get rid of taxes on investments (capital gains).

[arivecchi]

Honestly, the class war comments would make me laugh were this not such a serious subject. The real class war is being fought by the uber wealthy against the middle class. The class warfare line is nothing but a red herring because the wealth inequity in this country is becoming so great and indefensible. It always astounds me that pointing out the obvious inequities in tax treatment is seen as class warfare.

As a matter of fact, the lower rate assigned to capital gains is a pretty recent development:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/the-history-of-capital-gains-taxes/?scp=5&sq=class%20warfare&st=cse

and our economy was actually doing much better when we had a higher tax rate on capital gains.

[AnnieW625]

This is entirely dependent on where you live. In a high COL area, many, many "middle class" people pay more than 15%. In 2009, the 25% tax bracket was up to $137,050, for married filing jointly. In major metropolitan areas and their immediate suburbs, given the incredible COL, that's not an upper class income at all.

In my neighborhood the $139k (25%) tax bracket is pretty close to the norm I would think. This is the tax bracket we are in, if we aren't in the 28% bracket already for last year, we are right on the cusp. If we were living in my hometown I think we would be one of the fewer segments of the population paying the 25% because it is a lcol area, and that would be without me working full time too because one nice thing about state employment is that DH makes the same no matter where we live in the state. In our area now we also know a number of people here mainly lawyers, bank vps or accountants and doctors who are probably in the top tax bracket.

[SkyrMommy]

I can't fault Romney or any other wealthy investor for using the legal jargon in our tax system to pay what they are required and no more. The awful part is the tax system itself that puts such a skewed reality out there. And don't even get me started on property taxes paying for schools and other municipal departments.

Sigh... I want someone with common sense to come in, look at the system and put something in place that lets you work hard to earn a living and then use your money as you see fit, while adequately funding infrastructure, education, and health care.

I know... when pigs fly.

[ha98ed14]

The class warfare line is nothing but a red herring because the wealth inequity in this country is becoming so great and indefensible. It always astounds me that pointing out the obvious inequities in tax treatment is seen as class warfare.

So what would you call it?

[secchick]

Honestly, the class war comments would make me laugh were this not such a serious subject. The real class war is being fought by the uber wealthy against the middle class. The class warfare line is nothing but a red herring because the wealth inequity in this country is becoming so great and indefensible. It always astounds me that pointing out the obvious inequities in tax treatment is seen as class warfare.

As a matter of fact, the lower rate assigned to capital gains is a pretty recent development:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/18/the-history-of-capital-gains-taxes/?scp=5&sq=class%20warfare&st=cse

and our economy was actually doing much better when we had a higher tax rate on capital gains.

Exactly what are the obvious inequities? He is paying a greater effective tax rate than the vast majority of Americans.

http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/18/news/economy/Romney_effective_tax_rate/index.htm

And as for weath inequity, I do not feel as if my child won't do well just because someone else is doing exceptionally well. There are some pretty strong personal conduct and other regulatory causes behind the increase in wealth inequity as well. It's not all imposed by the wealthy upon the masses.

ETA: Romney will be hosed in a few years when he has to take required distributions from his IRA and he will be paying ordinary income tax rates on that money in the long run. I am not sure that was ultimately the most advantageous tax strategy, given that he would otherwise have been paying capital gains.

[sntm]

@seechick, thanks for the money.cnn link. That was very interesting and informative.

[arivecchi]

Exactly what are the obvious inequities? He is paying a greater effective tax rate than the vast majority of Americans.
I disagree. He is paying a higher aggregate amount, but effectively, he is paying a much lower share of his income in taxes than many other Americans with much lower incomes.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/24/putting-candidates-tax-rates-in-perspective/

As far as I am concerned, a multi-millionaire paying a 15% tax rate and a middle class couple making $250,000 paying a 30-35% tax rate is a gross inequity. Why should those who only earn wages be penalized?

[wellyes]

I think the focus on his taxes and his earnings is distracting from the issues and making this about class warfare.

What issues does this distract us from? The tax structure is an issue that is very important in Romney's platform - and every candidates. The balance between personal achievement, ability to earn income, the social safety net, the federal goverment, taxes is certainly in the top 5 for most voters too.

I don't think it's about class warfare, either, since we're not talking working class vs upper class. Romney is in the top 1/10th of the top 1% of earners. He is in a different stratosphere.


There are some pretty strong personal conduct and other regulatory causes behind the increase in wealth inequity as well.

I think being able to pass $100,000,000 to your kids in a trust tax-free is a "regulatory cause" that is questionable.


Again, I don't have anything against Romney. He is my favorite of the Republicans, honestly. I wasn't a huge fan when he was governor here but I do like a lot of things about him - his pragmatism, his quiet and sincere faith, his family seems like they're actually really nice people. It's not about Mitt. It's about tax code that favors the very wealthy and their heirs ------ much, much, much more so than it did when we were kids. The only people better off this way are people like the Romneys.

[Kindra178]

I disagree. He is paying a higher aggregate amount, but effectively, he is paying a much lower share of his income in taxes than many other Americans with much lower incomes.

As far as I am concerned, a multi-millionaire paying a 15% tax rate and a middle class couple making $250,000 paying a 30-35% tax rate is a gross inequity. Why should those who only earn wages be penalized?

Agreed. What's even crazier, if Romney's income wasn't what it is/was/has been, there would be no way he could afford to even run for President. What does that say about the future of the US?

[mommylamb]

Exactly what are the obvious inequities? He is paying a greater effective tax rate than the vast majority of Americans.


Regarding the effective tax rate of the vast majority of Americans, I think that it's expected that any discussion of changes to the tax code would include a discussion of changes to deductions that we all take. All of the various tax commissions have made proposals that make those sorts of changes.

The fact that people take deductions under the current system which lowers their effective tax rate doesn't nullify the issue that as it is currently structured the tax rate on investments totally skews wealth in this country. Some people (myself included) consider this to be unfair, though I do not blame anyone for taking advantage of the system as it is. It is a systemic problem that I believe should be changed.

I DO think that the fact that investment income is taxed at such a low level has negative repercussions for my children, considering the concern I think many of us share about the national debt and its impact on the long term economic health of this country. And while spending cuts are part of the solution to that problem, it is unrealistic (IMO) to think that they are the only solution. Revenue raiser of some sort are entirely necessary.

As I said in my previous post, I would like to see a low tax rate on investment income provided for a significant amount of such income (be it $250K or $1M or whatever), and a graduated rate that mirrors the regular income tax system for the remainder.

To offset the concerns that a lot of fiscal conservatives would have about changing the taxation on investments, I think the left should make consessions in regards to the corporate income tax rate, which I think should be lower than what it is in order to be more inline with the average for other OECD countries. At a minimum, I think there should be a reduction in the business tax rate for repatriated income so that businesses that have money off shore could bring that money home at a lower tax rate than the current 35%, in exchange for some sort of focus on domestic hiring.

Ok, off my soap box.

[larig]

Another interesting article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/us/politics/romneys-tax-returns-show-21-6-million-income-in-10.html?_r=1&hp

Graph showing candidates' tax return numbers:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/24/us/politics/the-candidates-tax-returns.html

I've never believed in the double taxation argument used by capital gain tax proponents. I too get to pay double taxes on my wages and I do it (real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc.) It is not an accident that the "double taxation" on investments gets preferential treatment in the tax code.

Love how Krugman can always break it down:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/opinion/krugman-taxes-at-the-top.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
:yeahthat:

[wellyes]

Graph showing candidates' tax return numbers:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...x-returns.html (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/24/us/politics/the-candidates-tax-returns.html)

You know what surprised me about that? Charitable donations.
Obama, who made $1.7M, gave a little under 15%
Romney, who made $20.6M, gave a little over 12%
Gingrich, with an income of over $3M, gave less than 3%.

What the heck Newt? Give a little.

[marymoo86]

Another interesting article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/us/politics/romneys-tax-returns-show-21-6-million-income-in-10.html?_r=1&hp

Graph showing candidates' tax return numbers:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/01/24/us/politics/the-candidates-tax-returns.html

I've never believed in the double taxation argument used by capital gain tax proponents. I too get to pay double taxes on my wages and I do it (real estate taxes, sales taxes, etc.) It is not an accident that the "double taxation" on investments gets preferential treatment in the tax code.o

Love how Krugman can always break it down:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/opinion/krugman-taxes-at-the-top.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

The differnce is that the double taxation discourages investment in the business. The business shares are double taxed. There is also the inflation argument. Once you factor that in your cap gains rate is really higher. A fed analysis showed actual tax rate on Dow Jones investments between '72-'92 to be 233% due cap gains taxes + inflation

[mommylamb]

The differnce is that the double taxation discourages investment in the business. The business shares are double taxed. There is also the inflation argument. Once you factor that in your cap gains rate is really higher. A fed analysis showed actual tax rate on Dow Jones investments between '72-'92 to be 233% due cap gains taxes + inflation


The double taxation argument refers to the fact that corporate profit is taxed by the corporate income tax and then dividend/capital gains income for shareholders is also taxed at the 15% level. It is vague to simply say that double taxation in and of itself discourages investment in businesses. And arivechi is right that there are all sorts of double taxation that go on. Does the fact that you paid income tax mean that you are discouraged from buying property because the property will also face property tax? That's a double taxation. To follow your logic that double taxation discourages investment, it would seem that no one would ever purchase anything if they first had to pay income tax.

And I would argue that if you were to reduce the corporate income tax, to an extent you could get around the double taxation argument. Though that's kind of beside the point, and not really relevant to why I think corporate income tax rates should be reduced.

I'm not sure what the inflation factor to which you are referring is. Link?

[MissyAg94]

Our tax code needs a desperate overhaul. I would like for the government to stop trying to manipulate our behavior through the tax code. Let's tax all income at a flat rate and elect politicians who will be better stewards of OUR money. And our corporate tax rate is entirely too high. We need to lower it so that our country can be competitive in attracting investment in this country.

And if you are paying 25% of your $250,000 income in taxes, get a new accountant. :wink2:

[arivecchi]

What is interesting is that there seems to be no relation between lower capital gains taxes and investment levels. I must admit it is a convenient rationalization though.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/do-low-taxes-on-capital-gains-spur-growth-not-necessarily/2012/01/19/gIQAJZ4yAQ_blog.html

[tribe pride]

You know what surprised me about that? Charitable donations.
Obama, who made $1.7M, gave a little under 15%
Romney, who made $20.6M, gave a little over 12%
Gingrich, with an income of over $3M, gave less than 3%.

What the heck Newt? Give a little.


Seriously. But if you think that's bad, prior to running for VP in 2008, the Bidens only gave 0.3%. At that point the Obamas gave 5.7%, and in 2000 gave only 1%. And I think I read that Dick Cheney and Al Gore were about the same. Sadly, I think this is probably typical for most politicians. And most Americans.

[marymoo86]

The double taxation argument refers to the fact that corporate profit is taxed by the corporate income tax and then dividend/capital gains income for shareholders is also taxed at the 15% level. It is vague to simply say that double taxation in and of itself discourages investment in businesses. And arivechi is right that there are all sorts of double taxation that go on. Does the fact that you paid income tax mean that you are discouraged from buying property because the property will also face property tax? That's a double taxation. To follow your logic that double taxation discourages investment, it would seem that no one would ever purchase anything if they first had to pay income tax.

And I would argue that if you were to reduce the corporate income tax, to an extent you could get around the double taxation argument. Though that's kind of beside the point, and not really relevant to why I think corporate income tax rates should be reduced.

I'm not sure what the inflation factor to which you are referring is. Link?

Can't link at moment. Was a statement by Wayne Agnell Gov of Fed before the JEC in 1993.

You are equating double taxation incorrectly. Cap gains taxes are the same tax on corp income. Not investor. It increases a companys cost of capital.

[crayonblue]

Seriously. But if you think that's bad, prior to running for VP in 2008, the Bidens only gave 0.3%. At that point the Obamas gave 5.7%, and in 2000 gave only 1%. And I think I read that Dick Cheney and Al Gore were about the same. Sadly, I think this is probably typical for most politicians. And most Americans.

Ridiculous. Isn't it something like Americans give 1-4% of their incomes on average? Explains why when I talk about R.G. LeTourneau (founder of the college DH and I went to) and Francis Chan (pastor/author in CA) giving away 90% and how cool I think that is, I get looked at like I have 4 heads.

[mommylamb]

You are equating double taxation incorrectly. Cap gains taxes are the same tax on corp income. Not investor. It increases a companys cost of capital.


Maybe you're typing on a phone, but I don't even know what this means.

Corporate income tax and capital gains tax are two different things. One is the tax corporations pay on their profits and the other is tax investors (or corporations when acting as investors) pay on their investment gains.

Double taxation does refer to the concept that certain monies are taxed twice. For example, it is often used in reference to dividends that shareholders receive because the income is first taxed at the corporate level and then taxed again when provided to shareholders as dividends. I was just trying to explain what double taxation is. I'm not sure what you think I was equating double taxation to.

[AnnieW625]

Ridiculous. Isn't it something like Americans give 1-4% of their incomes on average? Explains why when I talk about R.G. LeTourneau (founder of the college DH and I went to) and Francis Chan (pastor/author in CA) giving away 90% and how cool I think that is, I get looked at like I have 4 heads.

I would love to be able to do that, but I don't have the disposable income to do so. We are in the 1% to 4% of income donors too. We do what we can.

[marymoo86]

Maybe you're typing on a phone, but I don't even know what this means.

Corporate income tax and capital gains tax are two different things. One is the tax corporations pay on their profits and the other is tax investors (or corporations when acting as investors) pay on their investment gains.

