Whats the source for these words from Jesus?Originally Posted by Nordstern
To be perfectly honest, Jesus did say that. But that number can include the poor, sick, and the community.
Whats the source for these words from Jesus?To be perfectly honest, Jesus did say that. But that number can include the poor, sick, and the community.
It dates to before Jesus as well. Jews and stuff. Islam too.Whats the source for these words from Jesus?To be perfectly honest, Jesus did say that. But that number can include the poor, sick, and the community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe
They signed the original letter, available here:Haven't seen any articles naming her co-conspirators. Who are they?
http://bachmann.house.gov/uploadedfi...t_of_state.pdf
meh
I was more having a dig at the bible and it being a source of Jesus' words...It dates to before Jesus as well. Jews and stuff. Islam too.Whats the source for these words from Jesus?To be perfectly honest, Jesus did say that. But that number can include the poor, sick, and the community.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tithe
Yup
There was no Jesus, and God is lie. It is all made-up hogwash for and from the superstitious and quite frankly insane. It is anyone's choice if they want to follow the rules of their imaginary friend, or some talking snake, but don't come round telling me that this somehow makes you a better person or something.Whats the source for these words from Jesus?To be perfectly honest, Jesus did say that. But that number can include the poor, sick, and the community.
Anyway, Don is right: Romney is obliged to give 10% of his income to this charlatan's cult. Otherwise he can't wear the supa speshul magic underwear of an Elder (or look at some poorly forged documents promulgating that Jesus actually visited Missouri (of all places), or something equally moronic).
It's like claiming to be supa speshul (say, a job creator! Ohhh ... wait!) to the US people because since your rich you have to pay a lot of taxes .... Oh wait!
And that is what all of this is really about. During his whole political carreer Mitt Romney has been telling everyone that he's very rich, a very successful businessman, a job-creator pure sang, and someone who is now willing to forgo some of that success and wealth to do something for the America that he loves so very much. That he's the man to fix all problems and make us all rich as well.
Now it turns out (well, it's not really news, but still) that he mostly was able to get filthy rich because his daddy was rich and powerful. And the only thing he was really successful at was outsourcing jobs, firing people, and plundering pensionfunds for his own bloated expense claims and salary. And that instead of giving something back, he has been using every loophole and tax-evasion scheme ever invented to give as little back as is humanly and legally possible. He won't fix any problems: he is the problem!
It is sometimes said that in Europe elections are mostly about issues, while in the US they are mostly about character. Regardless of that actually being the case; Romneybot never had a lot of human emphathy to play with, but it now turns out that he has no moral character to fall back on as well.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the country, whereever Obama climbs on a podium, he just can't help repeating: "Listen folks, I know it is going to hurt me as well, but we really should raise taxes on the very wealthy!" The contrast couldn't be greater and he doesn't even have to name names ...
(and if you think this just happened this way by accident ... think again)
What Ann Romney doesn't want to see is that the current speculation is just as lethal. Just surf some political website. It is one 'tax expert' after another. Asking whether or not Romney used the UBS Swiss bank account amnesty earlier, and that that is why he had to mention that Swiss bank account. Or about the possibility if he paid no tax at all in 2009. Or maybe even in 2008 as well.Yup
Within a week or two, every American with a TV set will know or heard all about all the various loopholes available for rich people to evade taxes. And those middle- to lower-class undecided voters will be angry and think: why do the rich get all of these loopholes while we have to pay for the rest of the country. And that anger will be directed towards the rich and wealthy, of which Romney is currently the posterboy. And in turn to the Republican party, who openly play the role of political branch for protecting the interests of these people.
Because when all speculation will have become boring there's another easy track for the lazy pundit to wander down: the broad comparison and the commentary: "Ofcourse, dear viewer, we can only speculate what Romney is hiding in his tax returns, but we have Bob Polipun-Chinwagner here in the studio: what do you think the implications of this are for the Romney campaign and the Republicans in general, Bob?"
At any rate, at one point those tax-returns will surface no matter what ...
Breaking News: massive shooting in Colorado, with 14 ~dead and 50 wounded. Masked gunman opened fire in the crowded movie theater during premiere of new Batman movie.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...86J0AM20120720
I wonder if it has anything to do with insane "Bane-Bain" conspiracy Rush Limbaugh was pushing several days ago:
http://www.businessinsider.com/rush-...a-romney2012-7
Limbaugh continued, questioning whether or not the villain would influence voters at all:
This movie, the audience is gonna be huge. A lot of people are gonna see the movie, and it's a lot of brain-dead people, entertainment, the pop culture crowd, and they're gonna hear Bane in the movie and they're gonna associate Bain. The thought is that when they start paying attention to the campaign later in the year, and Obama and the Democrats keep talking about Bain, Romney and Bain, that these people will think back to the Batman movie, "Oh, yeah, I know who that is." (laughing)
Just no.
Presumably the same brain-dead people he's pitching that ludicrous idea to.
Yes, they talk to and about the same people.
Duh.
