Yes open forum//I promised no arguments,,I also would try for more friendly,,I have offered,will do my best..//I will not change my beliefs ever.. we should be able to see right,and wrong

until we come to some agreement,then we do not respond to each other..I will honor this.

The only agreement I will come to is to agree to disagree, you have your beliefs I have mine. Any topic posted is open game for reply , this is a forum.

Good enough for me,your bullying doesn't work!, also after this post !! I will ignore you.. can you believe all these years,your hate still exist..for nothing~~ I don't agree with your politics,but does that cause hate,,your posts exudes this.. I wish you the best..

Always the victim, come on Gyp woman up and stop crying bullying. If in all these years you haven't figured out I will never like you shame on you.

Sorry for the off the subject,, and the interruption..I think Romney,has really made a big booboo, he has slandered many people with this rich mans(50thousand a plate) function dinner video.. I would love to meet the person who filmed this, I would shake his hand in congratulations for showing what a complete fake/fool Romney is.

Don't hold your breath on the video it has been altered by assuming the one who brought it forward Jimmy Carter lV no doubt for financial gains since he is very unemployed. I agree with Romney, 47% of the Obama backers probably do draw off the gov. receive special tax breaks, expect him to hand out more food stamps, welfare and give free passes to their illegal relatives.50% of Americans pay no tax now. Romney is a business man, an organizer, strict on policy. One thing for sure Romney will NEVER apologize for this country in the eyes of the world.

http://news.yahoo.com/mitt-romney-video-fact-check-47-percent-us-232100067.htm Christian Science Monitor – Tue, Sep 18, 2012



Do almost half of Americans get some form of government entitlement?

That is one of the questions that has been raised after Mother Jones magazine on Tuesday released a video of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaking to donors at a $50,000-a-plate fundraiser May 17.

“There are 47 percent who are with him [President Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it,” Mr. Romney says in the video.

RECOMMENDED: Mitt Romney gaffes: 11 times the button-down candidate should have buttoned up

Is that true?

The short answer is, probably not.

According to one analysis, only the very broadest definition of Americans "who are dependent upon government" yields a number approaching 47 percent.

If Romney is including anyone who receives Social Security and Medicare – both considered an earned entitlement since Americans pay for them – the percentage of Americans receiving money from the government hits 37 percent.

That number is from a study of 2010 census data by Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. He did a computer search of people receiving unemployment insurance, Supplemental Security Income (for the aged and disabled), workman’s compensation, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and food stamps. Including veterans in the list added about 1 percent.

But 2010 was a year with above average unemployment. (It never got below 9.4 percent.) Looking at 2007, which was closer to normal at 4.6 percent to 5 percent through the year, Mr. Greenstein found that 30 percent of the population received some form of entitlement.

But many Americans might quibble with a definition of "victims" that includes anyone receiving Social Security. Taking away Social Security and Medicare reduces the share of Americans receiving an entitlement to 25 percent. In 2007, the number was 18 percent.

Some of the programs have a lot of overlap. For example, many of the 46.4 million people who receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (SNAP), or food stamps, also get Medicaid (some 58 million people). There is a similar overlap with Medicare and Social Security.

Greenstein wonders if Romney was considering any household which received some sort of entitlement. For example, one member of the household could be on Social Security while another member worked full time. “You can get closer to 47 percent if you consider households,” he says. “But I don’t think most Americans would consider a spouse who works full time should be included as receiving an entitlement.”

So how did Romney reach the 47 percent number?

Greenstein thinks it was just an error by Romney, who also noted that 47 percent of the population does not pay income tax. “I think he conflated the two figures,” says Greenstein.

More Than 100 Million Americans Are On Welfare
http://www.infowars.com/more-than-100-million-americans-are-on-welfare/

Michael Snyder
American Dream
Aug 9, 2012

There are more Americans dependent on the federal government than ever before in U.S. history.