Double taxation does refer to the concept that certain monies are taxed twice. For example, it is often used in reference to dividends that shareholders receive because the income is first taxed at the corporate level and then taxed again when provided to shareholders as dividends. I was just trying to explain what double taxation is. I'm not sure what you think I was equating double taxation to.

This is not the acctg definition. cost of capital has two layers - corp tax layer and a 2 part layer consisting of corp income distributed as dividends AND cap gains tax on stock appreciation when a corp does not distribute earnings as through dividends. This is the meaning of double taxation in re: dividends.

[crayonblue]

I would love to be able to do that, but I don't have the disposable income to do so. We are in the 1% to 4% of income donors too. We do what we can.

Neither does Chan. That's what I think is so awesome. He chose a lifestyle that enabled him to give away that percentage. Chan didn't take a salary from his church in Simi Valley and gave away 90% of his $500K book royalties. That doesn't leave much to support a wife and 4 kids, especially in CA! LeTourneau never changed his lifestyle once he started making lots of money. He just gave it all away.

Everybody gets to choose how they live and how much they give away. We don't give away 90%, that's for sure! But, both of these men could have also said that they didn't have the disposable income to live that way if they hadn't chosen lifestyles that enabled it.

Not trying to make you feel bad AT ALL Annie! I just hear this a lot and wanted to point out that the people I was referencing could have said the same thing but made different choices.

ETA: Oh and I totally get what you are saying. Even with Chan making $500K in royalties, obviously, he can give away 90% and still survive. If he was making $100K and giving away 90%, well, that would be interesting!

[arivecchi]

This is not the acctg definition. cost of capital has two layers - corp tax layer and a 2 part layer consisting of corp income distributed as dividends AND cap gains tax on stock appreciation when a corp does not distribute earnings as through dividends. This is the meaning of double taxation in re: dividends.I'm not exactly following, but I agree with mommylamb. When people discuss double taxation they typically refer to income that is taxed at the corporate or personal federal level and then taxed "again" in the form of dividends, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes, etc. That is how we discussed it in my corporate tax classes in law school and that is what is normally referred to as "double taxation" in the press.

ETA: http://blackslawdictionary.org/double-taxation/

[wellyes]

Even with Chan making $500K in royalties, obviously, he can give away 90% and still survive. If he was making $100K and giving away 90%, well, that would be interesting!

I get what you're saying. I would not choose to live for $50k with 4 kids in Los Angeles. His choice to prioritize benevolence is admirable, for sure. (I myself am in the less than 10% club this year, so I'm not one to preach).

[kellij]

I'm not exactly following, but I agree with mommylamb. When people discuss double taxation they typically refer to income that is taxed at the corporate or personal federal level and then taxed "again" in the form of dividends, capital gains taxes, estate taxes, sales taxes, etc. That is how we discussed it in my corporate tax classes in law school and that is what is normally referred to as "double taxation" in the press.

ETA: http://blackslawdictionary.org/double-taxation/

Agreed. In my experience, it seems that the issue of double taxation comes up more frequently when you're talking about the choice of entity for a company. A drawback to a corporate form is that you are "double taxed" in comparison to an LLC where there are not taxes at the entity level and only at the shareholder level.

What I always find fascinating, that no one has mentioned yet, is the estate tax. People seem to get up in arms about having an estate tax, yet this year the exemption is $5.12 MILLION per person! So a couple could die and have 10.24 million pass to children with zero estate tax, assuming the only estate planning they did was to have at least 5.12 in each of the their names. This obviously affects a teeny tiny percent of Americans, yet people freak out about thinking they might owe estate tax at their death.

I also agree with the inequity of treating people who make $250,000, with a family of five, the same as people who make millions off of investments.

[marymoo86]

I get what you're saying. I would not choose to live for $50k with 4 kids in Los Angeles. His choice to prioritize benevolence is admirable, for sure. (I myself am in the less than 10% club this year, so I'm not one to preach).

sorry for lack of typing - was on my phone but now constrained by dd:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CapitalGainsTaxes.html

"One other peculiar aspect of the capital gains tax has made many economists conclude that it is economically inefficient: it is a form of double taxation on capital formation. Economists Victor Canto and Harvey Hirschorn explained:

A government can choose to tax either the value of an asset or its yield, but it should not tax both. Capital gains are literally the appreciation in the value of an existing asset. Any appreciation reflects merely an increase in the after-tax rate of return on the asset. The taxes implicit in the asset’s after-tax earnings are already fully reflected in the asset’s price or change in price. Any additional tax is strictly double taxation.6"

and this piece:

Economists agree that the double taxation of dividends increases the cost of capital.
Corporate earnings are subjected to two levels of tax: one at the corporate level and one at the
shareholder level. The cost of capital comes from the effect of the two layers of tax on corporate
earnings. The first layer is the corporate level with a maximum rate of 35 percent. The second
layer consists of two parts. The first is the taxation of corporate income distributed as dividends,
which is taxed at a maximum rate of 15 percent. The second part is the capital gains tax paid on
the appreciation of stock when the corporation does not distribute its earnings through dividends.
Under the new law, the capital gains rate on stocks is reduced from a maximum of 20 percent to
a maximum of 15 percent.
http://www.newaccountantusa.com/newsFeat/wealthManagement/TaxPaperDividends.pdf

[secchick]

I also agree with the inequity of treating people who make $250,000, with a family of five, the same as people who make millions off of investments.

Or how about the inequity of treating the same family earning $250,000 with a single individual earning $200,000 and then calling all of them "millionaires and billionaires" and telling them they are not paying their fair share.

[kellij]

Or how about the inequity of treating the same family earning $250,000 with a single individual earning $200,000 and then calling all of them "millionaires and billionaires" and telling them they are not paying their fair share.

Right. My husband and I are both lawyers, but there really is no point to me working because by the time you figure in all of the costs of me working - mainly tax, it makes the amount I would make pitiful.

[KrisM]

changed my mind

[larig]

sorry for lack of typing - was on my phone but now constrained by dd:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CapitalGainsTaxes.html

"One other peculiar aspect of the capital gains tax has made many economists conclude that it is economically inefficient: it is a form of double taxation on capital formation. Economists Victor Canto and Harvey Hirschorn explained:

A government can choose to tax either the value of an asset or its yield, but it should not tax both. Capital gains are literally the appreciation in the value of an existing asset. Any appreciation reflects merely an increase in the after-tax rate of return on the asset. The taxes implicit in the asset’s after-tax earnings are already fully reflected in the asset’s price or change in price. Any additional tax is strictly double taxation.6"

But, as PP pointed out, the benefits of being a corporation (limited liability, etc) come with a cost--shareholders get taxed and so does the corporation itself. As LLCs they could avoid that, but they'd not have the benefits...

[mommylamb]

This is not the acctg definition. cost of capital has two layers - corp tax layer and a 2 part layer consisting of corp income distributed as dividends AND cap gains tax on stock appreciation when a corp does not distribute earnings as through dividends. This is the meaning of double taxation in re: dividends.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_taxation

[Kindra178]

Or how about the inequity of treating the same family earning $250,000 with a single individual earning $200,000 and then calling all of them "millionaires and billionaires" and telling them they are not paying their fair share.

Not sure I would understand. A single individual making 200k a year, even in San Fran, Chicago or LA is still an excellent salary. Maybe not a millionaire, but that person will most likely have saved a million fairly soon.

[marymoo86]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_taxation


See above

"One other peculiar aspect of the capital gains tax has made many economists conclude that it is economically inefficient: it is a form of double taxation on capital formation."

It's pretty insulting for you to link Wikipedia not sure what you are trying to imply there., when I am providing evidence from economic journal.

[marymoo86]

But, as PP pointed out, the benefits of being a corporation (limited liability, etc) come with a cost--shareholders get taxed and so does the corporation itself. As LLCs they could avoid that, but they'd not have the benefits...

That isn't what econlib is saying

[larig]

That isn't what econlib is saying

arivechci originally brought up the double taxation, I believe. Her framing of it is what I'm using, which is the same as what you will find in wikipedia and what is most relevant to the discussion here, since we are talking about an individual (romney's) tax returns. Double taxation in this sense is exactly as arivecchi and mommy lamb and kindra178 (I think, ETA: no, it was kellij) framed it and how those who support doing away with capital gains taxes on individuals (ETA following) do so. It is touted as an incentive to get people to invest to keep the tax on those gains low. What econlib is talking about may be another form of what someone considers a double taxation on corporations, but not necessary what I'm ready to tackle in this discussion.

[kellij]

Not sure I would understand. A single individual making 200k a year, even in San Fran, Chicago or LA is still an excellent salary. Maybe not a millionaire, but that person will most likely have saved a million fairly soon.

I think she's saying that by the time you make $250,000, take out federal taxes, state taxes, FICU and FUTA, you typically get about half your income, but you are also phased out of many tax benefits because you made $250. If you have a family and especially in the places you mentioned, that doesn't go nearly as far as someone who makes million(s), but you are treated the same in terms of tax rates and tax benefits. Additionally, you can't forget about the Alternative Minimum Tax. If you manage to get your deductions high enough then you have to pay extra tax, to make sure you're paying at least a minimum amount, which usually isn't very minimum.

[mommylamb]

See above

"One other peculiar aspect of the capital gains tax has made many economists conclude that it is economically inefficient: it is a form of double taxation on capital formation."

It's pretty insulting for you to link Wikipedia not sure what you are trying to imply there., when I am providing evidence from economic journal.


We were discussing the definition of the term double taxation. I think Wikipedia often does a pretty good job of breaking things down so that they're understandable, that's all. And the definition says:

The term 'double taxation' is additionally used, particularly in the USA, to refer to the fact that Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation) profits are taxed and the shareholders of the corporation are (usually) subject to further personal taxation when they receive dividends or distributions of those profits.

Which is exactly what I said it meant. You told me that I had the wrong definition, or at least that is how I interpreted what you said when you told me I was "equating double taxation incorrectly". Honestly, that doesn't make any sense to me at all, so maybe you meant something entirely different?

I linked Wikipedia for the definition, but you can get the same sort of definition from any number of sources. You can be offended if you want. It's just the common usage of the term, that's all. You can't expect me to sit back and have you tell me that the sky is orange and not point out that it's actually blue.

[marymoo86]

We were discussing the definition of the term double taxation. I think Wikipedia often does a pretty good job of breaking things down so that they're understandable, that's all. And the definition says:

The term 'double taxation' is additionally used, particularly in the USA, to refer to the fact that Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation) profits are taxed and the shareholders of the corporation are (usually) subject to further personal taxation when they receive dividends or distributions of those profits.

Which is exactly what I said it meant. You told me that I had the wrong definition, or at least that is how I interpreted what you said when you told me I was "equating double taxation incorrectly". Honestly, that doesn't make any sense to me at all, so maybe you meant something entirely different?

I linked Wikipedia for the definition, but you can get the same sort of definition from any number of sources. You can be offended if you want. It's just the common usage of the term, that's all. You can't expect me to sit back and have you tell me that the sky is orange and not point out that it's actually blue.

This is what double taxation is in terms of dividends and capital gain a bit more nuanced that a simple wiki definition...

The law taxes corporations as if they were separate beings from the shareholders who own them and then levies a separate tax on shareholder payouts and gains. This double taxation brings the effective tax rate on investment income to as much as 44.75%

It is not a double tax on ordinary income as it has been argued here. Apples and oranges. It is not the same as me getting my after tax paycheck and then getting taxed on things I choose to purchase. A more appropriate comparison is double taxation of after tax income and tax on interest from savings accounts funded with the aftertax income.

[larig]

This is what double taxation is in terms of dividends and capital gain a bit more nuanced that a simple wiki definition...

The law taxes corporations as if they were separate beings from the shareholders who own them and then levies a separate tax on shareholder payouts and gains. This double taxation brings the effective tax rate on investment income to as much as 44.75%

It is not a double tax on ordinary income as it has been argued here. Apples and oranges. It is not the same as me getting my after tax paycheck and then getting taxed on things I choose to purchase.

Again, double taxation can refer to multiple things, look at wikipedia (I'd be surprised you wouldn't at least agree to use them as a standard of sorts) and see the MANY types of double taxation they discuss--the most common was paying taxes in TWO countries, not as you described according to the wiki. You're talking about a different form of double taxation than we are, plain and simple.

[BabyBearsMom]

Again, double taxation can refer to multiple things, look at wikipedia (I'd be surprised you wouldn't at least agree to use them as a standard of sorts) and see the MANY types of double taxation they discuss--the most common was paying taxes in TWO countries, not as you described according to the wiki. You're talking about a different form of double taxation than we are, plain and simple.

ITA. I am a CPA and just for fun I checked the definitions from Wikipedia to my Advanced Concepts in Taxation text book from college. The Wikipedia definition is spot on. I also checked with a friend of mine who is a Director of Tax at a Big 4 Public Accounting Firm (he is responsible for the tax returns of several Fortune 500 companies) and he confirmed that the wikipedia definition is in fact accurate.

[sntm]

Not sure I would understand. A single individual making 200k a year, even in San Fran, Chicago or LA is still an excellent salary. Maybe not a millionaire, but that person will most likely have saved a million fairly soon.

Not if they are paying thousands a month in rent, thousands a month in childcare, hundreds in parking, and thousands in professional school loans... Not saying they are struggling, but it doesn't go nearly as far.

[crl]

Not if they are paying thousands a month in rent, thousands a month in childcare, hundreds in parking, and thousands in professional school loans... Not saying they are struggling, but it doesn't go nearly as far.

