Video: Obama In Tonight's Late Show With David Letterman

[Chicog]

Absolutely correct. Americans are taxed on their global incomes from any & all sources. Saying Romney or Buffet or Gates have Cayman accounts they would be AFTER tax. Any accounts over $10,000 must be reported yearly.

Q: If you tell the US Government you have $1 million in your Caymans account that has come from, say, Italy, how can they tell that you don't have another account with $9 million in it?

I think that the US Gov't now asks foreign banks to supply information on accounts held by American citizens. But if the American has more than one passport, and use their non-American passport to open the account I would guess there is nothing the US gov't could do?

The whole point of places like Switzerland, Lichtenstein and the Caymans is that they pride themselves on privacy. They don't give bank account details voluntarily, although there have been a couple of "whistleblowers" who've put account details up for sale to governments to find out who is hiding money from the taxman.

[bendejo]

Bob Hope - not aligned until the Nixon years? Maybe, but here's a classic from FDR's days...

Good line, but it could have been used by either side. I knew a woman who said she learned how to cuss from listening to her father talk about FDR.

The point I'm trying to make is he had his alignment, but that didn't mean he refused to be seen with a Dem president. The Peace Corp was sort of a pet project for JFK, and Hope got named as spokesman. I remember TV ads advertising for volunteers, with Hope doing the voice-over and making a quip about his 'road' movies. That kind of bi-partisan partnership is something you no longer see. Once when doing the Oscars he said one of the nominated movies was about Congress -- A Thousand Clowns.

As for what I said about the other comedians, I guess it shows how I don't anticipate much moral gumption from show-biz personalities. All these guys want to be Johnny Carson, and their shows are exactly like Carson's, monologue, a sit-down bit, then an array of guests, banter with the bandleader, even the way the furniture is arranged. I don't care for any of them, I can't stand Fallon, has one of those faces ...

That Gut___ (can't remember his name) guy on FN is an exception, he wants to be Howard Stern.

Daily Show-Colbert-Maher were conceived as political satire shows, as opposed to "variety shows."

Edited October 6, 2012 by bendejo

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted.

[keemapoot]

Meanwhile, these two guys keep getting richer no matter who wins.

O'Reilly, Stewart tangle in mock debate

http://news.yahoo.co...-014019527.html

Edited October 7, 2012 by keemapoot

[chuckd]

Here's where having all those liberal pals in Hollywood comes in handy:

A film dramatizing the death of Osama bin Laden is set to debut next month on the National Geographic Channel, two days before the presidential election.

http://news.yahoo.co...-025427068.html

Romney's gonna have to come up with something better than an old guy talking to a chair to compete with these types of juggernauts...

If Obama continues taking credit for killilng Osama in Pakistan, shouldn't he also take the blame for losing four Americans in Behghazi?

Can't have it both ways.

Edited October 7, 2012 by chuckd

[chuckd]

Absolutely correct. Americans are taxed on their global incomes from any & all sources. Saying Romney or Buffet or Gates have Cayman accounts they would be AFTER tax. Any accounts over $10,000 must be reported yearly.

Q: If you tell the US Government you have $1 million in your Caymans account that has come from, say, Italy, how can they tell that you don't have another account with $9 million in it?

Of course I realise that's illegal under US law, and one would like to think that Romney isn't doing that.

However, when he says he gets no personal benefit from having offshore accounts in tax havens, on that he's clearly lying through his teeth.

And it demonstrates he's capable of lying, which probably explains why he doesn't want the US public to know what is in his tax returns pre-2010.

I wonder if all the "tax loopholes" he said he's going to close include the ones he himself uses?

What are the benefits that are making him "lie through his teeth"? A free toaster?

Give us some specifics instead of this continual scatter shooting.

[SteeleJoe]

Here's where having all those liberal pals in Hollywood comes in handy:

A film dramatizing the death of Osama bin Laden is set to debut next month on the National Geographic Channel, two days before the presidential election.

http://news.yahoo.co...-025427068.html

Romney's gonna have to come up with something better than an old guy talking to a chair to compete with these types of juggernauts...