According to the Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the U.S. Census, well over 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government. Many are enrolled in more than one. That is about a third of the entire population of the country. Sadly, that figure does not even include Social Security or Medicare. Today the federal government runs almost 80 different “means-tested welfare programs”, and almost all of those programs have experienced substantial growth in recent years. Yes, we will always need a “safety net” for those that cannot take care of themselves, but it is absolutely ridiculous that the federal government is financially supporting one-third of all Americans. How much farther do things really need to go before we finally admit that we have become a socialist nation? At the rate we are going, it will not be too long before half the nation is on welfare. Unfortunately, we will likely never get to that point because the gigantic debt that we are currently running up will probably destroy our financial system before that ever happens.

It is really hard to believe how rapidly some of these federal welfare programs have grown.

For example, the number of Americans on food stamps has grown from about 17 million in 2000 to 31.9 million when Barack Obama took office to 46.4 million today.

The federal government spent a staggering 71.8 billion dollars on the food stamp program in 2011.

That sure is a lot of money to spend on food.

And I thought that my grocery bills were high.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
Medicaid is also growing like crazy.

The number of Americans on Medicaid grew from 34 million in 2000 to 54 million in 2011.

Once upon a time, Medicaid was supposed to help the poorest of the poor get medical care. In fact, back in 1965 only about one out of every 50 Americans was on Medicaid.

But now about one-sixth of the entire country is on Medicaid.

Will we all eventually be on Medicaid?

As I mentioned recently, It is being projected that Obamacare will add 16 million more Americans to the Medicaid rolls.

And we all know that projections like that are usually way too low.

Other federal welfare programs are exploding in size as well.

For example, federal housing assistance increased by a whopping 42 percent between 2006 and 2010.

The chart posted below was produced by Senate Budget Committee Republican staff. As you can see, the number of Americans on welfare just continues to grow and grow and grow….



Keep in mind that the chart posted above does not even take into account the huge numbers of Americans that are on Social Security and Medicare.

In the United States today, more than 61 million Americans receive some form of Social Security benefits.

Just think about that.

That means that nearly one out of every five Americans is drawing on Social Security.

That is just crazy.

And in the years ahead we are going to see wave after wave of Baby Boomers retire and so the number of Americans drawing on Social Security is just going to keep going up.

The same kind of thing is happening with Medicare.

As I wrote about the other day, it is being projected that the number of Americans on Medicare will grow from 50.7 million in 2012 to 73.2 million in 2025.

Ouch.

That sure does sound expensive.

If you can believe it, Medicare is facing unfunded liabilities of more than 38 trillion dollars over the next 75 years.

That comes to approximately $328,404 for each and every household in the United States.

Will you be able to pay your share?

And that is just for Medicare.

The federal government just keeps becoming a bigger and bigger part of the health care industry.

Back in 1990, the federal government accounted for just 32 percent of all health care spending in America.

This year, it is being projected that the federal government will account for more than 50 percent of all health care spending in the United States.

Americans have become completely and totally addicted to government money, and word has gotten out to other nations that the U.S. is a place where you can live the high life at the expense of the government.

According to a report from the Center for Immigration Studies, 43 percent of all immigrants that have been in the United States for at least 20 years are still on welfare.

Keep in mind that the study only looked at immigrants that have been in the country for at least two decades.

Nearly half of them are still on welfare.

Needless to say, the system is fundamentally broken.

And there is no way in the world that we can afford all of this. We have rolled up the biggest pile of debt in the history of the world and our children and our grandchildren are facing a lifetime of endless debt slavery.

Once again this year we are facing a federal budget deficit of well over a trillion dollars, and very few of our politicians even seem to care.

We just continue to spend money as if it was going out of style.

At this point, spending by the federal government accounts for more than 25 percent of U.S. GDP.

The last time that happened was during World War II when we were trying to rescue the world from the tyranny of the Germans and the Japanese.

If you divided up the U.S. national debt equally, it would come to more than $134,000 for every single household in the United States.

Ack.