:yeahthat:
I think it is very hard to understand how much higher the cost of living is in San Francisco and (I assume) New York. We came here from DC and I am still stunned at how expensive it is to live here. Rent on a decent, but small and dated, four bedroom townhouse is over 3k a month. Gas routinely costs around $4 per gallon. Groceries are higher (my mother commented that one particular item she happened to know the price on was double the cost of the same thing in the mid-west). Childcare is higher. Sales tax is higher. There is no Target or Walmart in the city so you either pay the mark-up at Walgreens or the like or pay gas to get out of the city or pay the mark-up to buy online. It never ends. Every single thing is more expensive here.

Catherine

[mommylamb]

ITA. I am a CPA and just for fun I checked the definitions from Wikipedia to my Advanced Concepts in Taxation text book from college. The Wikipedia definition is spot on. I also checked with a friend of mine who is a Director of Tax at a Big 4 Public Accounting Firm (he is responsible for the tax returns of several Fortune 500 companies) and he confirmed that the wikipedia definition is in fact accurate.


Thank you. Sometimes a simple Wikipedia definition will do just fine. No need to make things more complex than that.

[Kindra178]

Not if they are paying thousands a month in rent, thousands a month in childcare, hundreds in parking, and thousands in professional school loans... Not saying they are struggling, but it doesn't go nearly as far.

Completely and wholly agree. I thought the person I was responding was complaining about a taxes for a single person (I was thinking no SO and NO kids). Agreed completely that $200k with kids in a high col area is not easy at all.

[arivecchi]

The law taxes corporations as if they were separate beings from the shareholders who own them and then levies a separate tax on shareholder payouts and gains. This double taxation brings the effective tax rate on investment income to as much as 44.75%.Double taxation comes in many shapes and forms. I'm not sure why corporate income should be subject to preferential treatment while double taxation on ordinary wages is deemed acceptable?

The fact is that corporations are separate legal entities. Shareholders are not liable for the losses and liabilities of the corporation, but they do have to pay taxes on the income earned from the corporation. That is the trade-off they get for choosing to have the corporation be a separate legal entity. They are insulated from the losses but have to pay for the gains.

I do believe that we want to encourage corporate investment and entrepreneurship, but not to the point where corporations and capital holders get to exploit the tax code and pay a low percentage of their income in taxes (a la Romney and GE), while the average joe - who does not have the wherewithal to place assets in certain categories and cannot hire teams of accountants and corporate tax lawyers to diminish taxable income - gets to pay his or her full tax burden.

The tax code and its effects are hotly debated within economist, legal and political circles and experts still debate whether the capital gains tax does have beneficial effects on investment and society. The question is whether the American public wants to elevate the preferential tax ride another notch or whether it has had enough and now wants the wealthy and corporate America to bear more of a tax burden.

Unfortunately for Romney, he gets to be the poster boy for the debate. I honestly would not even run if I knew this was coming! He seems to have been very poorly prepared for the onslaught.

[wellyes]

Unfortunately for Romney, he gets to be the poster boy for the debate. I honestly would not even run if I knew this was coming! He seems to have been very poorly prepared for the onslaught.

He can console himself by rolling around in big piles of money. (Not hatin' on Romney here. Just jealous!)

[arivecchi]

he can console himself by rolling around in big piles of money. (not hatin' on romney here. Just jealous!):rotflmao:

[kara97210]

Unfortunately for Romney, he gets to be the poster boy for the debate. I honestly would not even run if I knew this was coming! He seems to have been very poorly prepared for the onslaught.

That’s what surprised me, he has basically been running for office for 6 years and his campaign seemed to be caught flat footed on this. I would think they would have had these documents (at least the 2010 and earlier returns) out months ago and the talking points ready.

[AngB]

That’s what surprised me, he has basically been running for office for 6 years and his campaign seemed to be caught flat footed on this. I would think they would have had these documents (at least the 2010 and earlier returns) out months ago and the talking points ready.

Yeah, their timing has been horrible. It would have been smarter I think to just have released them a few months ago so it would be Old News by primary season. (Or did they really think he could win the nomination without releasing them at all? Seems that way.)

[elbenn]

Yeah, their timing has been horrible. It would have been smarter I think to just have released them a few months ago so it would be Old News by primary season. (Or did they really think he could win the nomination without releasing them at all? Seems that way.)

I think traditionally candidates have not had to release them this early. They have released the financial disclosure forms which provide great detail about each candidate's assets and wealth so people already knew what Romney is worth. George W. Bush never released all of his tax forms (just part of them). Gingrich just released his last week. I think Gingrich is the one stirring the pot on these taxes and the media seized the story. Gingrich is also the one who stirred the pot on Bain capital questioning capitalism. I am not a fan of Gingrich at all. I wish people would stop dinging Romney for his taxes (not people on this board, just people in general)--he paid his taxes and everything is above board. He is a good candidate with a good record and how much he pays in taxes, so long as he pays what he owes, is irrelevant to his candidacy.

[wellyes]

I think Gingrich is the one stirring the pot on these taxes and the media seized the story. Gingrich is also the one who stirred the pot on Bain capital questioning capitalism.I agree, and it is extremely puzzling. Why would he want to:
1. slam someone for successfully getting rich, and making lots of money for shareholders, in equities? That's pretty much exactly the goal of capitalism.
2. make an issue of the wealth and low tax rate of his opponent, since his goal as president would be to encourage wealth and lower the tax rate?? Or in this case, remove all taxes since Romney's entire income is capital gains.


The only explanation I can think of is that he thinks any negative association with his opponent is good for him, regardless of whether or not he agrees the negative opinions. But that's craven, even for Newt. So I don't get it.

[wildfire]

The way I see it is...if Romney can make that much wealth on his investments, he's obviously a savvy business man. What could he do with the economy and investments into this country? Maybe we could stop making bad investments like Solyndra and other companies that went bankrupt or spending money that helps companies in other countries. Let's focus on getting back on our feet first.

[MissyAg94]

A bit of a spin-off but what does "fair share" mean to you? We hear this often. "The rich should pay their fair share." So what is a fair share?

[mommylamb]

The way I see it is...if Romney can make that much wealth on his investments, he's obviously a savvy business man. What could he do with the economy and investments into this country? Maybe we could stop making bad investments like Solyndra and other companies that went bankrupt or spending money that helps companies in other countries. Let's focus on getting back on our feet first.

I don't think there's any question that he's a good business man. I do think that there's a difference between being successful in the private sector and being good at governance, though I'm sure that some of it crosses over. Either way, I don't think Romney is terrible. He's not my choice, but I won't go running for the hinterlands if he becomes the next president.

I do want to point out that loan guarantees are part and parcel of what the federal government does, and it is inherent that risk is involved otherwise there would be no need for a loan guarantee. Solyndra is hardly the first to fail, and for all those that fail, many others succeed.

And recognizing the interdependence of our economy on others throughout the world is just living in reality. We can't just focus in on ourselves in some sort of protectionist doctrine. That's obviously just my opinion.


A bit of a spin-off but what does "fair share" mean to you? We hear this often. "The rich should pay their fair share." So what is a fair share?

I think that's a good question, and one that would be different for pretty much everyone. I think it's easy to recognize something as "unfair" but harder to say what is "fair". So long as the question is asked in fairness, I'm happy to answer ;).

For me, a progressive income tax is fair with a gradation that allows for adequate funding of the services that I think our government should provide.

I think that it's fine to treat investment income different to a degree, but that once a certain threshold is met, it should be taxed at a level that is more inline with wage income.

I think there should be a lower corporate income tax so that the U.S. can be more competitive with other OECD countries for jobs and to encourage repatriation of oversees profits from U.S. companies.

I think there should be limits on certain deductions, including the mortgage interest tax and charitable deductions of which I take advantage.

I think a flat tax is inherently unfair. I'd rather have a higher income tax and no sales tax (again, supporting a progressive tax structure).

I think the tax system has become more complex that it needs to be, but that simplifying the tax code for simplicity's sake is naive, dangerous and counterproductive.

I think that wealth has become more and more skewed in this country in recent decades, and that points to an inherent unfairness in the tax code.

[wellyes]

A bit of a spin-off but what does "fair share" mean to you? We hear this often. "The rich should pay their fair share." So what is a fair share?
Like most Americans, I believe in a progressive taxation system. With increased wealth comes increased social responsibility. Which is why the Romney tax revelations were upsetting to so many people.

When I say "increased wealth" I don't (just) mean the wealthy, I mean people like me who have some disposable income and options in life. My dad works as a tax consultant in a blighted neighborhood - lots of unemployment, lots of meth, lots of crime. Not many people functionally literate enough to fill out a 1040EZ tax form. Increasing the tax burden on those people by a flat tax or regressive system like consumption taxes would not do anyone any good, trust me. The government gives them tax credits and other incentives to help keep them afloat, not due to 'fairness' but because extreme income inequality is dangerous. Socially, poverty is exponentially better than dire poverty in terms of keeping kids fed and in school and out of jail rather than going down the downward spiral road of hunger, desperation, hopelessness, drugs, prostitution, larceny.

[arivecchi]

A bit of a spin-off but what does "fair share" mean to you? We hear this often. "The rich should pay their fair share." So what is a fair share? I'm not a tax expert and the tax code has certainly achieved a level of byzantine complexity, but I think the Buffett rule is a good start. Anyone earning above $1mm in taxable income should be able to afford at least 30% in taxes. We earn much less and have a pretty high tax rate because we are salaried workers and do not qualify for many exemptions, so I think the likes of Romney can certainly afford a higher tax bill in the 30% range as well.

[kijip]

I agree, and it is extremely puzzling. Why would he want to:
1. slam someone for successfully getting rich, and making lots of money for shareholders, in equities? That's pretty much exactly the goal of capitalism.
2. make an issue of the wealth and low tax rate of his opponent, since his goal as president would be to encourage wealth and lower the tax rate?? Or in this case, remove all taxes since Romney's entire income is capital gains.


The only explanation I can think of is that he thinks any negative association with his opponent is good for him, regardless of whether or not he agrees the negative opinions. But that's craven, even for Newt. So I don't get it.

Newt has zero scruples. Zip zilch zero nada. He has shown time and time again that when he hits he likes to hit first and often and it is below the belt, brutal and with one goal in mind: winning. I have no idea how people have let Newt get this far.

[Kindra178]

Newt has zero scruples. Zip zilch zero nada. He has shown time and time again that when he hits he likes to hit first and often and it is below the belt, brutal and with one goal in mind: winning. I have no idea how people have let Newt get this far.

Although worse for the country in terms of the state of politics, I am rooting for Newt because Obama will have a better chance to beat Newt than Romney.

[kara97210]

He is a good candidate with a good record and how much he pays in taxes, so long as he pays what he owes, is irrelevant to his candidacy.

I'm really interested in this. I'm not a Republican, but my friends who are are really not excited about Romney as the candidate. And these are people who I would think would like an "establishment" candidate - doctors, lawyers, etc. For some reason Romney doesn't seem to excite them at all. We were at a dinner party a couple of weeks ago and this was a topic that caused a lot of discussion, mostly from Republicans lamenting the weak pool of candidates this cycle. Also from what I've seen in the press Romney is polling about where he did 4 years ago, in theory he should have picked up a lot of support in campaigning for the last 4 years, months of debates, etc.

It's probably a question for another thread, but why are so many Republicans indifferent about Romney as the candidate?

[kijip]

Although worse for the country in terms of the state of politics, I am rooting for Newt because Obama will have a better chance to beat Newt than Romney.

But Obama can lose. Less likely to lose to Newt but I would frankly sleep better at night (I think) with Romney in the White House than Newt. Obviously as a Democrat I don't want either but seriously, NEWT is significantly more dangerous.

[kara97210]

But Obama can lose. Less likely to lose to Newt but I would frankly sleep better at night (I think) with Romney in the White House than Newt. Obviously as a Democrat I don't want either but seriously, NEWT is significantly more dangerous.

Absolutely - Newt is a total wild card. I think a Romney presidency would be pretty calm, he seems like a good person who would try to do the right thing. Who knows what Gingrich is capable of. What he says about going into Iran makes me very uncomfortable. And generally I don't care about the private lives of candidates, but he is such hypocrite that I make an exception when it comes to him.

[elbenn]

I like Romney. I don't know why he doesn't excite Republicans more. He earned his wealth. He is smart, savvy, and truly seems to be a good family man with high morals. One problem when fighting Newt is that I think Mitt Romney is courteous to the core and is uncomfortable playing dirty politics. Newt is the opposite. He is pugnacious and self-righteous. At the last debate he turned the tables any time that Mitt Romney called him out on his "consulting" services by called Mitt dishonest.

I don't understand how Newt is surging in the polls. I think part of the reason is that Obama's team and others for Obama are doing what they can to keep Mitt Romney down. For example, the public employee union of Florida is spending $1 M on anti-Romney ads. Why aren't they putting out anti-Gingrich ads? I am guessing because they would prefer to have Obama run against Gingrich. I saw an ad that the White House put out about Gingrich--a supposedly anti-Gingrich ad and it was so favorable (to someone in the tea party not to Obama's supporters) that Gingrich could run the ad himself. Of course, there are tons of very unfavorable things you could put in an ad against Gingrich, but none of those were in this particular ad.

[wellyes]

It's probably a question for another thread, but why are so many Republicans indifferent about Romney as the candidate?

My guess? A bunch of left-leaning posters here say they wouldn't mind him. That is usually not good news for a Republican primary candidate.

[tribe pride]

But Obama can lose. Less likely to lose to Newt but I would frankly sleep better at night (I think) with Romney in the White House than Newt. Obviously as a Democrat I don't want either but seriously, NEWT is significantly more dangerous.