If Obama continues taking credit for killilng Osama in Pakistan, shouldn't he also take the blame for losing four Americans in Behghazi?

Can't have it both ways.

Well, let's think about that...

Leaving aside how much and how often he is or isn't taking credit ( and if you want to deny that ANY POTUS would expect to reap some political benefit from such a thing you'd be a liar or a fool):

Obama was personally and directly involved in terms of being informed every step of the way and giving various directives up to final "go". He took responsibility and would have taken ( politically fatal) blame for a failure.

A POTUS does not, can not and should not plan security for embassies. And believe it or not, Obama did not give the "go" order to the al Q f---ers who attacked the embassy.

Is Obama the hero of Abbottobad? Of course not. But he's not the villain of Benghazi either. The idea that they are at all comparable is ridiculous and only going to be posited from desperate partisanship.

[Chicog]

What are the benefits that are making him "lie through his teeth"? A free toaster?

Give us some specifics instead of this continual scatter shooting.

One example: "Romney’s I.R.A. also appears to have invested in so-called blocker corporations in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. U.S. pension funds, foundations, and even I.R.A.’s routinely use offshore blocker corporations to avoid something called the Unrelated Business Income Tax, which was designed to keep nonprofits from competing with ordinary companies in areas outside their core purpose: if you invest directly you get hit with the tax, but if you invest in a blocker, which then invests in the U.S. business, you escape it. Romney’s I.R.A. appears to have employed this lawful escape route, and his campaign has used language suggesting that it has. But that would mean the Romney camp’s claim that Mitt’s tax consequences of investing via the Cayman Islands is “the very same” as it would have been had he invested directly at home is simply not true."

[SteeleJoe]

Bob Hope - not aligned until the Nixon years? Maybe, but here's a classic from FDR's days...

Good line, but it could have been used by either side. I knew a woman who said she learned how to cuss from listening to her father talk about FDR.

The point I'm trying to make is he had his alignment, but that didn't mean he refused to be seen with a Dem president. The Peace Corp was sort of a pet project for JFK, and Hope got named as spokesman. I remember TV ads advertising for volunteers, with Hope doing the voice-over and making a quip about his 'road' movies. That kind of bi-partisan partnership is something you no longer see. Once when doing the Oscars he said one of the nominated movies was about Congress -- A Thousand Clowns.

As for what I said about the other comedians, I guess it shows how I don't anticipate much moral gumption from show-biz personalities. All these guys want to be Johnny Carson, and their shows are exactly like Carson's, monologue, a sit-down bit, then an array of guests, banter with the bandleader, even the way the furniture is arranged. I don't care for any of them, I can't stand Fallon, has one of those faces ...

That Gut___ (can't remember his name) guy on FN is an exception, he wants to be Howard Stern.

Daily Show-Colbert-Maher were conceived as political satire shows, as opposed to "variety shows."

Carson was the master. But he didn't invent that format either. It was already a successful one -- and hard to improve on unless you want to make a different sort of show altogether (eg Stewart, Colbert)...if you don't like that sort of show then the problem isn't that the hosts aren't inventing a whole new kind of show, it's that you should be watching another kind of show, yes?

Edited October 7, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[Ulysses G.]

Romney’s I.R.A. appears to have employed this lawful escape route, and his campaign has used language suggesting that it has. But that would mean the Romney camp’s claim that Mitt’s tax consequences of investing via the Cayman Islands is “the very same” as it would have been had he invested directly at home is simply not true."

All the voters care about is if what Romney's accountants did was legal under US Law and it was. All the hair splitting simply does not matter.

[koheesti]

Bob Hope - not aligned until the Nixon years? Maybe, but here's a classic from FDR's days...

Good line, but it could have been used by either side. I knew a woman who said she learned how to cuss from listening to her father talk about FDR.