In other news:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...&dlvrit=574655(Reuters) - When staffers at the National Venture Capital Association see a report that refers to U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney's investments as venture capital, they grimace -- and then contact the author to explain politely why it's wrong.
The Republican White House hopeful was head of Bain Capital LLC, which does the bulk of its work in private equity and not venture capital, the NVCA would clarify. Venture capital backs companies from their earliest days, and some go on to create thousands of jobs; private equity typically comes in at later stages to turn around underperforming companies, sometimes via job cuts and other unpopular cost-savings moves.
The distinction has become important as the U.S. election shines a harsh spotlight on the private equity industry, with President Barack Obama's campaign accusing Romney of slashing U.S. jobs at Bain-owned companies and outsourcing them abroad.
While Obama does not muddle venture capital and private equity, many journalists and politicians do. Venture capitalists fear those slips could tarnish their public image and lead to unfriendly tax policies and other regulations down the road.
"People care about what they do and their reputation and what their job is," said investor Yanev Suissa of venture industry giant NEA, which has $13 billion in committed capital. "When you're faced with the attitude that what you do is job-destroying, it's problematic."
It is a delicate balancing act for venture capitalists to defend their own industry without disparaging private equity or castigating the career path of the man who might become president next year. Many venture capitalists believe PE firms ultimately help the economy by making lagging companies more competitive, and many PE executives also invest in venture capital funds.
But with Democrats highlighting companies that went bankrupt or shipped jobs overseas under Bain's ownership, the VC industry is concerned that negative associations could harm its ability to move an ambitious legislative agenda through Washington.
That agenda includes preserving preferential tax treatments like the carried-interest tax break, which allows VC and PE investors to pay tax on investment gains at the long-term capital-gains tax rate, which is just 15 percent, compared with a top income-tax rate of 35 percent.
"In tax policy, you can see the concern there," said Mark Heesen, president of the National Venture Capital Association, which represents over 400 VC firms.
Given an increasingly squeezed federal budget, the capital-gains tax break could be drastically scaled back or eliminated altogether, he said.
While stopping short of saying private equity does not deserve the tax break, Heesen makes it clear he thinks venture capitalists merit special treatment because of the risks they take on investing in start-ups. "We create something from nothing," he said. "We have a much better story to tell."
Venture capitalists are split on which party seems more likely to preserve tax breaks for them. While Republicans are considered the party of business, many Democrats supported the JOBS Act, which makes it easier for young companies to raise money. Heesen said Republicans might feel more pressure to balance the budget and close up anything seen as a loophole.
The NVCA does not donate to presidential campaigns but it does give to congressional races - about $624,000 so far in the 2011-2012 cycle. About $358,000, or 57 percent, has gone to Republicans, according to a spokeswoman. Individual venture capitalists have given $453,550 to the Romney campaign, compared with $402,915 to the Obama campaign, according to the Center for Responsive Politics' Opensecrets.org.
GNASHED TEETH, ROLLED EYES
The venture capital industry has enjoyed some successes in Washington in recent months beyond the JOBS Act, which passed in April. Venture capitalists helped to snuff out controversial Internet legislation that would have affected the business prospects of Web startups. They also fought for streamlined regulations on approving new medical devices, an important venture investment area.
In addition to retaining preferential tax policies, venture capitalists want to make it easier for entrepreneurs to secure U.S. visas and to preserve government funding for basic research that could benefit start-ups.
With these issues on their agenda, it's no wonder venture capitalists do not want to be tarred as job-cutting villains -- they prefer to be thought of as the people behind such American success stories as Apple Inc, Facebook Inc and Google Inc.
References to Romney as a venture capitalist rather than a private-equity executive are "really annoying," said Larry Lenihan, managing partner at FirstMark Capital, whose investments include online bulletin board Pinterest. "I can't stand the laziness of the broader press not to differentiate between the two."
Kate Mitchell of Scale Venture Partners agrees. "It does more than make me gnash my teeth and roll my eyes," she said, adding that she is often in Washington talking to lawmakers or engaging with the media to educate them about the difference between PE and VC. Scale's investments include cloud-storage company Box.
The NVCA says its staffers have reached out to reporters about a dozen times this year to clarify media reports that labeled Romney's private equity activities as venture capital.
A Google search for "Romney and venture capital" yields 9.4 million results, compared with 43.3 million for "Romney and private equity."
The situation is complicated by the fact that while the bulk of Bain Capital's work is in buyouts, the firm did make some venture investments while Romney was there, such as in office-supplies company Staples Inc and childcare company Bright Horizons Family Solutions Inc.
Bain Capital, which employs 900 people, has $60 billion in assets under management worldwide, including $2 billion managed by Bain Capital Ventures. Its first dedicated venture fund, a $250 million fund, launched in 2001; before that, it mixed venture investments in with its private equity investments.
The term "growth equity" is increasingly used by PE firms to describe what they say are investments that sit between the venture capital and mature private equity space.