:yeahthat: I tend to vote Republican, but there is NO way I would vote for Gingrich if he becomes the nominee. He is way too volatile, and I think just relishes power and control. If he wins Florida next week, it will be very interesting to see how the GOP establishment reacts; none of them want Gingrich as the nominee, either.

[elbenn]

My guess? A bunch of left-leaning posters here say they wouldn't mind him. That is usually not good news for a Republican primary candidate.

Yes! I think he appeals to moderates, which is why he might have a good chance in a general election but is having so much difficulty in the primaries.

I just saw a clip of a Nancy Pelosi interview that says she has dirt on Newt Gingrich that would stop him from ever being elected president but she won't say what it is! She says if the Republicans want to nominate him, go ahead. I hope Gingrich isn't the nominee.

[arivecchi]

My guess? A bunch of left-leaning posters here say they wouldn't mind him. That is usually not good news for a Republican primary candidate.
:yeahthat:

I actually would not mind him too much as president. He seems reasonable though far too business friendly for my taste.

[boolady]

Yes! I think he appeals to moderates, which is why he might have a good chance in a general election but is having so much difficulty in the primaries.

And, this is why the Republican party, in its present form, makes absolutely no sense to me. They've got a strong candidate who doesn't completely offend many middle-of-the-road Democrats, and perhaps even some more liberal Democrats who have been disappointed by Obama. He should be winning every primary by double digits.

I can understand people not wanting to back down from what they believe in, but Romney is still a conservative, and it would be a Republican in the White House. If I was a Republican, my first priority would be a Republican winning the election, end of story. You've got to take baby steps, and you've got to take what you can get. I don't expect anyone to give up their personal beliefs or principles, but at the end of the day, the fact remains that far more Americans are middle-of-the-road than extreme left or extreme right, so why not lift up the candidate who has that kind of appeal? At that point, if he could win the general election, you've got the platform for modern day conservatism.

[sntm]

I vote Republican, though I'm definitely moderate (and left-leaning compared to my mother!). I wish I could like Romney, because on whole he isn't bad, but something about the way he has subtly changed his stance on all kinds of things (mostly social but some economic) while denying he has changed his mind really rubs me the wrong way. He's doing it to be electable among the Tea Party contingent, but I think it's the wrong thing to do and I think he knows it but is doing it anyway.

I think Gingrich would most likely be a disaster as he is very volatile and rarely sees the forest for the trees, but he occasionally has flashes of brilliance and he doesn't give me the same feeling that he is hiding something. I wouldn't vote for him, but I think he'd make an excellent adviser that someone could tell to go to h-e-double-hockey-sticks during all the intervening times between the good ideas.

I didn't follow it much in the beginning, but have a feeling that Huntsman would have been my best choice. As it is, I may (gasp!) vote Obama, whom I don't necessarily agree with on a lot of economic issues but I think is a man with a lot of personal integrity.

[boolady]

I didn't follow it much in the beginning, but have a feeling that Huntsman would have been my best choice.

Other than the fact that I don't know that he will ever get too dirty in terms of fighting it out, I can't figure out why Huntsman got so little support. I'm a Democrat, and there was a lot about him that I liked. I hated how the other candidates went after him for serving as ambassador to China in the Obama administraion; to me, that was a sign that he is willing to look past so much partisan nonsense and, as he said, put his country first. He and I part ways on gay marriage and abortion, but I wouldn't expect otherwise. He struck me, as you describe Obama, as a man of personal integrity despite what political differences I might have with him.

[cindys]

I am not a fan of anybody but I will say if Nancy Pelosi has some big "bombshell" she is threatening Newt with than just say it...

This is the 2nd time she has said she has "something" on him...

She bugs me.

Cindy
Mama to 3 boys...20, 5 & 3 :heartbeat::heartbeat::heartbeat:

[crayonblue]

I am not a fan of anybody but I will say if Nancy Pelosi has some big "bombshell" she is threatening Newt with than just say it...

This is the 2nd time she has said she has "something" on him...

She bugs me.

Cindy
Mama to 3 boys...20, 5 & 3 :heartbeat::heartbeat::heartbeat:

Me too! She acts like an elementary kid who threatens to tattle. Just say it if you have to and be done!

[Kindra178]

I am not a fan of anybody but I will say if Nancy Pelosi has some big "bombshell" she is threatening Newt with than just say it...

This is the 2nd time she has said she has "something" on him...

She bugs me.

Cindy
Mama to 3 boys...20, 5 & 3 :heartbeat::heartbeat::heartbeat:

She's retracted her position somewhat:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71941.html

[secchick]

The problem with Romney was perfectly described by Huntsman: that he is a "perfectly lubricated weather vane on the important issues of the day". Is it any surprise that a candidate who signed into effect the predecessor to the legislation most despised by Republicans and has stood on multiple sides of many major issues (and then denies that he has ever changed his position) has problems with conservative primary voters? I fundamentally mistrust Romney, whether it be on his stance on abortion or anything else. He also has shown a tendency to lie about incredibly stupid things (like his gun ownership and hunting background).

[mommylamb]

I think a lot of us-- regardless of party-- aren't overly thrilled about the options. Which, I guess is often the case in elections. I really do not know any Republicans who really like Newt. Most of the Rs I know have said that they would either stay home or vote write in (or even for Obama) were Newt to be the nominee. A lot of them aren't big Romney fans either-- mostly because they think he's a flip flopper and not an exciting candidate. I think they think he's not trustworthy.

Strangely, it's the fact that Romney seems to be a "whichever way the wind is blowing" candidate, that makes me more comfortable with him. I kind of feel like he might be pragmatic in his decision making. Maybe that's wishful thinking. Regardless, I won't be voting for him.

As for Huntsman, I would have felt more comfortable with him too, even though I disagree with a lot of his stances. I also think he's got that sort of pragmatism that I think is important.

I'm not super excited about Obama either to be honest. Overall, I agree with a lot of what he's done, but he's a flawed candidate and flawed leader too, and there are a lot of things I wish he had done differently. Though, to a large extent I blame Congress for that (and I blame both sides of the aisle in Congress). Overall, I'd just like to see more moderates from both sides of the aisle in government in both branches.

[ellies mom]

I think Romney is the John McCain of this primary election. I liked him last time. I think he "sold his soul" to get the tea party vote this time. That said out of the available choices he is the only one that doesn't scare the crap out of me.

Personally, I think Huntsman was intriguing and I think he came out of this pretty good. His name got out there, he had no scandals, no flops and he ended up with the reputation as being "the sane one". I think if Obama wins reelection, there is going to be a huge shake up in the Republican party. I think the moderates and less rabidly conservative parts of the party are going to do their best to wrest back control and I think you will see Huntsman again. And maybe the party will be willing to come back to center some in the primaries because I can't imagine that the race to the fringe is working well for them.

As for Nancy Pelosi, if she actually has something, she would be better off keeping her mouth shut and saving it for the general election if he is nominated.

[cindys]

"As for Nancy Pelosi, if she actually has something, she would be better off keeping her mouth shut and saving it for the general election if he is nominated."

Maybe so but she still bugs me...

Cindy
Mama to 3 boys...20, 5 & 3

[wellyes]

The problem with Romney was perfectly described by Huntsman: that he is a "perfectly lubricated weather vane on the important issues of the day".

I get this position. It's something I've been trying to figure out for myself recently - which makes a better president, an ideologue or a pragmatist?

In theory, I want the person in the White House to have strong morals and stand up for what is right, even if it's unpopular. Like Truman's controversial choice to desegregate the armed forces. But in practice - in the modern presidency - I've come to think having a ideologue in the white house can be very dangerous. What is so awful about the ability to adapt and the desire to please the people you represent?

[mommylamb]

I think if Nancy Pelosi knows some secret, she's probably not the only one who does, and her party would be better served if someone else let the cat out of the bag and she stayed as far as possible from a TV camera.

[Ceepa]

The Republican pool is not exciting or inspiring, and there should be changes after this election. As far as this November I think we're looking at a 'vote for the best available' scenario.

[boolady]

I think if Nancy Pelosi knows some secret, she's probably not the only one who does, and her party would be better served if someone else let the cat out of the bag and she stayed as far as possible from a TV camera.

:yeahthat: Which leads me to ask...does anyone actually like Nancy Pelosi?

[Ceepa]

:yeahthat: Which leads me to ask...does anyone actually like Nancy Pelosi?

Nancy Pelosi.

[tribe pride]

Other than the fact that I don't know that he will ever get too dirty in terms of fighting it out, I can't figure out why Huntsman got so little support. I'm a Democrat, and there was a lot about him that I liked. I hated how the other candidates went after him for serving as ambassador to China in the Obama administraion; to me, that was a sign that he is willing to look past so much partisan nonsense and, as he said, put his country first. He and I part ways on gay marriage and abortion, but I wouldn't expect otherwise. He struck me, as you describe Obama, as a man of personal integrity despite what political differences I might have with him.

:yeahthat: I'm really hoping he decides to run next time around.

[boolady]

What is so awful about the ability to adapt and the desire to please the people you represent?

I think that, to a limited extent, being adaptable is good; however, I feel like I need to believe that if I vote or don't vote for someone based upon what they say they would do, I have to be able to have some measure of confidence that they will follow that course of action. Otherwise, I'd never really be confident that I could vote for someone's platform if that platform could always be shifting. I think the spirit of compromise, though, is, of course, always a good thing, which is why some flexibility is a positive.

[wildfire]

I think Huntsman is seen too much as a RINO to get the nomination. The impression is that he is almost a Democrat, he just needs to switch his party affiliation. I am a conservative and I like Romney, but for people that are THAT fed up with Obama they want a BIG change and I think that's where Newt appeals. It's kind of what Obama ran on - hope and change and being anti-Bush. Plus it's kind of the last man standing. First Perry was huge, then Cain, then Santorum. Santorum doesn't have the staying power or the money to really wage a full campaign but he's still hanging around, like Ron Paul. So enter Newt. He appeals to those who want a "true conservative" in the white house. Plus he has the passion, which is something that Romney isn't really showing. That "tell it like it is" attitude. I think Romney could overcome that with the right running mate if he could win the nomination, and personally I think he is the most electable and should get the nomination. I don't want to end up with a situation where we have a Tea Party candidate that will turn off the moderates and lose the election or someone who is SO staunchly set that they never compromise, like some of the freshman Republican congressmen who hold up even the bills that their own Speaker is asking them to sign. It really does nobody any good, Republican or Democrat to completely hinder the system. Instead of a middle road we get "my way or the highway", tricks and loopholes to get things done or block things from being done, and really an adversarial relationship.

I know that we disagree on how things should be done, but don't we ultimately want the same thing? A successful country? To pull out of this recession? If we can keep that in mind maybe we can get back to civil debate and discourse. But I'm not holding my breath, unfortuantely.

[wellyes]

:yeahthat: Which leads me to ask...does anyone actually like Nancy Pelosi?
HA! She does have a bit of a Cruella daVille vibe to her. But I don't mind her, every party needs its professional bulldogs.

Her daughter made a documentary about the Bush campaign that I enjoyed. It was about the press's relationship with candidates; it wasn't anti-Bush at all. Actually came across as funny and nice. He probably is funny and nice as a person, in real life.

[tribe pride]

HA! She does have a bit of a Cruella daVille vibe to her. But I don't mind her, every party needs its professional bulldogs.

Her daughter made a documentary about the Bush campaign that I enjoyed. It was about the press's relationship with candidates; it wasn't anti-Bush at all. Actually came across as funny and nice. He probably is funny and nice as a person, in real life.

Actually, I know someone who worked with him, and said that there are 2 big misconceptions of Bush Jr.
1. He is stupid.
2. He is nice.

[lablover]

Keep in mind the vast, vast majority of Americans pay less than 15% in federal income taxes. The headline that Romney paid a lesser % of tax than the "average American" is completely misleading. In 2009, 97% of Americans paid less than 15% in income taxes


I'm late to the thread and the topic has changed somewhat, but the accountant in me just wants to talk about the above. And for the record I TOTALLY agree that the tax code needs to be adjusted and I agree that multi-millionaires should be paying a lot more in taxes. But I hear people saying that they are in a particular tax bracket and it seems they are equating that to the actual percentage of taxes that they paid. In 2010 we were well into the 28% tax bracket based on income. DH started spouting off last night about us paying 28%, while Mitt Romney paid 13%. I told him we certainly did not pay 28% (because the tax rate is graduated so only a portion of our income was taxed at 28%), but I didn't know how much we did pay. I pulled out our tax return and calculated it (adjusted gross income divided by taxes paid) and we only paid 12.9% in 2010. We have investments, but did not report any capital gains in 2010 and our dividends were less than 2% of our income that year, so investments were not a major factor for us. Our taxable income was brought down by itemized deductions and exemptions (which I think are pretty typical for our area, probably even less because we luckily have a fairly small mortgage for our relatively high COL area). I can see how households with income in the upper $200,000s and above could get hosed, with phase outs of exemptions/deductions based on income level, but I think a lot of Americans are walking around thinking that the percentage of taxes that they pay is a lot higher than it actually is.

And again, I totally agree that the tax system is broken and that wealthier people should be paying a lot more in taxes.

[ellies mom]

I get this position. It's something I've been trying to figure out for myself recently - which makes a better president, an ideologue or a pragmatist? What is so awful about the ability to adapt and the desire to please the people you represent?

I think there is a difference between being a pragmatist, willing to give and take but still having a consistent viewpoint and being someone whose viewpoint shifts with the prevailing wind.

[ellies mom]

I think Huntsman is seen too much as a RINO to get the nomination. The impression is that he is almost a Democrat, he just needs to switch his party affiliation.

