Oh Hey, Romney Didn't Pay Taxes

Oh Hey, Romney Didn't Pay Taxes

Soooo, do you remember when Harry Reid claimed Romney paid close to $0 in taxes before he knew he was going to run for president? Well, turns out he was right...

In 1997, Congress cracked down on a popular tax shelter that allowed rich people to take advantage of the exempt status of charities without actually giving away much money.
Individuals who had already set up these vehicles were allowed to keep them. That included Mitt Romney, then the chief executive officer of Bain Capital, who had just established such an arrangement in June 1996.

The charitable remainder unitrust, as it is known, is one of several strategies Romney has adopted over his career to reduce his tax bill. While Romney’s tax avoidance is legal and common among high-net-worth individuals, it has become an issue in the campaign. President Barack Obama attacked him in their second debate for paying “lower tax rates than somebody who makes a lot less.”

In this instance, Romney used the tax-exempt status of a charity -- the Mormon Church, according to a 2007 filing -- to defer taxes for more than 15 years. At the same time he is benefiting, the trust will probably leave the church with less than what current law requires, according to tax returns obtained by Bloomberg this month through a Freedom of Information Act request.

In general, charities don’t owe capital gains taxes when they sell assets for a profit. Trusts like Romney’s permit funders to benefit from that tax-free treatment, said Jonathan Blattmachr, a trusts and estates lawyer who set up hundreds of such vehicles in the 1990s.

Near zero

“The main benefit from a charitable remainder trust is the renting from your favorite charity of its exemption from taxation,” Blattmachr said. Despite the name, giving a gift or getting a charitable deduction “is just a throwaway,” he said. “I used to structure them so the value dedicated to charity was as close to zero as possible without being zero.”

When individuals fund a charitable remainder unitrust, or “CRUT,” they defer capital gains taxes on any profit from the sale of the assets, and receive a small upfront charitable deduction and a stream of yearly cash payments. Like an individual retirement account, the trust allows money to grow tax deferred, while like an annuity it also pays Romney a steady income. After the funder’s death, the trust’s remaining assets go to a designated charity

Romney’s CRUT, which is only a small part of the $250 million that Romney’s campaign cites as his net worth, has been paying him 8 percent of its assets each year. As the Romneys have received these payments, the money that will potentially be left for charity has declined from at least $750,000 in 2001 to $421,203 at the end of 2011.

So what I was going to add to this is what was already added in the comments;

Well, up until 1997, if you were rich, you could "rent" non-profit status from your favorite charity.

Huh? How can an individual rent tax-exempt status from a charity? It's pretty intricate, but the way it worked was, in Mitt's case, he used the Mormon church as a tax shelter by setting up a Charitable Remainder Unitrust (CRUT), that paid him a specific amount of money per year from dividends while also donating the smallest amount possible to the church.

Estate and trust attorney Jonathan Blattmachr told Bloomberg that he had set up many of these for clients prior to the 1997 law banning them: "I used to structure them so the value dedicated to charity was as close to zero as possible without being zero."

Yes, we should elect Mitt Romney, or he promises he will go back into business! Or maybe he'll just buy all the money. There will be no more money left. He will have it all.




I'm worth four and a half billion dollars! How am I suppose to afford Job creation in this climate?!  Currently rumors are circulating that Barack Obama has no personal wealth whatsoever. Go ahead and show us the bank statements, Mr. President!

How exactly does Obama justify flying around in a huge airplane at our expense when he can't even afford a personal jet of his own?! How could he use the secret service to take him out to the hamburger restaurant. That's my tax money! He should stay home and eat tinned beans and water. It's MY tax dollerz, yo. DAOLLRS! MONEY. IT'S ALL MINE! 

FUCK EVERYTHING - PMS

PMS And Voting  - War on Women? 

So, CNN's Sanjay Gupta actually wrote a piece that has now been removed all about the fucking sexist biotruths. It's beyond believable and further proof of the laughable level our news media outlets and why you shouldn't listen to any fucking one...

While the campaigns eagerly pursue female voters, there’s something that may raise the chances for both presidential candidates that’s totally out of their control: women’s ovulation cycles.

You read that right. New research suggests that hormones may influence female voting choices differently, depending on whether a woman is single or in a committed relationship.

Please continue reading with caution. Although the study will be published in the peer-reviewed journal Psychological Science, several political scientists who read the study have expressed skepticism about its conclusions.

A bit of background: Women are more likely to vote than men, other studies have found. Current data suggest married women favor Gov. Mitt Romney, in a 19% difference, over President Barack Obama, while Obama commands the votes of single women by a 33% margin, according to the study. And previous studies have shown that political and religious attitudes may be influenced by reproductive goals.