Overall, the U.S. national debt has gotten more than 37 times larger than it was when Nixon took us off the gold standard.

We are a nation of debt addicts, and both political parties have been responsible for getting us into this mess.

We simply cannot afford to continue to go down this road. We need to significantly reduce all categories of government spending.

And yes, we will always need a safety net.

But we simply cannot afford to financially support more than 100 million Americans.

That is absolute madness and it must stop.

fact check is a wonderful tool,waiting for an answer for the last post
but while I am waiting here is a tidbit that was brought up about cars bought by Obama administration which states it was false



Home • Ask FactCheck • GM’s Government Sales
GM’s Government Sales
Posted on September 12, 2012 , Corrected on Sept. 17, 2012
Bookmark and Share

Q: Did the government buy 79 percent of all vehicles sold by General Motors in June?
A: No, that viral rumor is false. All fleet customers combined — including rental car companies and state and local governments — accounted for less than one-third of GM’s June sales.



FULL QUESTION

True or false?

GM Sales: Bloomberg Report.

“See the USA in your Chevrolet…………..”

79% of GM’s sales last month were government purchased

July 12th, 2012

Remember how Obama keeps telling us how he saved GM, and how our economy is getting better, it seems the car company he bought is being saved by Govt employees using our tax money to buy new cars. 79% of GM’s sales last month was government purchased.

GM’s sales figures for last month were the best since 2008, up 16% for the month of June. YIPPEE! Well, wait just a minute. It seems that those rosy sales figures are due primarily to a 79% increase in fleet sales to the U.S. government in June. That’s right. Our tax dollars are being used to pump up GM’s sales figures ahead of next month’s quarterly report so that Dear Leader can point to Government Motors as a huge success. The incestuous relationship between GM, the UAW and the Regime has never been more glaringly apparent. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. GM is unsustainable without government subsidies and will ultimately go bust again, taking billions of taxpayer dollars down with it. We bailed out General Motors to the tune of $50 billion. $30 billion of this is effectively a loss, mostly sunk into fattening the United Auto Workers union—fierce Obama supporters—while the actual bondholders were shown the elevator shaft.



FULL ANSWER

There are a few problems with the email featured above. It is not a Bloomberg report, for one thing. Its headline is also incorrect: Government purchases were not 79 percent of all GM sales in June.

What is true is that “GM’s sales to government fleet customers were up 79 percent year over year in June,” according to James Cain, the company’s financial news manager. And those “government” customers include federal, state and local agencies.

Moreover, purchases by GM’s fleet customers, including all government agencies as well as businesses, accounted for less than one-third of the company’s sales in June. An actual July Bloomberg report said that “GM sales to fleet customers, such as governments and rental car companies, rose 36 percent last month, making up 32 percent of the company’s sales.”

GM’s Cain added that “government fleet sales account for only about three percent of GM’s total U.S. sales” from January through July of this year. And about three-fourths of the fleet sales, Cain said, are to state and local agencies, which have been purchasing an increasing amount of police vehicles. Actually, state and local agency purchases are up 36 percent for the year, so far, while purchases by the federal government are down by 3.5 percent, he said.

The confusion over GM’s government sales may stem from a July post from the National Legal and Policy Center, which said that “government purchases of GM vehicles rose a whopping 79 percent in June.” Readers may have thought that was a month-to-month increase, but author Mark Modica told us he was referring to a year-to-year increase. Either way, that’s not the same thing as saying that “79 percent of GM’s sales last month were government purchased.

Not sure what 79% you are refering to, maybe you better copy that section of a post here, on another thread is an article about the Pentagon buying the Chevy Volts but no 79% was mentioned, might want to fact check your own posts.

http://www.politicalnewsnow.com/2012/09/10/chevy-volt-pentagon-buying-chevy-volts-to-%E2%80%98green-up%E2%80%99-military-washington-free-beacon/ CHEVY VOLT:: Pentagon buying Chevy Volts to ‘green up’ military | Washington Free Beacon

BY: Bill McMorris –

The Pentagon is buying Chevrolet Volts to help “green up” the military—while propping up sales of the bailed-out automaker’s most politicized car.