He definitely has that perception. My husband was saying the same thing, although he has been saying that about Romney for years. The thing is though, Huntsman is really a true conservative candidate. I think he is a lot more conservative than most moderates and progressives believe. But because he chose not to engage in the "more conservative than you" contest that this primary has become, most people aren't really aware of his viewpoints.

He is probably a lot more conservative than I really like but I'm still really impressed with him.

[elbenn]

I think there is a difference between being a pragmatist, willing to give and take but still having a consistent viewpoint and being someone whose viewpoint shifts with the prevailing wind.

But why is Romney considered such a flip flopper? As for the healthcare mandates, his position is that it's state choice and each state should do what's in their best interest. That's not a flip flop and it is also Ron Paul's position. As for his pro-life stance, he has a long record of being pro-life. He changed his position a long time ago--not just for the tea party. The pro-life movement should be thrilled that he changed his position--that is exactly what their goal is. He seems to have a pretty solid record that has been distorted by his opponents.

I also like Huntsman. He seemed like the intellectual candidate. I wonder if he had stayed in the race what his taxes would look like and what other candidates would be saying about him. I think his father is a billionaire.

[larig]

:yeahthat: Which leads me to ask...does anyone actually like Nancy Pelosi?

I love her. (larig ducks)

[mommylamb]

I love her. (larig ducks)


I like her better than Harry Reid... but not much, and that's not saying much...

[larig]

I like her better than Harry Reid... but not much, and that's not saying much...

oh, poor harry... He lacks charisma, which makes me wonder how he has been so successful politically.

I'm admittedly left of most people here, so that should explain my fondness for Nancy. (Her daughter, the filmmaker is very cool.) I love Debbie Wasserman Schultz even more. I think she would make a fantastic president. She can out-debate ANYONE.

[ast96]

I like Nancy Pelosi too.

I've watched most of the GOP debates, and my favorite was Huntsman. I think that Gingrich has come off as very smart in the debates, and Romney has come off as hot air (to me). That said, I would prefer Romney in office over Gingrich, of course. And I like that he has been... uh... "flexible" on his stances, because I think a POTUS has to be a POTUS to the whole country, not just one half of it. Flexibility is a plus to me. In that regard, I forgive Obama for not being the raging liberal he is accused of being, because I think he is trying to compromise, whether I like it or not. ;)

[larig]

I like Nancy Pelosi too.

I've watched most of the GOP debates, and my favorite was Huntsman. I think that Gingrich has come off as very smart in the debates, and Romney has come off as hot air (to me). That said, I would prefer Romney in office over Gingrich, of course. And I like that he has been... uh... "flexible" on his stances, because I think a POTUS has to be a POTUS to the whole country, not just one half of it. Flexibility is a plus to me. In that regard, I forgive Obama for not being the raging liberal he is accused of being, because I think he is trying to compromise, whether I like it or not. ;)

:applause: (glad there's another one of us out here!)

Gingrich scares the poo out of me. But, he is lightening fast on his feet and will say anything, it seems. I mean his line about the "Food Stamp President" was a HUGE dog whistle. I think, however that he comes across as smug quite often, which could be his downfall.

But, wait, isn't he not on VA's ballot? And possibly other states too?

[mommylamb]

He's not on the VA ballot. Neither is Santorum, I believe. I think it's just Romney and Paul here.

[larig]

He's not on the VA ballot. Neither is Santorum, I believe. I think it's just Romney and Paul here.

it looks like possibly Missouri and Ohio as well...off to confirm...
ETA:astounding...it's a wider problem (http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/289218/newt-gingrich-frontrunner-ballot-access-issues)

[boolady]

I'm admittedly left of most people here, so that should explain my fondness for Nancy. (Her daughter, the filmmaker is very cool.) I love Debbie Wasserman Schultz even more. I think she would make a fantastic president. She can out-debate ANYONE.

It's not Nancy Pelosi's politics that bother me, it's her style. She just grates on me, and, at times, I feel like it's the same old story--that to be a very successful female politician, you have to be abrasive and obnoxious. Maybe I'm wrong...I often am. :) I really like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and don't even think of her and Pelosi as the same.

[mommylamb]

I really like Steny Hoyer, and I would have liked to have seen him as Speaker when the Dems were the majority, which is probably part of my problem with Pelosi. I especially feel like he should have gotten the Minority Leader position at least after the 2010 election. I feel like her time was done and she should have stepped aside. I also think she's one of those big ego types, and sometimes puts herself above party, or at least talks herself into thinking that what's best for her party is also what's best for her. I do think she can be a strong leader, but she's too much of a red flag to the Republicans.

I agree about Wasserman Schultz though. I thought her speech when Giffords was leaving was very, very touching and sincere.

[wellyes]

It's not Nancy Pelosi's politics that bother me, it's her style. She just grates on me, and, at times, I feel like it's the same old story--that to be a very successful female politician, you have to be abrasive and obnoxious. Maybe I'm wrong...I often am. :) I really like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and don't even think of her and Pelosi as the same.


Well, Schultz is 25 years younger. She is Sarah Palin's age. Both of them had the benefit of walking down a path that blazed by women like Pelosi. Women who became successful in the 1970s (like Pelosi and Hillary Clinton) had to adopt more abrasive style than women who became successful in the 1990s.

[kijip]

I don't understand how Newt is surging in the polls. I think part of the reason is that Obama's team and others for Obama are doing what they can to keep Mitt Romney down. For example, the public employee union of Florida is spending $1 M on anti-Romney ads. Why aren't they putting out anti-Gingrich ads? I am guessing because they would prefer to have Obama run against Gingrich. I saw an ad that the White House put out about Gingrich--a supposedly anti-Gingrich ad and it was so favorable (to someone in the tea party not to Obama's supporters) that Gingrich could run the ad himself. Of course, there are tons of very unfavorable things you could put in an ad against Gingrich, but none of those were in this particular ad.

I think there are other reasons why Newt is surging- he is benefiting from the "anyone but Romney" push in the base of the GOP. The "as the TRUE conservatives, we won't accept the rino/country club establishment's candidate" push. And there is no one that can take that mantle except for Newt. Perry, Bachmann, Cain are gone. Ron Paul is a perennial loser. Rick Santorum is a train wreck and a joke. In a field like that, Gingrich easily rises up as the alternative to Romney. The GOP leadership is pushing Romney and the widening splitting faction of GOP does not want to accept that choice.

And he is downright brilliant and sounds good to very conservative people.

Also, Obama supporters have not incentive to attack anyone but Romney as Romney is widely seen as the only viable Republican who can win the general.

All the tea party is accomplishing if they squelch Romney is that they are making 2 terms of Obama far more likely.

As for disingenuous ads, those are common. I recall an ad where the Republican opponent to our junior Democratic Senator flat out encouraged the left to vote for the Green Party candidate. The goal was not to get more votes himself, it was to get fewer votes for his only viable opponent.

[gatorsmom]

I think there are other reasons why Newt is surging- he is benefiting from the "anyone but Romney" push in the base of the GOP. The "as the TRUE conservatives, we won't accept the rino/country club establishment's candidate" push. And there is no one that can take that mantle except for Newt. Perry, Bachmann, Cain are gone. Ron Paul is a perennial loser. Rick Santorum is a train wreck and a joke. In a field like that, Gingrich easily rises up as the alternative to Romney. The GOP leadership is pushing Romney and the widening splitting faction of GOP does not want to accept that choice.

And he is downright brilliant and sounds good to very conservative people.

Also, Obama supporters have not incentive to attack anyone but Romney as Romney is widely seen as the only viable Republican who can win the general.

All the tea party is accomplishing if they squelch Romney is that they are making 2 terms of Obama far more likely.

.

:yeahthat: What i don't understand is why the GOP would be MORE for Gingrich considering his numerous past discretions and less for Romney? From the outside, Romney looks like a faithful, loving husband and family man. He's been successful in business and is pro-business. Newt is a mess with his sordid history of affairs and changing religions. Why would the GOP core not be loving Romney? Is it some mistrust about him being Mormon?

I didn't vote for Obama (I'm first and foremost prolife which means I have to vote Republican), but once he was in office I was really hoping he'd make some great things happen in this country. Our country's economy is not getting better and the 2 parties seem to refuse to work together. Now more than ever I think we need a president to make some smart economic and financial decisions who is just smooth enough to get the Democrats and Republicans to cooperate. Based on his past successes, I really think Romney is the most likely to be able to do those things. Honestly, he rubs me the wrong way, for some reason. But looking at what he's done with his life, I think he'd be the best candidate for our country right now.

Admittedly, I've only done limited reading on the candidates. ;)

[niccig]

Why would the GOP core not be loving Romney? Is it some mistrust about him being Mormon?


I asked this of friends. I didn't grow up here in USA, and I'm not very familiar with the Mormon religion. One friend's family is evangelical Christian. He told me that for people like his parents, Mormonism is considered to be a cult along lines of Scientology. And that they have a real dilemma if have to vote in general election between a Mormon and a black man. They want anyone other than Romney.

I think his religion is an issue for some people, and for others it's feeling he's not a true Republican.

This is the first election I can vote in, so I'm reading what I can to try to be more informed..it's a very different election process than I'm used to.

[gatorsmom]

One friend's family is evangelical Christian. He told me that for people like his parents, Mormonism is considered to be a cult along lines of Scientology.

I had no idea. I'd think they'd be more favorable to a Mormon than they would a Catholic. :hysterical: (note: I am Catholic ;))

ETA: I would much prefer to have Romney who seems to be a faithful Mormon than Gingrich who is a very questionable Catholic.

[niccig]

I had no idea. I'd think they'd be more favorable to a Mormon than they would a Catholic. :hysterical:.

I had no idea either. Now, this is just what one person told me about his family and how the church they go to feels about Mormonism. I'm sure it's not representative of all. He did say that other denominations would be more accepted, so maybe a Catholic would do better.

It might also be a combination of mistrust of his religion, his flip-flopping, seeming to be a RHINO. I agree, you think Romney would win it easily, but maybe not. I heard a comment that the primaries are like episodes of Survivor. Who will be kicked off the island next?

[elbenn]

Newt Gingrich is now touting populism and saying that Romney is not in touch with most Americans because of his wealth. This is in such opposition to Republican views and it sounds weird to have a Republican candidate using this as part of his campaign. Newt just sounds so desperate.

The debate tonight should be very interesting. I expect Newt to come out swinging. I think the debate is in Jacksonville which has a large tea party chapter so I wonder if the audience is going to be obviously behind Newt which would encourage him to be even more pugnacious.

[wellyes]

One friend's family is evangelical Christian. He told me that for people like his parents, Mormonism is considered to be a cult along lines of Scientology

The NY Times just had a story about this. Why Evangelicals Don't Like Mormons (http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/25/why-evangelicals-dont-like-mormons/?scp=1&sq=mormon%20evangelical&st=cse). Evangelicals view LDS as having a different understanding of Jesus than they do. While Catholics and Protestants both use the New Testament as the basis of their beliefs, LDS has its own texts. I am NOT a scholar of them at all, but I have read that it differs a bit from the standard Christian view..... for example, says that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers. I don't know how true that is. I do know it ultimately it gets to the same point, that Jesus is a great teacher and we all have to avoid the temptations of Lucifer. But the use of different faith texts, and the way the teachings vary from the standard Bible story, are a pretty big deal to some voters.

[gatorsmom]

But the use of different faith texts, and the way the teachings vary from the standard Bible story, are a pretty big deal to some voters.

First let me say that for any Mormons out there, I hope you dont' feel attacked. It is definitely not my intention.

Honestly, I seriously doubt most of the population knows much about the Mormon faith except those people who have been or are currently Mormon. But I really dont' think that most of them know enough details about the Mormon faith to have a informed opinion on the differences between the Protestant faiths and the Mormon Faith. I suspect the average Republican fears what they dont' know, which is why they are stearing clear of Romney. It's unfortunate.

[maestramommy]

I had no idea. I'd think they'd be more favorable to a Mormon than they would a Catholic. :hysterical: (note: I am Catholic ;))

ETA: I would much prefer to have Romney who seems to be a faithful Mormon than Gingrich who is a very questionable Catholic.


I think Evangelicals had trouble with Catholics prior to the 60s. Wasn't this a sticky point when JFK was running? But I agree with you Lisa. It would seem obvious that a faithful Mormon would have similar values. However, some of the more vocal fundamentalist Christians feel differently. And they seem to have more air time.

If I were voting Republican, Romney would probably be more palatable than Newt. But I just can't get on board with GOP fiscal policy, let alone social.

[niccig]

First let me say that for any Mormons out there, I hope you dont' feel attacked. It is definitely not my intention.


:yeahthat: I didn't mean to attack. I should have made that clearer. I was explaining what I've been told why some people are anti-Romney. I don't agree with those sentiments. I agree with the closing argument in the article posted that religion shouldn't be a factor in choosing a president.

I will admit, I'm not used to religion being a factor. I couldn't tell you the religion of all the Australian prime ministers in the elections I voted for. It's not part of the political landscape like it is here.

[secchick]

Many Evangelical Christians have a problem with Mormonism because it adds to the scripture (which ithey believe is not Biblically permissible) with the story of Jesus coming to America. Mormonism does not have the same concept of the Trinity and essentially if you are faithful Mormon, you will become a god of your own planet and populate it with spirit babies (the Mormon afterlife for women is eternal pregnancy). Catholics are Christians who believe in the Trinity, so it's a fairly significant distinction to many people of faith.

