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

[Lamplighter]

I did find a dog... rabid... but a dog none the less, in this fight...

CBS News
January 29, 2012 2:03 PM

RNC Chair Priebus compares Obama to Captain Schettino

<snip>
It's part of the campaign circus - candidates and their surrogates slinging mud to sway voters.
But Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus took the bashing to a new level
in comparing Mr. Obama to the captain of the capsized Costa Concordia cruise ship,
in speaking with Bob Schieffer on "Face the Nation" Sunday.

"In the end, in a few months, this is all going to be ancient history
and we're going to talk about our own little Captain Schettino,
which is President Obama who is abandoning the ship here in the United States.
He's more interested in campaigning than doing his job as President," Priebus said.

Reince's parents must be so proud.

Michael Steele, where are you in this time of need ?

It's a shame the Republican's can't do any better than this.
Their candidates can't stand one another, so how do they expect
the nation's voting public to elect any one of them.
To boot, they elect this guy" to be Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

If the Republicans keep this up, Merc and UG will be voting for Obama

[infinite monkey]

And I missed old Bob this weekend! I can just imagine the look on his face. What was his response?

I love Bob.

[Lamplighter]

Yes, I've seen him when he was upset with an interviewee,
but most of the time he's an old-school, courteous reporter.
This time he was just incredulous and asked Priebus to repeat the remark.
The link above has the video

[infinite monkey]

I will watch the link later. Thanks!

I remember Bob, during one more stupid thing by the McCain/Palin campaign, repeating incredulously "WHAT were they THINKING?"

He's awesome!

[infinite monkey]

Oh, my, Lamp.

RNC Chair: What a maroon. What an ignoranamus.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by classicman

There is a difference between the two. Wasn't the Cap gains rate initially established to incent people into saving more?

A rather belated reply, but as I was reading back over this thread, I saw your statement and wondered if it was true. According to Wikipedia, you are incorrect.

This {the lower cap on capitol gains} is intended to provide incentives for investors to make capital investments, to fund entrepreneurial activity, and to compensate for the effect of inflation and the corporate income tax.

Well, I'm glad someone gets a break on the rising rate of inflation. People dependent on Social Security have not seen an adjustment in their benefits until this year, after 3 years of stagnant income because the government claimed there was no inflation during this period. Workers earning minimum wage have not seen an increase since 2009. Does Corporate Congress give a damn about them? Not hardly. Plus, corporations are now paying LESS tax than they did before the Bush tax cuts. Did their capitol gains taxes go up to compensate for the lower taxes big corporations now enjoy? God forbid we tax the "job creators" who are busily creating ever more jobs in China while unemployment in the US remains unacceptably high.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by SamIam

A rather belated reply, but as I was reading back over this thread, I saw your statement and wondered if it was true. According to Wikipedia, you are incorrect.

intended to provide incentives for investors to make capital investments, to fund entrepreneurial activity, and to compensate for the effect of inflation and the corporate income tax.

This is basically what I meant - people saving/investing.

[classicman]

Also. how was it belated? I was responding to BigV and Lamp who had posted only minutes before me?

[SamIam]

My OWN reply is belated. You had made your post about capitol gains being like saving back on 1-24.

It is my feeling that comparing capitol gains to saving makes it sound like peope just tucking away what they can in their savings accounts down at the local bank. There is simply no comparison between the two.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by SamIam

It is my feeling that comparing capitol gains to saving makes it sound like people just tucking away what they can in their savings accounts down at the local bank. There is simply no comparison between the two.

Actually they are the same thing.
Almost everything you own and use for personal or investment purposes is a capital asset.
Including your home, household furnishings, stocks and bonds even your personal savings account.

[Happy Monkey]

A savings account may be an asset, but unless your savings account is in a foreign currency, it's not going to make any capital gains. Interest is ordinary income.

(and I'm not sure if foreign currency inflation/deflation is counted as capital gains for tax purposes, though I wouldn't be surprised)

(further edit: sometimes)

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by classicman

Actually they are the same thing.
Almost everything you own and use for personal or investment purposes is a capital asset.
Including your home, household furnishings, stocks and bonds even your personal savings account.

Classic, where do you find this interpretation ?
It runs counter to what I understand.

I agree about your sale of your home being a capital gain
- after personal exclusion(s), cost of improvements and any losses.

But I believe:
... household furnishings are personal property
... stocks and bonds (gains and losses) are taxed as capital gains
... your personal savings account is taxed as ordinary income

Some, but not all, states do have personal property taxes on things like mobile home, boats, RV's etc.

[classicman]

from the irs.gov website.

The savings accounts, as HM pointed out is only counted sometimes.

[Lamplighter]

Romney and the press are beginning to believe Romney's lead in the Florida
GOP campaign... with no small measure of gloating thrown into the mix.

Dana Milbank has written a scathing article about the demise of the Gingrich campaign.

Washington Post Opinions
Dana Milbank
1/20/12

The end of the road for Newt Gingrich?

It’s hard to know what the most pitiful part was:
That a presidential candidate was whiling away the night at a hotel bar
(it was his second visit to the journalists’ table that evening)?
That he felt the need to do his own spinning?
That the survey he was spinning was a “robo-poll” done by machines?
Or that the pollster who did it used to work for Gingrich?

In fact, real polls were showing the opposite — a new Quinnipiac poll
had Mitt Romney with a 14-point lead over Gingrich in Florida.
If such a drubbing occurs in the state’s primary on Tuesday,
that would, for all intents and purposes, end Gingrich’s campaign.

But Gingrich is going down in his own style, leaving fabrications,
insults and scorched earth all the way from Miami to Pensacola.

And besides all that:

Comment:

That giant sucking sound you hear from Gingrich is him
draining the last bit of relevance the GOP had left.

[classicman]

I heard Chris Matthews today say that if the newt can hang on till Super Tuesday he'll have a bunch of states that would be more in tune with him. I guess those other southern states are full of Tea Partiers. (shrug)

Then again I never thought he was a serious candidate anyway.
Nor did I think he had a chance in hell of doing anything.