The Department of Defense began purchasing the struggling luxury electric car, which retails at $40,000, this summer as part of its goal to purchase 1,500 such green vehicles. The Marine Corps Air Station in Miramar, Calif. purchased its first two Volts in July, and 18 more vehicles will come shortly to Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, where Air Force One is based, according to military magazine Stars and Stripes.

The Obama administration championed the production of the Volt. Along with the president’s pledge this year to “buy one and drive it myself … five years from now when I’m not president anymore,” the government offers a $7,500 tax break to encourage sales

ok same thing I had posted where is this 79% you were talking about in your post ???

......
...Where the 47 Percent Live
By Daniel Bukszpan | CNBC – 7 hours ago....
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/where-the-47-percent-live.html

......Was Mitt Romney correct in a recently surfaced video that 47 percent of the voting public pay no federal income tax? The figure that he cited originates from a 2011 study conducted by the Tax Policy Center. Although the figure in the study is actually 46.4 percent, the basic claim is true — there is a large swath of U.S. citizens who pay no federal income tax whatsoever.

Who are these people, and why are they exempt?

“They’re either paying payroll taxes or they’re the elderly,” Heather Boushey, senior economist at the Center for American Progress, said in an e-mail. “Only 7.9% of households do not pay any federal taxes, but that’s because they’re either students, on disability, or unemployed.”

See this slideshow: States That Donate the Most to Presidential Campaigns







These groups may not pay federal income tax, but that's different from paying no taxes whatsoever. “Everyone pays taxes of some sort,” Boushey said. “If you have a job, you pay payroll taxes. If you buy things, you pay sales taxes. And people pay taxes to their state and local governments.”

Other groups who pay no federal income tax include retirees and people earning $20,000 a year or less. “The elderly don’t have to pay income tax on their Social Security benefits, while low income workers qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Child Tax Credit,” Boushey said.

Read ahead to see the 10 states with the highest number of people who pay no federal income tax. The rankings are from the Tax Foundation and are from 2010, the nonpartisan tax research group’s most recent list.

Eight of the states are considered red, one is leaning toward President Barack Obama and one is a swing state.

1. Mississippi
Total Returns: 1,283,495
Returns With Income Tax Liability: 712,035
Returns With No Income Tax Liability: 571,460
Nonpayers: 44.5%

Mississippi tops the list because it comes in first place in numerous categories. “Mississippi ranks number one for returns with no taxable income, for Earned Income Tax Credit recipients and refundable child tax credit recipients,” Kasprak said.

The state is also “last in average income per return,” he said. “By most measures, it’s the poorest state in the country, so that is why it has so many nonpayers.”

2. Georgia
Total Returns: 4,589,611
Returns With Income Tax Liability: 2,639,561
Returns With No Income Tax Liability: 1,950,050
Nonpayers: 42.5%

Georgia is home to nearly 2 million households that pay no income tax. This puts it near the top of the list of states where the 47 percent reside.

“Georgia is number two for returns with no taxable income,” Kasprak said. “It’s also fourth for returns receiving the refundable child tax credit.”

3. Alabama
Total Returns: 2,102,251
Returns With Income Tax Liability: 1,254,979
Returns With No Income Tax Liability: 847,272
Nonpayers: 40.3%

Almost 850,000 Alabama households filed tax returns for 2010 that reflected no liability. According to Kasprak, the state ranks third in the nation for percentage of Earned Income Tax Credit recipients, and the mean annual salary in the state is $39,180, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As a result, more than 40 percent of the state’s residents paid no income tax.