I too believe that pro-life is the most important issue and I am struggling. Newt doesn't particularly care about social issues, really, and while it is highly unusual for a devout Mormon like Romney to be pro-choice (I personally believe that he is pro-life, but is inclined to tell people whatever it is they want to hear), I cannot fully trust his position. Without a doubt, Santorum is the candidate on that issue (and I truly am touched by the story of his beautiful 3YO daughter, Bella, with Trisomy 18) and that he lives his principles and doesnt just talk about them, but he won't get the nomination. In any case, it doesn't matter, as I would vote for any of them given the alternative, and we will give money to the general election campaign for whoever the nominee is.

[wellyes]

Yes, I hope my post didn't come across as anti-Mormon either. The 3-4 Mormons I've worked with have been unusually pleasant people. I'd vote for a member of the LDS church without hesitation, if I agreed with him on the issues.



Honestly, I seriously doubt most of the population knows much about the Mormon faith except those people who have been or are currently Mormon.

Everyone knows about the polygamy (ancient history), and I think a lot of people know about the race issues (not quite so ancient, but still well in the past), and have heard of the Book of Mormon. I think you're right that most people don't know the details.

[niccig]

so it's a fairly significant distinction to many people of faith.


I understand that it is a significant difference, but why does the religion of the president matter? The constitution has Freedom of Religion, you can practice any religion you want, but you can't be president if you're not of the same religion as many voters? Does that mean that a Buddhist could never run for President, as they would never be elected? How about an atheist? Can it only be a Christian, and then does it have to be the right sort of Christian?

So that is probably a naive question. I didn't grow up here, I'm not used to religion being such a huge issue in politics. I understand not agreeing with someone's position on issues, but not agreeing with their religion does have me confused.

[wildfire]

I find it interesting that Romney is the only person really brought up when talking about Mormonism. Harry Reid and Huntsman are both LDS as well but nobody ever really talks about that.

As far as scriptures, the LDS church does regard the Bible as holy scripture, they use the King James version. They just have addtional scripture as well due to a belief in ongoing revelation. That God did not stop talking to prophets when the bible ended.

[crl]

I in no way believe this but I think that some people believe that if a Mormon is president that the Mormon church will be secretly calling the shots. As I understand it, that is/was some people's objection to a Catholic in the White House.

I do not think that is the main objection to Romney for most Republicans who prefer someone else though. I think the main objection is that he is not Republican enough.

Just my completely non-expert thoughts.

Catherine

[secchick]

I understand that it is a significant difference, but why does the religion of the president matter? The constitution has Freedom of Religion, you can practice any religion you want, but you can't be president if you're not of the same religion as many voters? Does that mean that a Buddhist could never run for President, as they would never be elected? How about an atheist? Can it only be a Christian, and then does it have to be the right sort of Christian?

So that is probably a naive question. I didn't grow up here, I'm not used to religion being such a huge issue in politics. I understand not agreeing with someone's position on issues, but not agreeing with their religion does have me confused.

I just meant to say that the faiths are very different, since several posters were perplexed why some Christians might have an issue (relative to Catholicism), not necessarily that it should be a primary consideration when voting. Many would sure as heck vote for Romney over Obama who professes to be a Christian.

[niccig]

I in no way believe this but I think that some people believe that if a Mormon is president that the Mormon church will be secretly calling the shots. As I understand it, that is/was some people's objection to a Catholic in the White House.


But couldn't you make that argument about any church that a president belongs to?

[Kindra178]

I just meant to say that the faiths are very different, since several posters were perplexed why some Christians might have an issue (relative to Catholicism), not necessarily that it should be a primary consideration when voting. Many would sure as heck vote for Romney over Obama who professes to be a Christian.

But why would faith, or lack thereof, matter at all? Isn't Romney Christian? And Obama? And all Catholics? Note that I didn't say "a" Christian, I just said Christian.

[maestramommy]

But couldn't you make that argument about any church that a president belongs to?

yes, you could. which raises interesting questions, doesn't it?

[crl]

But couldn't you make that argument about any church that a president belongs to?

I am absolutely no religious scholar. But I do believe there is a good deal more hierarchy in Catholicism and Mormomisn (is theve then the right word?) than in other religions. For example I am nominally Presbyterian. I can't imagine who would even pull the puppet strings for a Presbyterian? There's no Pope, changes in doctrine come from a huge meeting of the members, etc. Not saying the Pope controls individual Catholic's actions or anything, just that there is a central figure with loads of authority (ability to ex-communicate for example). This fairly different from the Protestant churches, at least in my extremely limited understanding.

And people should please correct me (nicely please though, cause I didn't mean to start a fight. :) )

Again, I absolutely do not agree with this thinking.

Catherine

[mommylamb]

Unfortunately, people vote for candidates based on all sorts of reasons that have little to do with leadership capability and policy positions. Religion is certainly one of the things that matters to people. I wish it didn't. Good looks and charisma seem to matter too. Remember when David Duke was running in Louisiana and people talked about how they were excited to vote for that good looking young man, and then on the other side the bumper stickers were "Vote for the Crook, it's Important."

[Kindra178]

I am absolutely no religious scholar. But I do believe there is a good deal more hierarchy in Catholicism and Mormomisn (is theve then the right word?) than in other religions. For example I am nominally Presbyterian. I can't imagine who would even pull the puppet strings for a Presbyterian? There's no Pope, changes in doctrine come from a huge meeting of the members, etc. Not saying the Pope controls individual Catholic's actions or anything, just that there is a central figure with loads of authority (ability to ex-communicate for example). This fairly different from the Protestant churches, at least in my extremely limited understanding.

And people should please correct me (nicely please though, cause I didn't mean to start a fight. :) )

Again, I absolutely do not agree with this thinking.

Catherine

You are exactly right, historically speaking. It was a huge issue that Kennedy was Catholic; some people really believed that he would follow the Pope and not be able to separate church and state, so to speak.

[secchick]

But why would faith, or lack thereof, matter at all? Isn't Romney Christian? And Obama? And all Catholics? Note that I didn't say "a" Christian, I just said Christian.

The designation is generally just a way to shorthand a propensity for shared values. If you get into the theology, Christians generally don't consider Mormons Christian, and Mormons generally do consider themselves so. Personally, I have trouble with the concept of any Christian failing to protect the life of a baby that is actually born alive. It's a shorthand, but there are all types of Christians, some of whom I share values with and others I don't, so it is not a perfect proxy for values by any means. I thnik most people prefer their representatives to believe as they do, so it's not an out there concept.

[niccig]

I thnik most people prefer their representatives to believe as they do, so it's not an out there concept.

Not picking on you secchick, but you're answering my questions, so I have another. As I said, the election process is very different to what I'm used to. There are different religions in this country and different denominations within those religions, so does the representative have to believe exactly (as in belong to same Church) or just agree on the main points.

I have 2 friends in our playgroup that are evangelical Christians and they've agreed to not discuss religion as they don't agree on many things with each other's Church.

I suppose I'm saying that with such a diverse population, can you have a representative that believes in the same religious beliefs as you do? Someone is going to be disappointed as we can't all have a president that agrees with us on religion. And does this prevent them from holding office? Being Christian is not a requirement in the constitution, but it seems that for many people, it is a requirement. To me, that means someone of a different religion may not ever be able to run for president, and this election may also test if someone of a different denomination can run for president.

That's limiting the choices for president - someone could be excellent in that role but be a Buddhist, Atheist, Jew, Hindu etc and never ever be considered.

[sntm]

I can give you a perspective of a loved one, who is not religious but is generally tolerant of religion. He strongly distrusts the Mormon church because of its history of involvement in politics, over and above what other religions have done, not only on topics of morality like the gay marriage prop in California, but also all aspects including economic, as seen in places like Utah and Idaho. I've read "Under the Banner of Heaven" which touches on some of those aspects. I think it is an exaggerated worry, but one that is not wholly without fact.

[wellyes]

I can give you a perspective of a loved one, who is not religious but is generally tolerant of religion. He strongly distrusts the Mormon church because of its history of involvement in politics, over and above what other religions have done, not only on topics of morality like the gay marriage prop in California, but also all aspects including economic, as seen in places like Utah and Idaho. I've read "Under the Banner of Heaven" which touches on some of those aspects. I think it is an exaggerated worry, but one that is not wholly without fact.

Just want to note that the parts of'Under the Banner of Heaven' that deal with modern Mormonism are about fundamentalist LDS, which is not the branch of Mormonism Romney subscribes to. I agree it is a very nasty business - but - it has as much to do typical LDS as that group that protests soldier's funerals has to do with typical Protestants.

[larig]

His returns have been found to have some inconsistencies. (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/democrats-make-hay-of-romneys-financial-disclosure-errors----demand-more-tax-returns.php?ref=fpa) Talkingpointsmemo is admittedly left-leaning, but I just now read this there and didn't take time to find a more middle of the road site.

Something about him listing things on his taxes that he DID NOT put on the financial disclosure forms that candidates have to file. Some not listed where his Cayman island holdings.

[Cam&Clay]

I understand that it is a significant difference, but why does the religion of the president matter? The constitution has Freedom of Religion, you can practice any religion you want, but you can't be president if you're not of the same religion as many voters? Does that mean that a Buddhist could never run for President, as they would never be elected? How about an atheist? Can it only be a Christian, and then does it have to be the right sort of Christian?

So that is probably a naive question. I didn't grow up here, I'm not used to religion being such a huge issue in politics. I understand not agreeing with someone's position on issues, but not agreeing with their religion does have me confused.

:yeahthat:

This, too, drives me crazy. Why should anyone's religion be even remotely a part of this process? The way we are now, could we have a Jewish president? An Atheist president? Where is it written that you have to be Christian to be president. Quite frankly, it makes my blood boil.

[secchick]

Not picking on you secchick, but you're answering my questions, so I have another. As I said, the election process is very different to what I'm used to. There are different religions in this country and different denominations within those religions, so does the representative have to believe exactly (as in belong to same Church) or just agree on the main points.

I have 2 friends in our playgroup that are evangelical Christians and they've agreed to not discuss religion as they don't agree on many things with each other's Church.

I suppose I'm saying that with such a diverse population, can you have a representative that believes in the same religious beliefs as you do? Someone is going to be disappointed as we can't all have a president that agrees with us on religion. And does this prevent them from holding office? Being Christian is not a requirement in the constitution, but it seems that for many people, it is a requirement. To me, that means someone of a different religion may not ever be able to run for president, and this election may also test if someone of a different denomination can run for president.

That's limiting the choices for president - someone could be excellent in that role but be a Buddhist, Atheist, Jew, Hindu etc and never ever be considered.

While someone like, say, Huckabee, would be my personal candidate, I don't think I have ever said that Christianity is a litmus test for me, though it certainly may be for others. Elections and candidates are imperfect and you generally have to make the best choice among the given alternatives. I would absolutely vote for Eric Cantor, who is Jewish, and not give it a second thought. Between Obama and Romney, I would pick him. I am not aware of Hindu or Buddist pro life Republican candidates, but I would vote for them too.

[niccig]

, I don't think I have ever said that Christianity is a litmus test for me, though it certainly may be for others.

I didn't mean to imply that Christianity is a litmus test for you. Thanks for answering my questions. I'm sure I'll be back with more as the year goes on.

DH has similar reaction when I try to explain how I'm voting in Australian elections "What, you're not voting for the prime minister directly? What do you mean you have 2nd, 3rd, 4th choice when you vote?"

[crayonblue]

But couldn't you make that argument about any church that a president belongs to?

No. Evangelical churches are places where people go to learn about God and strengthen their relationship with Him, not places that call shots on anything. I think that might be the difference in what people think of other churches vs. the Mormon church.

[wellyes]

No. Evangelical churches are places where people go to learn about God and strengthen their relationship with Him, not places that call shots on anything. I think that might be the difference in what people think of other churches vs. the Mormon church.
I don't think that's universally true. I remember reading lots of articles about megachurches being close to losing tax exempt status due to talking about politics during the year Bush was reelected.

I also think every Christian church, including Catholics and Mormons, would say the purpose of church is to learn about God and strengthen their relationship with Him.

[secchick]

I don't think that's universally true. I remember reading lots of articles about megachurches being close to losing tax exempt status due to talking about politics during the year Bush was reelected.

I also think every Christian church, including Catholics and Mormons, would say the purpose of church is to learn about God and strengthen their relationship with Him.

I think that there is a fundamental difference between a church heirarchy that dictates the church doctrines and Evangelical churches and their concept of the priesthood of the believer. While there are church conventions, leadership, and ministers, each member is encouraged to interpret and cmmunicate with God directly, rather than through church intermediaries, as with Catholics and Mormons, but all of these can seem technical distinctions that may not be as obvious to those not steeped in the details.

[MissyAg94]

His returns have been found to have some inconsistencies. (http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/democrats-make-hay-of-romneys-financial-disclosure-errors----demand-more-tax-returns.php?ref=fpa) Talkingpointsmemo is admittedly left-leaning, but I just now read this there and didn't take time to find a more middle of the road site.

Something about him listing things on his taxes that he DID NOT put on the financial disclosure forms that candidates have to file. Some not listed where his Cayman island holdings.

I'm not a huge Romney fan but I honestly doubt he did this on purpose. He knew he would be releasing his tax documents so any omissions on the FEC disclosures would be apparent. Not to mention, the FEC could cross-reference with the IRS pretty easily. When you have numerous investments like Romney does, something is bound to be omitted on a complicated government form. The DNC is barking up the wrong tree here.

[Kindra178]

The designation is generally just a way to shorthand a propensity for shared values. If you get into the theology, Christians generally don't consider Mormons Christian, and Mormons generally do consider themselves so. Personally, I have trouble with the concept of any Christian failing to protect the life of a baby that is actually born alive. It's a shorthand, but there are all types of Christians, some of whom I share values with and others I don't, so it is not a perfect proxy for values by any means. I thnik most people prefer their representatives to believe as they do, so it's not an out there concept.