The point I'm trying to make is he had his alignment, but that didn't mean he refused to be seen with a Dem president. The Peace Corp was sort of a pet project for JFK, and Hope got named as spokesman. I remember TV ads advertising for volunteers, with Hope doing the voice-over and making a quip about his 'road' movies. That kind of bi-partisan partnership is something you no longer see. Once when doing the Oscars he said one of the nominated movies was about Congress -- A Thousand Clowns.

As for what I said about the other comedians, I guess it shows how I don't anticipate much moral gumption from show-biz personalities. All these guys want to be Johnny Carson, and their shows are exactly like Carson's, monologue, a sit-down bit, then an array of guests, banter with the bandleader, even the way the furniture is arranged. I don't care for any of them, I can't stand Fallon, has one of those faces ...

That Gut___ (can't remember his name) guy on FN is an exception, he wants to be Howard Stern.

Daily Show-Colbert-Maher were conceived as political satire shows, as opposed to "variety shows."

Presidents were treated with more respect back in Bob Hope's day. JFK was a prolific womanizer and the media let it go. Hope might have favored Republicans but that didn't stop him from supporting the troops in Vietnam (he was the man at the USO for 50 years). Today, few left wing Hollywood types go to the troops but one look at USO history and current line-up shows people you usually see on Fox News... http://www.uso.org/uso-entertainment-history.aspx

[koheesti]

Here's where having all those liberal pals in Hollywood comes in handy:

A film dramatizing the death of Osama bin Laden is set to debut next month on the National Geographic Channel, two days before the presidential election.

http://news.yahoo.co...-025427068.html

Romney's gonna have to come up with something better than an old guy talking to a chair to compete with these types of juggernauts...

If Obama continues taking credit for killilng Osama in Pakistan, shouldn't he also take the blame for losing four Americans in Behghazi?

Can't have it both ways.

I can't believe they are going to air a film about the killing of Osama on Nov 4th. That will surely offend Muslims and start protests. I wonder how that will play on the news, when more protests are outside our embassies burning effigies of Obama because of the program? Remember the "Obama, Obama, there are a million Osamas!" chant from Egypt?

[Chicog]

Romney’s I.R.A. appears to have employed this lawful escape route, and his campaign has used language suggesting that it has. But that would mean the Romney camp’s claim that Mitt’s tax consequences of investing via the Cayman Islands is “the very same” as it would have been had he invested directly at home is simply not true."

All the voters care about is if what Romney's accountants did was legal under US Law and it was. All the hair splitting simply does not matter.

The point I made, which you seem to have ignored, was whether or not Romney will seek to close the very loopholes from which he himself has avoided a shedload of tax.

[maccaroni man]

Romney’s I.R.A. appears to have employed this lawful escape route, and his campaign has used language suggesting that it has. But that would mean the Romney camp’s claim that Mitt’s tax consequences of investing via the Cayman Islands is “the very same” as it would have been had he invested directly at home is simply not true."

All the voters care about is if what Romney's accountants did was legal under US Law and it was. All the hair splitting simply does not matter.

The point I made, which you seem to have ignored, was whether or not Romney will seek to close the very loopholes from which he himself has avoided a shedload of tax.

my guess would be no and my opinion is why should he? he is already paying a huge tax bill for the honor of being a US passport holder.

[Chicog]

Romney’s I.R.A. appears to have employed this lawful escape route, and his campaign has used language suggesting that it has. But that would mean the Romney camp’s claim that Mitt’s tax consequences of investing via the Cayman Islands is “the very same” as it would have been had he invested directly at home is simply not true."

All the voters care about is if what Romney's accountants did was legal under US Law and it was. All the hair splitting simply does not matter.

The point I made, which you seem to have ignored, was whether or not Romney will seek to close the very loopholes from which he himself has avoided a shedload of tax.

my guess would be no and my opinion is why should he? he is already paying a huge tax bill for the honor of being a US passport holder.

Why should Romney have access to a variety of mechanisms to allow him to pay less tax than the middle class that he claims are getting "buried", and whose votes he covets?

I hope that's a question many middle class voters will ask themselves.

[Ulysses G.]

Why should Romney have access to a variety of mechanisms to allow him to pay less tax than the middle class that he claims are getting "buried", and whose votes he covets?

Because he has already paid taxes on it before and now it is investment income. Most voters understand that.

[keemapoot]

Here's a little poignant but light-hearted entertainment in the midst of this election:

The verdict: Everybody wins

O'Reilly and Stewart attacked each other's arguments but not their personalities, armed with facts and a fair bit of passion. They didn't replace traditional news sources or change many minds, but they did offer a blueprint for debate that can inform, entertain and push forward the bounds of public discussion at once.

Wonder if anybody in the political world was actually paying attention?

http://www.tampabay.com/features/media/article1255335.ece

You can watch the whole thing here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P5tIxg4VDg&feature=youtu.be

[Ulysses G.]

Thanks for that. I will watch it as soon as I can scrape up the $5 donation that they requested.

[maidu]

Interesting to note some of the ways Romney resembles Thaksin. Both are v. rich. Both hide lots of money in numbered accounts at one or more Caribbean islands. Both are charismatic and seek the most powerful positions in their respective countries (.....if you count Thailand as Thaksin's country, which is questionable considering he has at least 7 passports).

Granted, the differences between the two far outnumber the similarlities. Most evident: Romney appears to be a decent man.

[Jingthing]

Interesting to note some of the ways Romney resembles Thaksin. Both are v. rich. Both hide lots of money in numbered accounts at one or more Caribbean islands. Both are charismatic and seek the most powerful positions in their respective countries (.....if you count Thailand as Thaksin's country, which is questionable considering he has at least 7 passports).

Granted, the differences between the two far outnumber the similarlities. Most evident: Romney appears to be a decent man.

Romney is not charismatic. There is no personality cult of Romney and there never will be, even in the unlikely event of a Romney presidency. Thaksin did have a plan to cover preexisting health conditions for his people. Romney does not but blatantly lies that he does when it is politically convenient. Edited October 8, 2012 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

What are the benefits that are making him "lie through his teeth"? A free toaster?

Give us some specifics instead of this continual scatter shooting.

One example: "Romney’s I.R.A. also appears to have invested in so-called blocker corporations in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. U.S. pension funds, foundations, and even I.R.A.’s routinely use offshore blocker corporations to avoid something called the Unrelated Business Income Tax, which was designed to keep nonprofits from competing with ordinary companies in areas outside their core purpose: if you invest directly you get hit with the tax, but if you invest in a blocker, which then invests in the U.S. business, you escape it. Romney’s I.R.A. appears to have employed this lawful escape route, and his campaign has used language suggesting that it has. But that would mean the Romney camp’s claim that Mitt’s tax consequences of investing via the Cayman Islands is “the very same” as it would have been had he invested directly at home is simply not true."

Lots of "if" and "appears" in your post. Care to show us some hard facts?

[Chicog]

What are the benefits that are making him "lie through his teeth"? A free toaster?

Give us some specifics instead of this continual scatter shooting.

One example: "Romney’s I.R.A. also appears to have invested in so-called blocker corporations in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. U.S. pension funds, foundations, and even I.R.A.’s routinely use offshore blocker corporations to avoid something called the Unrelated Business Income Tax, which was designed to keep nonprofits from competing with ordinary companies in areas outside their core purpose: if you invest directly you get hit with the tax, but if you invest in a blocker, which then invests in the U.S. business, you escape it. Romney’s I.R.A. appears to have employed this lawful escape route, and his campaign has used language suggesting that it has. But that would mean the Romney camp’s claim that Mitt’s tax consequences of investing via the Cayman Islands is “the very same” as it would have been had he invested directly at home is simply not true."

Lots of "if" and "appears" in your post. Care to show us some hard facts?

No, because he refuses to release the tax returns that will show exactly how much he has squirreled away and how little tax he pays on it. That's the whole point of hiding money offshore, isn't it?

[Chicog]

Thaksin did have a plan to cover preexisting health conditions for his people.