4. Florida
Total Returns: 9,631,252
Returns With Income Tax Liability: 5,879,430
Returns With No Income Tax Liability: 3,751,822
Nonpayers: 39%

Residents of Florida, the only swing state on the list, aren’t in the nation’s top 10 for the Earned Income Tax Credit or the Child Tax Credit. However, it has the second-highest percentage of returns reflecting income under $50,000 and the sixth-highest percentage of returns with no taxable income.

The state’s large elderly population is a major factor in its high ranking. “Florida has the highest percentage of returns with taxable Social Security of any of these states,” Kasprak said. “That indicates a higher-than-normal percentage of elderly people, who, in general, have less taxable income and are more likely to be nonpayers.”

5. Arkansas
Total Returns: 1,224,333
Returns With Income Tax Liability: 748,945
Returns With No Income Tax Liability: 475,388
Nonpayers: 38.8%

In terms of mean annual wage, Arkansas is in worse shape than South Carolina. Its average salary is $36,340, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Accordingly, Arkansas also has a higher percentage of tax returns reflecting low annual salaries. “Arkansas has the third-highest percentage of returns with income under $50,000,” Kasprak said.



See the full list: Where the 47% Live

Do the Math People!! the 47% Romney is talking about actually voted for McCain,last election.. 53% voted for Obama Hence Obama's win.. SOOOO!! who are the 53% the elite, smartest, Democrats!

what is also,a funny note, 47% that voted republican are from southern states~who also voted for Bush,I guess they want to continue the train wreck?

Do you even know what the reference to 47% was about ? Not what your liberal reporters are saying. Plus the fact the tape was altered doesn't help push this, but when people need a scapegoat any ship is better than drowning in a pool of lies.

yep ,laugh

No reply as usual, great job Gyp, if you can't bring it don't reply at all.
I am still waiting for you to clarify your 79% remark or for that matter where you even got that from. It was not about the Volt. Please explain.

I love it when one has a chose to ignore hatred, I think Obama is a better chose than Romney..

Still waiting ?? It was your post please explain it.

I don't have to,that is called freedom..

No that is called you don't have an answer for your post. So please be free to run from it.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats say Mitt Romney manipulated his deductions to keep his overall 2011 federal income tax rate below a certain level for political purposes. The Republican presidential nominee is certain to face new questions about his finances.

Romney and his wife, Ann, donated roughly $4 million to charities last year, but they only claimed a deduction of $2.25 million on their tax return, filed with the Internal Revenue Service on Friday.

Romney made $13.7 million last year and paid $1.94 million in federal income taxes, giving him an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent. That was a bit above the 13.9 percent rate paid on 2010 income.

More precisely, the returns showed that the couple paid $1,935,708 in taxes on income of $13,696,951.

Democrats quickly leaped on the documents, saying Romney had claimed fewer deductions than he was entitled to just to keep his rate at such a level. Romney told reporters in August he had never paid below 13 percent in taxes in any given year over the past 20. Had he taken the full charitable deduction, it would have pushed his tax liability below 13 percent.

"The information released today reveals that Mitt Romney manipulated one of the only two years of tax returns he's seen fit to show the American people - and then only to 'conform' with his public statements. That raises the question: What else in those returns has Romney manipulated?" said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

Stephanie Cutter, deputy campaign manager for President Barack Obama, said the release of Romney's 2011 tax returns "confirms what we already knew - that people like Mitt Romney pay a lower tax rate than many middle-class families because of a set of complex loopholes and tax shelters only available to those at the top. Yet, Mitt Romney still wants to give multimillionaires an additional $250,000 tax cut at the expense of middle-class taxpayers who will see their taxes go up."

Romney, one of the wealthiest candidates ever to seek the presidency, paid taxes at a rate lower than taxpayers whose income was mostly from wages, which can be taxed at higher rates.

Romney's taxes have emerged as a key issue during the 2012 presidential race. He released his 2010 returns in January, but he continues to decline to disclose returns from previous years — including those while he worked at Bain Capital, the private equity firm he co-founded.

The Obama campaign and other Democrats have pushed for fuller disclosures, reminding the Republican candidate that his father, George Romney, released a dozen years of returns when he ran for president.