Do Christians consider Catholics Christians? Do Mormons kill live babies? I am not trying to be flip, I just am trying to understand your position here.

To say that most prefer their reps to believe as they do, do you mean Church-wise? OR just general concepts, like its the job of nations to feed the poor, assuring educational opportunities for all and the like?

For me, I don't really care if our president attends church/temple/or any other house of the Lord.

[Kindra178]

I think that there is a fundamental difference between a church heirarchy that dictates the church doctrines and Evangelical churches and their concept of the priesthood of the believer. While there are church conventions, leadership, and ministers, each member is encouraged to interpret and cmmunicate with God directly, rather than through church intermediaries, as with Catholics and Mormons, but all of these can seem technical distinctions that may not be as obvious to those not steeped in the details.

I just saw this. I am not trying to pick on you either, just trying to understand your positions. I do want to clarify the record. Catholics do not pray to the Pope or priests. There are no intermediaries between a Catholic person and God. Catholics revere Mary (which is the best part of Catholicism but that will be a topic for another thread), but she isn't an intermediary either.

Vatican II created the People of God. The sole purpose was for individual Catholics to create a relationship with God.

[secchick]

I just saw this. I am not trying to pick on you either, just trying to understand your positions. I do want to clarify the record. Catholics do not pray to the Pope or priests. There are no intermediaries between a Catholic person and God. Catholics revere Mary (which is the best part of Catholicism but that will be a topic for another thread), but she isn't an intermediary either.

Vatican II created the People of God. The sole purpose was for individual Catholics to create a relationship with God.

The reference to intermediaries was a reference to the practice of confession. The reference to babies was to Obama's stance on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. With all due respect to the people "not picking on me" I am out. I have tried to have a respectful conversation, but am a little tired of people putting words in my mouth.

[wellyes]

I'm not a huge Romney fan but I honestly doubt he did this on purpose. He knew he would be releasing his tax documents so any omissions on the FEC disclosures would be apparent. Not to mention, the FEC could cross-reference with the IRS pretty easily. When you have numerous investments like Romney does, something is bound to be omitted on a complicated government form. The DNC is barking up the wrong tree here.

The man makes an annual income of $20 million, he can hire a team that can handle complicated government forms, and a team to double-check. Either way, it doesn't change my impression of Romney. He seems honorable and on the level.

[niccig]

With all due respect to the people "not picking on me" I am out. I have tried to have a respectful conversation, but am a little tired of people putting words in my mouth.

I'm sorry I started this with all my questions about religion and politics. I took this thread way off-topic. Secchick, thank you for answering my questions. I like the BBB because of the people with different opinions and view points.

[ellies mom]

I think that there is a fundamental difference between a church heirarchy that dictates the church doctrines and Evangelical churches and their concept of the priesthood of the believer. While there are church conventions, leadership, and ministers, each member is encouraged to interpret and cmmunicate with God directly, rather than through church intermediaries, as with Catholics and Mormons, but all of these can seem technical distinctions that may not be as obvious to those not steeped in the details.
Mormons are encouraged to interpret and communicate with God directly as well. There are not church intermediaries between members and God either.

[maestramommy]

Do Christians consider Catholics Christians? Do Mormons kill live babies? I am not trying to be flip, I just am trying to understand your position here.

To say that most prefer their reps to believe as they do, do you mean Church-wise? OR just general concepts, like its the job of nations to feed the poor, assuring educational opportunities for all and the like?

For me, I don't really care if our president attends church/temple/or any other house of the Lord.


You are asking someone else, but one thing I wanted to point out is that Christianity is so very broad, it's impossible to answer any of your questions with a simple yes or no. Some Christians do consider Catholics are Christians, some don't. Some Catholics don't even think they are Christians (one of my college roommates actually said to me, "I'm not Christian, I'm Catholic.")Some want their reps to believe as they do, some don't care so much, some care on some issues, and not on others. I think the group of people that is being discussed here is more fundamentalist Christian, like the group in SC that got together and said, "We endorse Rick Perry!" Or churches that actually say from the pulpit which candidate is the one to vote for. I don't think they are the majority. Unfortunately they have the ability to grab a lot of airtime, and I think it's changed the face of the GOP dramatically in the last few years. And not for the better, imho.

[kijip]

Anti-Mormonism runs deep. It will be Romney's biggest hurdle and that saddens me. His religion should not matter at all.

Maybe it is growing up with anti-Catholic bias towards me but I bristle when anyone decides it is ok to tell anyone else who is and is not a Christian. It is for God to decide, not me or anyone else here on earth.

[wellyes]

On the lighter side.... I just read that in today's debate, Gingrich promised to have a permanent manned Moon station, with a US flag, by the end of his second term. To wild applause. He is a hoot! I get the impression he's having the time of his life.

[ellies mom]

On the lighter side.... I just read that in today's debate, Gingrich promised to have a permanent manned Moon station, with a US flag, by the end of his second term. To wild applause. He is a hoot! I get the impression he's having the time of his life.
Yeah, we were pretty floored by that. He's going to cut taxes and get us to the moon in 8 years without a fleet of space crafts all at the same time.

[MissyAg94]

The man makes an annual income of $20 million, he can hire a team that can handle complicated government forms, and a team to double-check. Either way, it doesn't change my impression of Romney. He seems honorable and on the level.

Point taken. I do think that Romney is honest and hasn't tried to hide his investments from the IRS or the FEC.

[crayonblue]

I think that there is a fundamental difference between a church heirarchy that dictates the church doctrines and Evangelical churches and their concept of the priesthood of the believer.

Yes, that is what I was trying to say.

[crayonblue]

Do Christians consider Catholics Christians? Do Mormons kill live babies? I am not trying to be flip, I just am trying to understand your position here.

To say that most prefer their reps to believe as they do, do you mean Church-wise? OR just general concepts, like its the job of nations to feed the poor, assuring educational opportunities for all and the like?

For me, I don't really care if our president attends church/temple/or any other house of the Lord.

Most of the Christians I know consider anyone - who believes that Jesus died on the cross for their sins and asks for forgiveness for their sins and strives to live their life for God - a Christian. That would include Catholics and Mormons and anyone else who believes the above. There are a million little differences in various denominations but that's the basis.

I don't care what church a president goes to but I would love for a president to seek God's guidance in his life and decisions and to believe in Jesus as his savior.

[Kindra178]

On the lighter side.... I just read that in today's debate, Gingrich promised to have a permanent manned Moon station, with a US flag, by the end of his second term. To wild applause. He is a hoot! I get the impression he's having the time of his life.

That's so awesome.

[sntm]

When Newt goes big, he goes big.

@wellyes, to clarify, I didn't misinterpret the book to think that applied to all Mormons (though loved one feels that way). But if I remember, the book also touches some on the involvement of the more mainstream church with state politics. I don't think there is a nefarious plot to infiltrate the government, but it probably contributes to some of the suspicion of Romney.

[gatorsmom]

The reference to intermediaries was a reference to the practice of confession. The reference to babies was to Obama's stance on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. With all due respect to the people "not picking on me" I am out. I have tried to have a respectful conversation, but am a little tired of people putting words in my mouth.

I've been following this thread but haven't been able to respond. I think you've done a phenomenal job giving clear, considerate answers. I understood what you meant about prefering a candidate who practices a religion similar to yours even though there are individual differences amongst followers.



I think that there is a fundamental difference between a church heirarchy that dictates the church doctrines and Evangelical churches and their concept of the priesthood of the believer. While there are church conventions, leadership, and ministers, each member is encouraged to interpret and cmmunicate with God directly, rather than through church intermediaries, as with Catholics and Mormons, but all of these can seem technical distinctions that may not be as obvious to those not steeped in the details.

I just wanted to comment on this for clarification because I don't feel attacked but there is a ton of misinformation about the Catholic church and our practices. I pray to God directly everyday. The entire Mass is very similar to the worship service practiced by early Christians in Roman times (this is according to Justin Martyr a Roman Philosopher and Christian). The entire mass is structured so as to bring one closer to God through all 5 senses: we smell the incense, we listen to the Bible readings, taste the bread and wine, sing the songs and prayers, see it all. The priest acts as an intermediary only as much as a Rabbi does or Imam, etc. The church structure works to provide guidance so that we do not follow a way of life or philosophy that could lead us away from God which we could so easily do if left to determine for ourselves.

To answer the question why I personally would prefer a president who is Christian and why that matters to me, the answer is kind of simple. My life is greatly influence by my faith. My priorities are defined in a large part by my faith. To have a president who practices the same religion would be more comfortable for me and my family simply because he would likely favor laws that I would favor. He would be more likely to advocate for rules in society that coincide with my beliefs. He would value the same things I do. A non-Christian president may not hold the same set of values I do. S/he may inact laws that undervalue things I hold dear. S/he may change our society so that it is difficult for me to live according to lifestyle my faith creates or demands.

ETA: sorry to go off topic. Anyone who knows me here, knows I tend to be a bit defensive of my faith. I like to think I am just clearing up some of the many misconceptions about it. :)

[HannaAddict]

Anti-Mormonism runs deep. It will be Romney's biggest hurdle and that saddens me. His religion should not matter at all.

Maybe it is growing up with anti-Catholic bias towards me but I bristle when anyone decides it is ok to tell anyone else who is and is not a Christian. It is for God to decide, not me or anyone else here on earth.

FWIW, my in-laws evangelical church (mega church) writes letters to Mormons and Catholics to "stop calling themselves Christians" and they had the most hate filled Democrat bashing Christmas Eve service many years ago when George Bush senior was running, that we have never been back with them since (or to any other church for that matter). I kept waiting to sing Silent Night! :) I dread a candidate who has to talk about their religion all the time. Give me a break. This was not an issue twenty years ago like it is now. It isn't a war on Christians but rather the extreme side trying to push their agenda down everyone who doesn't believe what they believes throat. Live your life honorably, go to church even, and I'll live my liberal, secular life equally honorably and be happy to vote for you.

[halos]

I don't care what church a president goes to but I would love for a president to seek God's guidance in his life and decisions and to believe in Jesus as his savior.

Well, truth is you do care. This would disqualify a Jew from running for president. Please be sensitive to others on this board.

[mommylamb]

I'm a Jewish Agnostic, so I'm pretty sure society has a lot of growing to do before anyone with my belief set could successfully run for President (or would even consider doing so). It does bother me when people say that they want a President who believes in Jesus as his savior. But on the other hand, I would feel uncomfortable voting for a President who I thought was extreme on religion, regardless of what religion he/she practiced. I don't care if you believe in God, Jesus, Zeus, whatever, but I prefer religion to be a private thing and not something you wear on your sleeve, and that desire to not have someone who I consider to be an extreme probably isn't that different from people who are from a specific religious tradition wanting a President who adheres to their belief set.

Regardless, the fact that Romney is a Mormon doesn't give me the slightest pause. He doesn't come off as an extremist, and I don't think being Mormon means you are an extremist. There are other things about him that do bother me, but they're all policy/style related. And again, if he were to win, I wouldn't be overly upset. I'd give him a chance and see how he chose to lead. I think under most circumstances, it's really important to let the Democratic process do its thing and start out with hope and respect for a new President.

[ast96]

I'm an atheist, so when watching the GOP Debate last night, it unnerved me a little to see four white religious dudes up there as the only choices for the GOP. I admit it. But it's not like I get a bigger variety with the Democrats. ;)

I admire the Mormon religion. That said, I disagree with Mormons on a lot of social issues. Like, a lot. So while Mitt Romney's religion doesn't exclude him from contention for me, his probable social views that go along with that religion likely do. (Full disclosure: I have every intention of voting for Obama no matter who the GOP candidate is.)

I have always thought that when the chips go down, the religious right will not accept Romney as a candidate because so many Christians do not accept LDS as a Christian faith. The primaries are just playing out what I expected. It's going to be an interesting year.

[gatorsmom]

I admire the Mormon religion. That said, I disagree with Mormons on a lot of social issues. Like, a lot. .

I mean no direspect to anyone here, not ast96, nor any Mormons here. I am simply curious- which social issues do you disagree with? I ask because I don't know of any.

[ast96]

Gay marriage, for a big one, and gay rights in general. It's a patriarchal religion, too (which might or might not bother you if you are a devout Catholic). And I'm very pro-choice.

[wellyes]

I think religion shouldn't matter, but it's always a factor in US elections. The (ridiculous) controversy around Obama's religion shows that. On the other hand, Obama is president, despite having been raised in an agnostic household, which is certainly a first. I don't think most people care at all about that.

I am not a person of faith, but I was raised Catholic, and that is the faith I really admire and identify with the most. But I would never in a million years vote for Rick Santorum. The Christian faith I understand and identify with least is probably Evangelicism, but I had ZERO problem with Bush's religion (I believe he is the only Evangelical president we've had?) I admired it, because it was sincere and deeply held, and of course anything to get a person past a terrible addiction to a fulfilling life is a wonderful thing.

[Cam&Clay]

I don't care what church a president goes to but I would love for a president to seek God's guidance in his life and decisions and to believe in Jesus as his savior.

I try so hard to understand this, but I just cannot. I doesn't bother me in the least if anyone, especially political leaders, have a certain religious belief as long as they are not trying to tell anyone that their belief is better than any other.

I couldn't care less that Romney is a Mormon. I don't see him telling all of us that we need to become Mormons. I find the hypocrisy quite humorous that people would prefer Newt because he is a "Christian" even though his morals are obviously warped. Why the labels on everyone? Why can't we just look at how this person lives his life?

[gatorsmom]

Gay marriage, for a big one, and gay rights in general. It's a patriarchal religion, too (which might or might not bother you if you are a devout Catholic). And I'm very pro-choice.