In the new study's first experiment, Kristina Durante of the University of Texas, San Antonio and colleagues conducted an internet survey of 275 women who were not taking hormonal contraception and had regular menstrual cycles. About 55% were in committed relationships, including marriage.

They found that women at their most fertile times of the month were less likely to be religious if they were single, and more likely to be religious if they were in committed relationships.

Now for the even more controversial part: 502 women, also with regular periods and not taking hormonal contraception, were surveyed on voting preferences and a variety of political issues.

The researchers found that during the fertile time of the month, when levels of the hormone estrogen are high, single women appeared more likely to vote for Obama and committed women appeared more likely to vote for Romney, by a margin of at least 20%, Durante said. This seems to be the driver behind the researchers' overall observation that single women were inclined toward Obama and committed women leaned toward Romney.

Here’s how Durante explains this: When women are ovulating, they “feel sexier,” and therefore lean more toward liberal attitudes on abortion and marriage equality. Married women have the same hormones firing, but tend to take the opposite viewpoint on these issues, she says.

“I think they’re overcompensating for the increase of the hormones motivating them to have sex with other men,” she said. It’s a way of convincing themselves that they’re not the type to give in to such sexual urges, she said.

Well, I guess these scientist are overcompensating for specializing in a worthless science. It's all just a way of convincing themselves into thinking they're not the type ot give in to such essentializing ahistorical and unscientific urges. How else can you explain how it was all an "internet survey of 275 women"

I guess I should have stopped reading at that point. Cause really "Hey women! Does being asked if being on the rag makes you angry and irrational make you angry and irrational? Does it? Does it, huh? Does it? Come on, does it? Does it make you all angry and prone to lash out for no reason? Well? Huh?"

In short, war on women? Even from fucking CNN. 

Corporations and Freedom of Speech You No Longer Have

Corporations and Freedom of Speech You No Longer Have


Currently corporations have Freedom of Speech, but it seems that YOU DON'T.

A new exposé raises alarming questions about the ability of corporations to influence the voting decisions of their employees. In an article published by "In These Times" magazine, labor journalist Mike Elk examines the contents of a voter information packet that Koch Industries sent to tens of thousands of employees at its subsidiary, Georgia-Pacific. The packet advised the employees on whom to vote for and warned them of the dire consequences to their families, their jobs and their country, should they choose to vote otherwise. Koch Industries is run by billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch. Corporations like Koch are legally allowed to pressure their workers to adopt their political views at the ballot box because of the Citizens United Supreme Court decision

So there's growing trend of employers putting pressure on employees into how they vote as well as how they donate money to a candidate. That's not the extent though, as they've also been threatening the jobs of people who post on facebook or other social networks if it goes against the stance of the company they work for. This is a huge hypocritical move for the Koch brothers in particular who have championed that money equals speech while taking away the genuine free speech activity of their employees.

The liberal capitalist ideologue might respond that this is perfectly acceptable and that people should be allowed to hire and fire who they please for what ever reason they deem fit. This, I feel is naive and ignorant, and doesn't take into account the massive power difference between employers, especially large ones have relative to the employee who is dependent on entering the market to sell his labor to not only live but to justify his existence. In this sense, we are very much free. The video goes in to far more detail. 

This isn't the first instance of that situation

Ohio miners say they were forced to attend Romney rally

WASHINGTON -- Employees of a major coal industry donor to Republican causes have raised complaints about their participation in an event earlier this month organized for GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney in the crucial swing state of Ohio.

Several miners at Murray Energy’s Century coal mine in Beallsville, Ohio, contacted a nearby morning talk radio host, David Blomquist, over the last two weeks to say that they were forced to attend an Aug. 14 rally for Romney at the mine. Murray closed the mine the day of the rally, saying it was necessary for security and safety, then docked miners the day's pay. Asked by WWVA radio’s Blomquist about the allegations on Monday’s show, Murray chief operating officer Robert Moore said: “Attendance was mandatory but no one was forced to attend the event.”

Wow. So doing actions like FORCING your employees to attend a Romney event just seems all sorts of wrong. Though, in all truth, you're a weak fucking pushover if you let your boss fuck you around like that. It's not like in the ballot box with you. I don't tell people who I'm voting for... okay, maybe not considering you have read this blog and it's pretty clear who I am voting for. But in the work place you shouldn't have to tell anyone who you voted for. It's pretty unprofessional to do so. You're there to do your job. Just do it and go home. If the boss pushes you to vote one way, it's probably best to stick it to 'em and just vote the other way.

The Average American - Who Will You Be Voting For?

The Average American - Who Will You Be Voting For?