Private equity executives defend their industry by saying it creates stronger, more profitable companies, which then are in better positions to hire. PE firms also often save troubled companies from failing, and eliminating far more jobs.
They also argue that the stereotype of private equity firms as speculators that just saddle companies with debt is dated by virtue of the financial markets having moderated leverage since the 2008 financial crisis.
But the job-slashing stereotype has allowed politicians to disparage Romney's record. Former Republican presidential rival Rick Perry, for example, repeatedly called Romney a "vulture capitalist" while the primary race was still in full swing earlier this year.
Meanwhile, venture capital might have to start battling as hard for its image in Hollywood as in Washington. A recent episode of the HBO cable television show "Girls," titled "Weirdos Need Girlfriends Too," cast a venture capitalist as the villain.
Yes, poor venture capitalists. This might actually end up taking their preferential tax-status away. Poor, poor, rich people ...
To be fair, with venture capitalists that tax break mostly does result in more jobs for the plebs.
Except that in reality the boundary between venture capitalists and private equity people is very vague. Or at the least, can be made to look very vague. Which is why most private equity firms also have a venture capital branch. You know, like Bain ...To be fair, with venture capitalists that tax break mostly does result in more jobs for the plebs.
At any rate. In my view, venture capitalists take on extra risk by investing in startups mostly because of the big returns made if it works out. The whole risk-and-reward thing is in the market system already. Why there has to be an addition tax incentive on top as well is quite beyond me. Sounds like incentive to take more risks again, and I don't think that has done the economy much good lately.
But I guess its voodoo-economics again. No doubt it is supposed to trickle down again. Somehow ...
(Nahh, who are we kidding here? It is basically another tax-break for the very wealthy, unavailable for anyone else, with little or no economic benefit for society at large. Certainly now with that idiotic JOBS act monstrosity passed.)
At least there's the hope of possible jobs.To be fair, with venture capitalists that tax break mostly does result in more jobs for the plebs.
I mean, kickstarter is essentially small scale venture capitalism. There's nothing inherently wrong about that is that?
Comparing Kickstarer with venture capital firms is like comparing lemonade stand with Coca-Cola. There is nothing inherently wrong with getting drink to thirsty people, the difference is, when the scale gets big, risk-reward equation gets skewed.At least there's the hope of possible jobs.To be fair, with venture capitalists that tax break mostly does result in more jobs for the plebs.
I mean, kickstarter is essentially small scale venture capitalism. There's nothing inherently wrong about that is that?
Nothing wrong with venture capitalism as such. In fact, a friend of mine is CTO of a venture capital firm, and he shoves some neat technical evaluation requests my way when I'm 'in between projects' again (little work, pays the bills).At least there's the hope of possible jobs.To be fair, with venture capitalists that tax break mostly does result in more jobs for the plebs.
I mean, kickstarter is essentially small scale venture capitalism. There's nothing inherently wrong about that is that?
Now, don't get me wrong, those venture capitalists would love a tax-break like anyone else would. But the idea that a tax-break will immediately increase available venture capital is a rather rosy picture. In reality, the amount of venture capital available is tied predominantly to the size of the remaining investment portfolio of those venture capitalists.
And, unless tied to some sort of tax-evasion scheme perhaps, that ratio won't change much with a tax-break. However you want to put it, venture capital is a risky business. These type of investments have a notoriously poor RoR. So the size of that risky portion of the portfolio is directly tied to how much risk the investor wants to take. Normally they either want to offset it with something safer, or it is 'throw away money' they don't mind taking a risk with.
There's only so much of that type of money available, and a tax-break, outside of the possibility to hide from paying taxes (there are much easier and less risky ways of doing that), is not going to significantly increase that ratio. The risk side just outweighs, by far, the possible tax-benefits should the venture pay off. And that, BTW, is how it should work.
So what this tax break boils down to is less an incentive and more a way to make sure that rich people who can do venture capital investments can keep more of their money and stay rich.
Or do you seriously think the middle-class will go into venture capitalism with their children's college fund now they know that they can get a tax-benefit from it?
(edit: Kickstarter has fuck-all to do with venture capitalism. That's crowd sourcing for money. Where's the RoR in that? Watching a video some guy made? Note that I don't knock it. It is brilliant for what it is. But it has nothing to do with venture capital investment.)
Last edited by Bartholomeus Crane; July 20 2012 at 08:26:13 PM.
No worries; here we go: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1689099.html.Just no.
Louie Gohmert (R): it's because we have offended god.
Naturally.
(Where do they get these people?)
As mentioned, he's one of the co-accusers that the Muslim Brotherhood are infiltrating the US government. Today they upped the ante from one of Hillary's aides to an actual elected, sitting member of congress, who happens to be Muslim American:No worries; here we go: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1689099.html.Just no.
Louie Gohmert (R): it's because we have offended god.
Naturally.
(Where do they get these people?)
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...nts/56370300/1
In an interview Thursday with radio host Glenn Beck, the Minnesota Republican asserted that Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., has a long record of being associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.
meh
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks