The Cellar - I don't have a dog in this fight, but...

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

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

- - I don't have a dog in this fight, but... (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=26073)

That reminds me...

Does it seem a bit ironic that the US Supreme Court appointed GWB as President in 2000,
but yesterday that Court told a lower Federal Court it had overstepped it's authority
by re-drawing the Republican's precinct map in Texas to make the boundaries more fair to minorities ?

You have to live in Texas for a while to enjoy it's crazy politics.

No, even when you've lived here for 30+ years, the crazy politics are still not enjoyable.

But I see Rick Perry has finally come home. You're welcome.

Oh the humanity ! It could have been so easy. It could have ended in SC !
... but too many people just sat on their butts under the palmettos. :eyebrow:

A video clip of Colbert's announcement is embedded in the link below

MSNBC
1/23/12

Colbert suspends Cain campaign, but Stewart keeps the Super PAC

Quote:

The sad part came when Colbert made a major announcement.
With a heavy heart and a spastic colon he announced that he would be
re-suspending Herman Cain's suspended campaign, and officially ending
his exploratory committee to run*for President of the United States of South Carolina.

Attachment 36941

Quote:

Colbert went on to thank his committee members -- NBC's own Chuck Todd,
Will Smith as Bagger Vance, "Criss Angel: Mind Freak," and affectionately
-- his roll of quarters for the laundry he hasn't done in a month or so.
<snip>
The announcement begged the question -- what will Colbert do now?
Take back the Super PAC, of course!

Unfortunately, it appears Jon Stewart has gone rogue.
Stewart sent this note to The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC supporters,
via The Huffington Post:

Quote:

Dear Super PAC Super People,
Hey, it's Jon again. As you know, a while back, I took over this Super PAC
so that my friend and business partner Stephen Colbert could explore possibly
running for President of the United States of America of South Carolina (maybe).

Unfortunately, he never connected with voters, despite nearly a week of part-time campaigning,
culminating in a massive rally at the College of Charleston.<snip>

Today he asked me if he if he could retake control of
The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert Super PAC.
I told him, with all due respect, to go take a long walk off a short go-f%¢#-yourself.<snip>

I haven't been following this Colbert Super PAC thing that closely. How much money is there in this Super PAC, and where did it come from? Did viewers send money in? If they did, can Colbert and Stewart keep it for themselves now?

Colbert started the "SuperPac" on his show, and later transferred ownership to Stewart.

For the rest, the comic genius of Colbert is that he is whatever we each imagine him to be.

Yeah, all that is in the news, but what they don't talk about is where the money came from and how much there is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by glatt (Post 790364)

Yeah, all that is in the news, but what they don't talk about is where the money came from and how much there is.

That assumes:
... the $ is real.
... there is a positive balance in the SuperPac
... Stewart will transfer ownership back to the candidate
... Colbert is the candidate
... Cain does not have a good lawyer

But it's too good a story line to let it die now.

In the real world, candidates can "suspend" their campaigns,
raise more $, and personally keep whatever is left over, or donate to others.

ETA: IRW too, the SuperPacs are not required to name contributors or amounts.
The TV talking heads are saying/hoping Colbert is really just exposing the realities of SuperPacs

Super PACs are required to disclose their donors, just like traditional PACs.

Quote:

Super PACs have even gotten in on the secret money act. While Super PACs are required to disclose their donors,
they can accept contributions from nonprofits that do not disclose their donors and from corporations,
some of which either do not identify their owners or dissolve upon making a large donation.
This has already caused controversy for the Romney-backing Restore Our Future, which received three $1 million contributions
from corporations that appear to do no business, one of which dissolved a few months after making the donation.

another sticky wicket ...

Romney's tax records made the news today in the UK.

Am I missing something here?
How is it possible for someone to earn $21 MILLION and only pay $3 million in tax?

7%?

7% if you're on minimum wage feels like an awful lot.
7% of millions is small change. It's money you cannot possibly spend OR EARN rationally.
Especially when you have the money to manage your money.

It seems I know very little about America.
And almost nothing about American politics.
Because I find that appalling.

Me too. And some conservatives will say he pays too much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 790409)

Super PACs are required to disclose their donors, just like traditional PACs.

another sticky wicket ...

Ummm, I'm totally confused...
Classic, further down in your link is this:

Quote:

"We had 100 percent disclosure for nonprofit spending on electioneering communications in 2004,"
explained Craig Holman, the lobbyist for the watchdog group Public Citizen.
"The FEC changed the disclosure rule in 2007 to only require disclosure for contributors
who earmark their donations for [express advocacy and issue] spending, which no one does.
Now, everyone has figured out that they don't have to disclose at all."

FEC 2007... GWB and Supreme Court collaborate and strike again. :3_eyes:

Therein lies the problem with the way it was written - the "sticky wicket"
Loopholes are intentionally there. Politics as usual.

Is it his fault? I dunno. I think it clearly shows that changes are needed in the tax laws for those with incomes that high.

It also shows how divergent the "1%" category really is. Those making far less ($1,000,000) certainly do not play by the same rules as those who make multi-millions or even billions.

It's not just the amount of income.
It's the basic premise of the Republican party and current candidates.

They tell the public there is a difference between income earned from hourly wages or salaries,
and income earned from "investments" such as "cutting coupons" from bonds, dividends, interest, capital gains, etc.

It is all income in the form of US dollars, and there should be
no difference in taxes that is depending on the source of the income.
That is different than a progressive income tax where higher rates apply to those who have higher incomes.

All of the current Republican candidates advocate 0% taxes on "capital gains",
and several of them want to have a "tax holiday" for bringing $ from off-shore accounts.

Home owners who sell their real estate for more than they paid must currently pay the "capital gains tax"
But if the they lose $ on the transaction, they can not deduct the loss... as can a business or "investor"