Voting is only another few days away and I'm left wondering if you're ready to vote and for whom you want to cast your one vote towards? Given Obama's crackdown on whistle blowers and his expansion of our imperialist policies in Afghanistan, I wonder if that has made anyone else take a moment and consider if they really should give him a second term.

If not Obama, then what? He may have his issues but he seems a lot better than the alternative and a vote for the greens isn't going to go very far. Romney would be far far worse of an option in the long run. Judging by his supporters, especially on women's rights, I wouldn't want him as a president. Though, given how two faced he is, it is hard to really gauge his actual position on any social issues. Given that I don't live in a swing state and it's going to go all towards the democrats.

Then again, there's always the choice of Nobody since voting doesn't really matter anyway and is in many ways a farce. Not to mention that every politician ever is pretty damn evil. I would suggest that if PSL is on the ballot in your state, which would be the following;

• New Jersey
• New York
• Vermont
• Arkansas
• Iowa
• Wisconsin
• Colorado
• Utah
• Washington

Then perhaps you should vote for PSL as your protest vote.

You folks intending to write-in candidates should also bear in mind state election laws. For example in Illinois you can only write in candidates who have registered with the state. Writing in Mickey Mouse or Lindsay Lohan will both be the same as not voting at all for that particular office.

You could also just vote for Jill Stein and then go back to drinking heavily till it all blows over. That would be a pretty good thing, all things considering.

In fact, just drink heavily anyway. You'll need it.

You Want Your First Time to be Special, Right?

You Want Your First Time to be Special, Right? 

Hey girls, check this out. You want to be super awesome, right? Well.... you better equate your political affiliation with sleeping with a man. 





Jesus christ. This ad just made me feel all sorts of awkward. I mean, let's just spell it out. how fucking coercive 'you want your first time to be special, right?" is when you think about it. It's gross and awkward and all sorts of just bad. Like, honestly, a lot of girls I know have crushes on Obama and I'm pretty easy going with a live and let live mentality on it all, but fuck, that is not something you appropriate for your propaganda machine.

That's just all sorts of misogyny

Oh Hey, the Elections are Soon

Oh Hey, the Elections are Soon

Oh hey, it's coming up on November and that means you get to toss out a meaningless vote that won't count for much of anything. But hey, if you're going to vote for any direction, perhaps it'll be a good thing to turn on Fox News and just go the opposite of what they're suggesting.

Why, you ask? Oh, I don't know...



Welp, someday I'm just going to learn to stop asking if Fox screen caps are jokes or not. It's pretty much a given that the following applies.

"Any sufficiently bad fox news story is indistinguishable from satire."
-Arthur C. Boner 

Clearly it's just a case of chronic shortage of head-bearing pikes and guillotines amongst the unemployed! You know, each day it's just a matter of America coming closer and closer to being a bad dramatization of the French revolution.

So hey, even if the vote doesn't count, at least the other shit on the ballot is worthy of your hole puncture.

My The Force Be All Walt's

My The Force Be All Walt's

So you may have heard of a little news piece this week that trumped all that Hurricane... Tropical Storm Sandy did to fuck over New York. A little store about how Walt Disney's company, who currently just finished buying out the Muppets and Marvel Comics, now paid 4 billion to own Lucasfilm.

Let's put out the flames before they start. Disney is the parent company to many other companies and they generally don't affect those companies to have the squeaky clean image of the mouse. Just look at Dimension, Mirimax, Touchstone, Disney owns them all and they still do what they gotta do to make that dollar dollar, yo. 

Moreover, I can't see Star Wars being dumbed down and made any more kid friendly than it already has been with the prequels. I also can't see it being any more merchandised whore'd out than it already has been under Lucas' control. Both Lucas and Disney have similar marketing strategies and they honestly work. If someone was going to buy it, Disney is the only company that could possibly run it the same way Lucas has and still have deep enough pockets to do so.

This really is one giant non-issue anyway. All it means now is that the mouse gets the money from the royalties of the characters likeness. Disney already promotes the fuck out of Lucasfilm franchises. They have an Indiana Jones ride, Star Tours, a Star Tours kids show in tomorrow land. You can make your own lightsaber and there's an R2D2 mickey mouse hat. All this did was make it official and in a contract.

What was one of the first bits of news to come out of this? You can expect an Episode 7 in 2015. I'm not going to lie, I'm kind of looking forward to Episode 7. It seriously can't be any worse than Episode 2. Cause shit, Attack of the Clones was god awful.


Besides, PIXAR was at one time a division of Lucasfilm. Then they grew up and became their own entity and Disney eventually bought them up. You don't see their quality suffer any, do you? Seems very much like at home to have Lucasfilm under the same banner as them.

Either way, a lot of nerdrage is going around. Funny how none of that existed when Disney put out The Avengers.