Overall, the Romneys' main tax return and separate forms for blind trusts totaled more than 800 pages. The blind-trust income came from hedge funds and other complex investment vehicles. The couple also reported $3.5 million in income "from sources outside the United States," citing "various countries." Their forms included filings on holdings in Switzerland, Ireland, Germany and the Cayman Islands.

The Obama campaign accused Romney anew of profiting from millions invested overseas and "loopholes and tax shelters only available to those at the top."

Apparently hoping to resolve basic questions voters might have, the Romney campaign released a letter from his accountants saying that in the 20 years prior to 2010 the Romneys paid an average annual effective rate of 20.2 percent, never lower than 13.66 percent. On average, middle-income families — those making from $50,000 to $75,000 a year — pay 12.8 percent of their income in federal taxes, according to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation. But many pay a higher rate.

The former Massachusetts governor, whose wealth is estimated as high as $250 million, is aggressively competing with Obama for the support of middle-class voters.

Obama's own tax return for last year showed that he and his wife, Michelle, paid $162,074 in federal taxes on $789,674 in adjusted gross income, an effective tax rate of 20.5 percent. Their income plunged from $1.7 million in 2010, with declining sales of the president's books. In 2009, the Obamas reported income of $5.5 million, fueled by the best-selling books.

The Romneys' tax bill could have been lower. They gave $2.6 million in cash to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the documents show. They gave just over $2 million in non-cash charitable contributions — including donations of stock holdings in Domino's Pizza, Dunkin Donuts and Warner Chilcott — to a family trust.

They could have claimed more in deductions, said Brad Malt, the trustee of Romney's blind trust, but the couple "limited their deductions of charitable contributions to conform to the governor's statement in August, based on the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13 percent in income taxes in each of the last 10 years."

Romney seemed to be painted into a corner by that statement, which came in reaction to Senate Democratic leader Reid's claim to have heard that the Republican had paid no taxes in some years.

Romney will surely be reminded by the Democrats that he also said in August, defending his right to pay no more taxes than he owed: "I don't pay more than are legally due, and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president."

The decision of Romney's trustee to limit his use of charitable deductions in 2011 in order to keep to the candidate's claim that he paid no less than 13 percent taxes in any year over the last decade raised the eyebrows of several tax law experts. They noted that the trustee's use of numerous tax strategies gives Romney the rare ability to loosen or limit his tax payments at will.

"It's interesting he didn't take the full charitable deduction," said Victor Fleischer, a University of Colorado law professor who has testified before Congress urging tightened oversight of private equity firms. "You're in a pretty lucky position when you can pay more tax" to get up to a 13 percent rate. Fleischer and several others said it was doubtful Romney could later take any unclaimed deductions in future years.

He appears to be physically qualified by any measure.

The campaign released a separate report Friday — by Romney's longtime physician, Dr. Randall Gaz of Massachusetts General Hospital — that said he is healthy and ready to meet the rigorous demands of the presidency.

The report said Romney's heart appears healthy, and he takes a baby aspirin and medicine to treat high cholesterol to help keep it that way. He doesn't smoke or drink. And his resting heart rate is a low 40 beats per minute, in the range of well-trained athletes and reminiscent of President George W. Bush, who also had a low resting rate.

Romney is 6 feet 1½ inches tall and weighs 184 pounds.

As for his taxes, the Romneys had obtained a filing extension beyond the usual April 15 tax deadline.

Most of their income is from investments held in a blind trust, and campaign aides have stressed that he makes no decisions on how his money is invested. Capital gains and dividend interest is now generally taxed at 15 percent whereas the top marginal rate for income from wages is 35 percent.

The Romneys reported $6.8 million in capital gains, such as from the sale of stocks and other securities, and $6.37 million from dividends and taxable interest.

Romney's vast fortune and his long association with Bain Capital have been much discussed this year.