I think you'll find Thaksin had a plan to bankrupt loads of hospitals and buy them up on the cheap.

I don't think he gives a toss about anyone's health condition except his own.

[Ulysses G.]

What are the benefits that are making him "lie through his teeth"? A free toaster?

Give us some specifics instead of this continual scatter shooting.

One example: "Romney’s I.R.A. also appears to have invested in so-called blocker corporations in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. U.S. pension funds, foundations, and even I.R.A.’s routinely use offshore blocker corporations to avoid something called the Unrelated Business Income Tax, which was designed to keep nonprofits from competing with ordinary companies in areas outside their core purpose: if you invest directly you get hit with the tax, but if you invest in a blocker, which then invests in the U.S. business, you escape it. Romney’s I.R.A. appears to have employed this lawful escape route, and his campaign has used language suggesting that it has. But that would mean the Romney camp’s claim that Mitt’s tax consequences of investing via the Cayman Islands is “the very same” as it would have been had he invested directly at home is simply not true."

Lots of "if" and "appears" in your post. Care to show us some hard facts?

No, because he refuses to release the tax returns that will show exactly how much he has squirreled away and how little tax he pays on it.

Correction. He has released the two years that he is legally required to release and the IRS know exactly what is in the rest of them.

[Chicog]

Correction. He has released the two years that he is legally required to release and the IRS know exactly what is in the rest of them.

But the voters don't. And he obviously doesn't want them to know. Again: What's he got to hide?

[Scott]

Off-topic posts deleted. If you have nothing to add to the topic, feel free to stop posting.

A post which uses an incorrect and derogatory spelling of a politician's name has been deleted. Please use the correct names.

[snarky66]

I am pretty sure Mitt Romney hasn't paid taxes over the last 10 years. Because the esteemed democrat leader Harry Reid said so He said it while standing on the Senate floor.

[koheesti]

Here's a little poignant but light-hearted entertainment in the midst of this election:

The verdict: Everybody wins

O'Reilly and Stewart attacked each other's arguments but not their personalities, armed with facts and a fair bit of passion. They didn't replace traditional news sources or change many minds, but they did offer a blueprint for debate that can inform, entertain and push forward the bounds of public discussion at once.

Wonder if anybody in the political world was actually paying attention?

http://www.tampabay....icle1255335.ece

You can watch the whole thing here:

Overall I'd say Stewart won but I was surprised that he appeared to honestly believe the national debt was zero when Clinton left office and that Bush added $10 trillion to it. O'Reilly kept trying to explain the difference between the debt and the deficit but Stewart wasn't having any of it. Maybe he was on something?

Edited October 8, 2012 by koheesti

[chuckd]

What are the benefits that are making him "lie through his teeth"? A free toaster?

Give us some specifics instead of this continual scatter shooting.

One example: "Romney’s I.R.A. also appears to have invested in so-called blocker corporations in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere. U.S. pension funds, foundations, and even I.R.A.’s routinely use offshore blocker corporations to avoid something called the Unrelated Business Income Tax, which was designed to keep nonprofits from competing with ordinary companies in areas outside their core purpose: if you invest directly you get hit with the tax, but if you invest in a blocker, which then invests in the U.S. business, you escape it. Romney’s I.R.A. appears to have employed this lawful escape route, and his campaign has used language suggesting that it has. But that would mean the Romney camp’s claim that Mitt’s tax consequences of investing via the Cayman Islands is “the very same” as it would have been had he invested directly at home is simply not true."

Lots of "if" and "appears" in your post. Care to show us some hard facts?

No, because he refuses to release the tax returns that will show exactly how much he has squirreled away and how little tax he pays on it. That's the whole point of hiding money offshore, isn't it?

Just as I expected. Your position has no basis in fact.

Even the democratic party has dropped this ridiculous claim.

You can stop this now. The horse is well and truly dead.

[koheesti]

You can stop this now. The horse is well and truly dead.

Just like Obama's campaign if he doesn't learn how to debate by next week,

Edited October 9, 2012 by koheesti