I thought you meant you disagreed with social issues unique to the Mormon faith. Anti-gay marriage and prolife are the stance of most conservative Christian politicians.

[gatorsmom]

I think religion shouldn't matter, but it's always a factor in US elections. The (ridiculous) controversy around Obama's religion shows that. On the other hand, Obama is president, despite having been raised in an agnostic household, which is certainly a first. I don't think most people care at all about that.

Do you think iit's safe to assume than many Democrats are less concerned about their faith or anyone else's in general? This is perhaps why Obama's religion was never a concern.

For the record I'm Catholic too but there is no way I'd want Rick Santorum as the Republican candidate.



I couldn't care less that Romney is a Mormon. I don't see him telling all of us that we need to become Mormons. I find the hypocrisy quite humorous that people would prefer Newt because he is a "Christian" even though his morals are obviously warped. Why the labels on everyone? Why can't we just look at how this person lives his life?

Well, I can't speak for everyone, of course, but really it goes back to what I posted before. I am Catholic and so I'd prefer a Christian, even better a Catholic president. In my simplistic view, a Christian president is more likely to try to shape the country according to his Christian values. And as a Christian, his values would probably be most similar to mine.

For me at least, there is a gray area when it comes to comparing a New Gingrich to a Barack Obama. On the one hand, Obama is an honest, hard-working, well-meaning guy. As a Christian, I admire that. Gingrich on the other hand has not lived according to his Christian values. Not something I admire. But I believe that Gingrich, despite his failings, does hold dear the same Christian issues I do and would work for them, even if he himself has a hard time living them. This is why it matters to me what religion the President practices.

[gatorsmom]

Well, truth is you do care. This would disqualify a Jew from running for president. Please be sensitive to others on this board.

I don't mean to be insensitive. And firmly believe that Crayonblue would be the last person to say anything that would hurt anyone's feelings. I really think she was just speaking from her heart. Why would someone else feel slighted because she would prefer a Christian president? A Jew would not be disqualified from running for president except for her (and anyone else who holds that viewpoint). She's not singling out one particular faith as being undesirable. And just because she wants a Christian president does't mean she'll get one. I guess I don't understand how she is being insensitive here.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or snarky. I'm trying to understand simply because I've expressed my views here too and I am concerned that I may have hurt feelings. So far I've found this thread to be very enlightening and wonderfully civil. I hope all our future political threads can be this way!

[ast96]

I thought you meant you disagreed with social issues unique to the Mormon faith. Anti-gay marriage and prolife are the stance of most conservative Christian politicians.

Sorry I didn't make that clear. I feel that Mormons tend to be more uniform in agreement on such issues, whereas there are all kinds of Catholics, all kinds of Christians (I find Episcopalians can be quite socially liberal). But though I love a lot about Mormon culture, the social differences stand out to me as a social liberal.

I wouldn't vote for any candidate with those differences, no matter what his or her religion.

[elbenn]

I watched the debate last night. There was an exchange between Romney and Gingrich where Gingrich said he reviewed Romney's financial info on his taxes and was "shocked" to learn that Romney owned Freddie Mac and made money on them. Romney was ready for this, though, and said, first of all his money is in a blind trust and the trustee invests it, and that he didn't own stock in Freddie Mac--it was owned in a mutual fund, and second of all, that Gingrich also owned a mutual fund with stock in Freddie Mac! Gingrich was so taken aback! It was a great moment.

The moon colony stuff was pandering to Florida and Romney called him out on that. He said it would take hundreds of billions of dollars to do that and that Gingrich was pandering and he had examples of things he promised people in New Hampshire and in South Carolina. Gingrich did not have a good reply. Romney came across as much stronger and tougher in this debate.

[gatorsmom]

Sorry I didn't make that clear. I feel that Mormons tend to be more uniform in agreement on such issues, whereas there are all kinds of Catholics, all kinds of Christians (I find Episcopalians can be quite socially liberal). But though I love a lot about Mormon culture, the social differences stand out to me as a social liberal.

I wouldn't vote for any candidate with those differences, no matter what his or her religion.

I understand now. I was actually hoping you would point out some social position unique to the Mormons, something I hadn't heard of yet. I guess I'm trying to pinpoint exactly why Republicans are so adverse to Mitt Romney that they'd actually consider Gingrich as an acceptable candidate!

[gatorsmom]

I watched the debate last night. There was an exchange between Romney and Gingrich where Gingrich said he reviewed Romney's financial info on his taxes and was "shocked" to learn that Romney owned Freddie Mac and made money on them. Romney was ready for this, though, and said, first of all his money is in a blind trust and the trustee invests it, and that he didn't own stock in Freddie Mac--it was owned in a mutual fund, and second of all, that Gingrich also owned a mutual fund with stock in Freddie Mac! Gingrich was so taken aback! It was a great moment.

The moon colony stuff was pandering to Florida and Romney called him out on that. He said it would take hundreds of billions of dollars to do that and that Gingrich was pandering and he had examples of things he promised people in New Hampshire and in South Carolina. Gingrich did not have a good reply. Romney came across as much stronger and tougher in this debate.

I didn't get a chance to see the debates. But this is good to hear (imo, at least :D).

[elbenn]

Sorry I didn't make that clear. I feel that Mormons tend to be more uniform in agreement on such issues, whereas there are all kinds of Catholics, all kinds of Christians (I find Episcopalians can be quite socially liberal). But though I love a lot about Mormon culture, the social differences stand out to me as a social liberal.

You would think that Mormons being more uniform in this position would make them more acceptable to the conservative base. These positions make them right in line with the conservative movement.

[crayonblue]

I don't mean to be insensitive. And firmly believe that Crayonblue would be the last person to say anything that would hurt anyone's feelings. I really think she was just speaking from her heart. Why would someone else feel slighted because she would prefer a Christian president? A Jew would not be disqualified from running for president except for her (and anyone else who holds that viewpoint). She's not singling out one particular faith as being undesirable. And just because she wants a Christian president does't mean she'll get one. I guess I don't understand how she is being insensitive here.

I'm not trying to be argumentative or snarky. I'm trying to understand simply because I've expressed my views here too and I am concerned that I may have hurt feelings. So far I've found this thread to be very enlightening and wonderfully civil. I hope all our future political threads can be this way!

Thank you Lisa! There is absolutely nothing wrong with preferring a Christian president. And for whatever it's worth, next to a Christian president, I would be most happy with a Jewish one! Mostly because I will always feel a connection with Jewish people after having a daughter with a disease historically (but not so much now) found in the Jewish population.

I am not saying that I would just want any old Christian president because there are plenty of people who claim one thing or another but there isn't much evidence of that belief system in their lives. I was just saying I would PREFER one who lives his life for God.

[wellyes]

I think the post earlier that talked about the ( perceived) fundamental difference between Evangelicals and "hierarchical" churches like Catholics and Mormons is the key to Romney's problem. My interpretation is that evangelicals tend to value independence and individualism, which is not front and center in LDS. Ironically, evangelicals have become the most powerful and consistent voting block among religious groups in the US.

Typing on phone please forgive lack of caps for evangelicals, no disrespect meant, it keeps auto correcting me!!

[indigo99]

I heard someone on Fox news talking about how raising the taxes on those investments would make some less likely to invest because they might have to pay more taxes on their "winnings". However, the tax on lottery winnings is as high as 50%. Sure it's a much smaller investment, but the risk is MUCH higher. That doesn't seem to stop anyone from trying to win.

[ellies mom]

You would think that Mormons being more uniform in this position would make them more acceptable to the conservative base. These positions make them right in line with the conservative movement.

You think that would be the case. And the fact that a Mormon candidate (not Romney necessarily) is so objectionable to the social conservative base is something that most Mormons find completely baffling.

[tribe pride]

I am not a person of faith, but I was raised Catholic, and that is the faith I really admire and identify with the most. But I would never in a million years vote for Rick Santorum. The Christian faith I understand and identify with least is probably Evangelicism, but I had ZERO problem with Bush's religion (I believe he is the only Evangelical president we've had?) I admired it, because it was sincere and deeply held, and of course anything to get a person past a terrible addiction to a fulfilling life is a wonderful thing.

Carter was also an Evangelical. The term "Evangelical" as we understand it today didn't really come into usage until the 20th century, so it's hard to say whether any Presidents prior to that could be considered evangelical by today's standards. Probably some of them were (James Garfield, for example), but I'm basing that assumption on some of their positions on issues like temperance, abolition, personal devotion to faith, etc.

I'm really enjoying this thread and wish I had more time to respond. Lots of very interesting thoughts and points of view have been shared! DH and I love this stuff and have conversations about it all the time. (We consider ourselves evangelical, and between us have BAs and MAs in history, political science, christian education, theology, and church history.) Yes, we are nerds.

[mommylamb]

I heard someone on Fox news talking about how raising the taxes on those investments would make some less likely to invest because they might have to pay more taxes on their "winnings". However, the tax on lottery winnings is as high as 50%. Sure it's a much smaller investment, but the risk is MUCH higher. That doesn't seem to stop anyone from trying to win.

Based on the info that arivechi posted way up thread, it looks like the stats don't back up the concept that raising taxes on investment income has an impact on willingness to invest. I find that really interesting.

In my own head, it makes sense that lower taxes on investments would be an encouragement for those of us who invest, but the vast majority of our money comes from actual wage income. Though maybe that's just an assumption I've made that isn't backed up by the facts. But I don't buy the argument that higher taxes on investment income are a huge disincentive for people whose primary income is investment income. In those cases, what other choice do they have? Work for a living? (Yes, I know I'm being flippant).

[speo]

Based on the info that arivechi posted way up thread, it looks like the stats don't back up the concept that raising taxes on investment income has an impact on willingness to invest. I find that really interesting.



I have always been fairly baffled by the notion that people won't invest if taxes are higher. People generally strive to make more money if they can. So just because someone may be earning less than the previous year because of higher taxes does not mean they still aren't earning more money. More money is still more money.

[ast96]

You think that would be the case. And the fact that a Mormon candidate (not Romney necessarily) is so objectionable to the social conservative base is something that most Mormons find completely baffling.

It baffles me too. And I agree, Lisa, that I don't understand why the Republicans aren't supporting Romney more. I think they don't trust a Republican that could win the governorship in a traditionally Democratic state like Massachusetts. Like, if he doesn't bother Democrats more, how can he be their candidate? That's my hypothesis.

I believe the conservative Christians in the Republican party do not trust LDS because of the elements of the religion that are relatively recent in age and based in America (Joseph Smith, the golden plates, etc.). It all seems very far removed from the ancient qualities of the Bible and the story of Jesus. They can't reconcile it. And I think a lot of people cannot understand that the FLDS (Warren Jeffs, polygamy, etc.) is NOT the LDS. That's not hard to believe, since members of my own family truly believe EVERY Muslim is evil and needs to be "eliminated," not that it is extremist/fundamentalist Muslims who are an issue for Americans.

The basic issue is a lack of knowledge about other people's faiths and ideas and a basic mistrust of people who think differently than we do. I am guilty of it myself, I admit -- I have a hard time trusting very religious politicians (or should I say those that claim to be?). But that said, there have been very religious politicians that I have been happy with, and I try to keep that in mind. My children's "godparents" (we have our own definition of the term) are, among them, Catholic, agnostic, Muslim, gay, married, single, and divorced. And I love and trust every single one of them, even though the only label in there that applies to me is "married." So I try to get over my own biases, even in the muddy world of politics.

[GoBlue]

This is entirely dependent on where you live. In a high COL area, many, many "middle class" people pay more than 15%. In 2009, the 25% tax bracket was up to $137,050, for married filing jointly. In major metropolitan areas and their immediate suburbs, given the incredible COL, that's not an upper class income at all.

:yeahthat:

DH and I definitely pay more than 15% in taxes.....more like 30%. And we are DEFINITELY middle class. Living in a high COL area and having two kids in daycare is brutal.

I think Romney either needs to commit to changing the discrepancy between wage taxes and capital gains taxes, or this will be a huge problem for him in November (assuming he makes it that far!)

[wellyes]

Carter was also an Evangelical.Ding ding! Thanks. I forgot about Jimmy.


I have always been fairly baffled by the notion that people won't invest if taxes are higher.I think it's a coded way of saying "don't be a nation that punishes success".


I think Romney either needs to commit to changing the discrepancy between wage taxes and capital gains taxes, or this will be a huge problem for him in November (assuming he makes it that far!)

I believe he intends to widen that gap considerably.

[sntm]

I have always been fairly baffled by the notion that people won't invest if taxes are higher. People generally strive to make more money if they can. So just because someone may be earning less than the previous year because of higher taxes does not mean they still aren't earning more money. More money is still more money.

I haven't read the stats yet, so I may be wrong. But my feeling is that at a certain point, the rewards of investing become minimal enough compared to the risks of losing money that someone who already has enough to live on (certainly the Romneys count) will just say F it and spend it all on yachts and jewelry rather than try to make more. Much like some parents here have said that after taxes and daycare, it isn't worth it for one parent to work outside the home.

This is a very different example, but I make a good salary as a physician, and while it is incredibly rewarding, it is also hard, exhausting, emotionally taxing, and takes me away from my family. If my taxes went up a lot based on my income, I would be very tempted to go part time, eliminating a lot of stressors and dropping me into a better tax bracket. It isn't worth it for me to work the extra time, see that extra patient, do that additional surgery, if my take home monetary reward is taxed outrageously. It's why there are so many physicians today who approach work in a punch-the-clock kind of way.

I'm finding this thread fascinating, all the discussions. I hope we keep it as civilized as we have so far!