Several tax law experts said Friday that his newly released tax returns would not be much help in resolving critics' questions about his sprawling finances — whether he used aggressive tax-deferral strategies, what might be the specifics and tax advantages of his numerous offshore investments, what was the source of his massive retirement account and what are the details behind his now-closed $3 million Swiss bank account.

Analysts said details about his investments could emerge only if Romney provided far more of his tax returns — including files dating back to his years at Bain, the private firm he left in 2001. Romney, who initially refused to disclose any tax returns, has drawn the line at providing those from the past two years.

"All the important compliance and policy questions relating to Romney's personal tax matters relate to the past," said Edward D. Kleinbard, a law professor at the University of Southern California and former chief of staff of Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation. "The issue has never been Romney's 2011 tax return — in fact, it is a distraction to the real issues."

Only multiple returns would provide details about Romney's $100 million retirement account and how it grew, Kleinbard said. He also said earlier returns would be crucial in knowing how often he paid gift tax on family trusts.

Joseph Bankman, a Stanford University law school professor and expert on tax law, said, "It's the Bain years we'd really need to know to have a full assessment of his tax strategies." Bankman said that the 2010 and 2011 returns "only raised these questions, but they can't provide real answers."

The Romneys applied a $1.5 million tax refund to their 2012 estimated tax payments.

The couple reported $190,350 in book royalties and speaking fees. And Romney also reported $260,390 in income last year from serving on various boards of directors.

The Republican vice presidential nominee, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, and his wife, Janna, whose returns were also released Friday by the Romney campaign, paid $64,764 in taxes on $323,416 of adjusted gross income in 2011, for an effective rate of 20 percent.

Just over half of their income came from Ryan's congressional salary. Other income flowed from rental real estate and other investments, including a trust inherited by Janna Ryan. They donated $12,991 to charity, including to the Boy Scouts of America

___


___

I just heard on the news that are service men,women who are deployed make up part of that 47% I think Mr Romney you will not get their vote either..

Thanks to Obama the military vote is screwed up not many will get to vote period if they are overseas.
47% my how this number seems stuck in Dems head, a shame they can't focus on world threats or murders of Americans, but lets make sure we talk about taxes. Hate on the man who knows how to make money, jealousy seems to be a big issue here. How many of our esteemed politicians can claim generous donations ?

http://news.yahoo.com/congress-seeks-clarity-election-agenda-124844586.htWASHINGTON (AP) — A frustrated Congress quit Washington on Saturday with at least one hope — that the stark choice in the election ahead will give lawmakers clarity about what Americans want from their government.

They desperately need some direction.

Lawmakers will return in about seven weeks and face a crowded list of must-do items, topped by avoiding what's become known as the fiscal cliff: the combination of expiring George W. Bush-era tax cuts and automatic spending cuts that could drive the country back into recession.

Two years of rancor and a divided government resulted in one of the least productive Congresses in history. President Barack Obama piled on in his weekly radio address.

"Without much fanfare, members of the House of Representatives banged a gavel, turned out the lights, and rushed home, declaring their work finished for now," Obama told Americans, while failing to mention the Democratic-controlled Senate. "If that frustrates you, it should — because their work isn't finished."

In the early morning hours Saturday, the Senate cleared and sent Obama a bill to keep the government running for another six months. The temporary measure is a reflection of lawmakers' failure to complete any of the 12 spending bills by the Oct. 1 start of the fiscal year.

The nation will have to wait until after the election for Congress to deal with taxes, spending cuts, the farm bill and the cash-strapped Postal Service. It comes as no surprise to lawmakers that their public approval has plummeted to about 12 percent.

"I literally get on a plane with a baseball hat and hope to God nobody knows who I am because they're just going to yell at me," two-term Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., said Friday as lawmakers prepared to flee the Capitol.

Members of Congress are counting on the voters, faced with a straightforward choice in the election, to decide a way forward.

The candidates and parties present two competing philosophies. Obama and Democrats envision a government with enough resources to help lift up the less fortunate. Mitt Romney and Republicans see a government that gets out of the way, allowing people to make the most in an opportunistic society.

The difficulty for lawmakers is the presidential election of 2008 and the congressional contests of 2010 contradicted each other.

"The electorate has sent us, has sent the country two very different messages over the last two elections," said freshman Rep. Mick Mulvaney, R-S.C. "They elected the most liberal president in a long time and then the most conservative group to the House of Representatives two years later. That is the conflicting message."

The upcoming election — "You sort of look at this as the tiebreaker. I have no difficulty with the big issues of the day being solved at the ballot box," Mulvaney said.

Voters on Nov. 6 will chose a president and decide control of the House and Senate. Republicans say a Romney victory, an increase in their House majority and a majority in the Senate would be a mandate to begin making the changes embodied by the budget of Romney's running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, in their postelection session.

Ryan's spending blueprint remakes Medicare, reduces personal and corporate taxes, targets spending on safety-net programs for the poor and drives down the deficit to a manageable level. Republicans insist it is the only way to get a country deep in debt back on track.

The election choice, says freshman Rep. Allen West, R-Fla., is a "huge philosophical difference. It is based upon will America be a constitutional republic or will it be a socialist, egalitarian, welfare nanny state. I think the choice is pretty simple."

If the election restores the status quo — an Obama win, a Democratic Senate and a Republican House — Democrats are optimistic that the GOP would be more willing to compromise, with establishment Republicans prevailing over the wishes of their tea party brethren.

"We shouldn't have to wait for an election for the two sides to come together," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "But for the Republicans, it just might do the trick."

Even the most hidebound lawmaker wouldn't want the alternative, said Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt.

"Do people want to slog through four more years of dysfunction?" Welch asked. "I think even members of Congress have their limits."

Said Rooney: "It would be nice to get something accomplished in the 112th" session of Congress.

Over the past two years, the Republican-controlled House and Democratic-led Senate struggled for consensus on what had been easy in previous years, such as legislation to fund transportation projects. Just over 173 bills became law, far less than the 383 in Obama's first two years, when Democrats held Congress, and less than the 460 in the last two years of Republican Bush's second term with a Democratic Congress.

Lack of activity isn't the only reason for the lower production. House Republicans eliminated plenty of feel-good resolutions and measures such as those honoring sports teams.

Based on days worked, Congress has been in session 287 days, compared with 286 in Obama's first two years. Lawmakers are expected to return Nov. 13 for several weeks of work.

The to-do list is long in addition to the expiring tax cuts and the automatic, across-the-board spending cuts of about $110 billion that kick in Jan. 2 to defense and domestic programs.

Congress much deal with the five-year farm and nutrition bill, which sets policy for farm safety net programs and funds the food stamp program. Also unresolved are a defense policy bill, cybersecurity legislation and legislation to lift Cold War trade restrictions on Russia, now a member of the World Trade Organization.

But for all the possibility of clarity and compromise in the lame-duck session, the bitterness is still prevalent. House Republicans point to the numerous bills that went nowhere in the Senate.

"Look at how many bills this House has passed over to the Senate that are critically important to this country only to see them languish in complete ignominy by the Senate," said Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz. "For them to suggest it's a do-nothing Congress is a fundamental indictment of the Democrat leadership in the Senate. ... The Senate is where things go to die in this environment."

Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., blamed Senate Republicans for filibustering legislation. He said it was difficult to accomplish anything when the Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had said his goal was to make Obama a one-term president.

The choice, Durbin said, rests with the voters.

"Decide what you want," Durbin said on the Senate floor Friday. "Decide if you want to send Democrats and Republicans to this Capitol with an awesome responsibility and also with a spirit of consensus and cooperation."





Congress returns for short pre-election …

Associated Press
The 2012 People's Party Congress of Charlotte: Tom Brokaw & Barack ObamaPlay Video




We want Congress to work for the American people, not special interests!



WORST Congress in history.