• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Talk show hosts deemed 'hypocritical' for mocking Mitt Romney’s personal wealth

Erod

Erod

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,483
Reaction score
8,227
Location
North Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Daily Caller pointed out that Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart, who also has a prominent place on the rich Romney-jibing bandwagon and exploded over his “almost $57,000 a day” income level, makes more than 300 times the median American salary, owns three luxury homes and has been known not to pay his taxes occasion.
“How in the world do you, Mitt Romney, justify making more in one day than the median American family makes in a year – while paying the same tax rate as the guy who scans shoes at the airport?” Stewart gasped.
The political publication went on to highlight that his net worth stands at an assumed $80 million, bringing he and his wife Tracey to an estimated $41,000 a day and observed that he is well on his way to being more affluent than the GOP nominee when he reaches his age.


Read more: Talk show hosts deemed 'hypocritical' for mocking Mitt Romney
Click to expand...

I mean, do these guys think we're stupid and don't recognize the blatant hypocrisy of multimillionaires crticizing Romney for being rich?

Unfortunately, half of us don't, apparently.
 
Erod said:
I mean, do these guys think we're stupid and don't recognize the blatant hypocrisy of multimillionaires crticizing Romney for being rich?

Unfortunately, half of us don't, apparently.
Click to expand...

There is no hypocrisy here. Stewart isn't criticizing Romney for being rich, though I've seen him take a few jabs at how out of touch Romney seems, he criticizes him for making that much and paying such low taxes, while still preaching to the choir of "lower rich people's taxes and everything will be fine."

This is a bull**** right wing talking point to distract from the actual point that Stewart was making. And kudos to you for lapping it up so swiftly.
 
And of course Stewart isn't running for president, or advocating that the rich should pay less in taxes. Stewart often points out that he's one of the rich guys and generally argues that the rich should pay more.
 
AdamT said:
And of course Stewart isn't running for president, or advocating that the rich should pay less in taxes. Stewart often points out that he's one of the rich guys and generally argues that the rich should pay more.
Click to expand...

Then he should pay it? What's he waiting for, seriously? Why not lead by example Johnny? Same goes for Buffet, and any other liberal pinhead. :)


Tim-
 
Hicup said:
Then he should pay it? What's he waiting for, seriously? Why not lead by example Johnny? Same goes for Buffet, and any other liberal pinhead. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

If you overpay your taxes, it comes back in a refund. So while he could do that, it'd just end up coming back to him.
 
Hicup said:
Then he should pay it? What's he waiting for, seriously? Why not lead by example Johnny? Same goes for Buffet, and any other liberal pinhead. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

Following the rules in place while advocating for a change in the rules is not hypocrisy. It also is a piss poor way to argue against such rules changes.
 
Hicup said:
Then he should pay it? What's he waiting for, seriously? Why not lead by example Johnny? Same goes for Buffet, and any other liberal pinhead. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

Because one or two people paying slightly more in taxes won't help the current situation in the slightest. Raising the top marginal tax rate actually would help the situation. There is nothing wrong with arguing that the rules should be changed while still following the current set of rules. Unless they are arguing that everyone elses tax rates should go up, while theirs will stay the same, they aren't being hypocrites.
 
Hicup said:
Then he should pay it? What's he waiting for, seriously? Why not lead by example Johnny? Same goes for Buffet, and any other liberal pinhead. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

People like you want to balance the budget off the backs of the poor who cannot afford to pay, while sucking up to the rich, bitching that they pay too much. Typical right-wing stance!
 
roughdraft274 said:
Because one or two people paying slightly more in taxes won't help the current situation in the slightest. Raising the top marginal tax rate actually would help the situation. There is nothing wrong with arguing that the rules should be changed while still following the current set of rules. Unless they are arguing that everyone elses tax rates should go up, while theirs will stay the same, they aren't being hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Doubling the income tax rate for those making 1 million or more would raise ~125 billion a yr.

Making the income tax rate for those making 1 million or more 100% would raise about 700 billion a yr.

In the first case, which is infinitely more realistic than the latter, you sill have well over a trillion dollar shortfall.

Granted, I suspect that for year two of either of those income tax rates, the returns would be drastically lower as those earners ran for the hills.
 
Samhain said:
Doubling the income tax rate for those making 1 million or more would raise ~125 billion a yr.

Making the income tax rate for those making 1 million or more 100% would raise about 700 billion a yr.

In the first case, which is infinitely more realistic than the latter, you sill have well over a trillion dollar shortfall.

Granted, I suspect that for year two of either of those income tax rates, the returns would be drastically lower as those earners ran for the hills.
Click to expand...

People aren't talking about doubling taxes, or taxing at 100%. Both of those scenerio's are completely moot to any point I was trying to make.

Also, the idea that the top marginal tax rate be raised to what it was under Clinton would scare off the wealthy is ridiculous. It didn't scare them off then and won't now.

As for your argument that we would still have a shortfall, I understand that, but it would put a dent in the shortfall. Couple those new revenues with the ends of the wars and the economy picking back up and we could easily see the deficit shrink down a fraction of what it currently is.
 
roughdraft274 said:
People aren't talking about doubling taxes, or taxing at 100%. Both of those scenerio's are completely moot to any point I was trying to make.

Also, the idea that the top marginal tax rate be raised to what it was under Clinton would scare off the wealthy is ridiculous. It didn't scare them off then and won't now.

As for your argument that we would still have a shortfall, I understand that, but it would put a dent in the shortfall. Couple those new revenues with the ends of the wars and the economy picking back up and we could easily see the deficit shrink down a fraction of what it currently is.
Click to expand...

Raising taxes by 65 billion would dent the deficit by 4%.
A full pullout of Afghanistan would reduce spending by 122 billion, or 8%
Iraq spending is < 10 billion, so lets call that 1%.

total deficit reduction of 13-15%. Even with robust economic growth north of 5%/QTR, assuming the historical average of 20% of GDP for tax revenue, then you would still not be able to get the yearly deficit below 700 billion.

Additional cuts are still required.
 
AdamT said:
And of course Stewart isn't running for president, or advocating that the rich should pay less in taxes. Stewart often points out that he's one of the rich guys and generally argues that the rich should pay more.
Click to expand...


Not sure you are correct here. I thought Romney has said he will lower rates and offset that with cuts in deductions. Not sure what the talking point is, but what is considered the tax rate for a high income person living in calif or NY? For purposes of this assume that the person gets paid on a W-2.

Let's see if you are willing to answer this one. ( I doubt it).
 
rocket88 said:
If you overpay your taxes, it comes back in a refund. So while he could do that, it'd just end up coming back to him.
Click to expand...

Actually that's not true. You can donate any amount to the feds right there on your tax forms. Just as Buffett has been advised to do to make his walk match his talk. If you believe you should be paying more, you are able to do so - always have been btw.
 
clownboy said:
Actually that's not true. You can donate any amount to the feds right there on your tax forms. Just as Buffett has been advised to do to make his walk match his talk. If you believe you should be paying more, you are able to do so - always have been btw.
Click to expand...

Buffets talk is not about charitable donations to the federal government
 
rocket88 said:
If you overpay your taxes, it comes back in a refund. So while he could do that, it'd just end up coming back to him.
Click to expand...

He could choose to not abuse tax loop holes and pay more without getting a refund if he wanted to pay more. Point is he doesn't. He wants other millionaires to do it.
 
muciti said:
He could choose to not abuse tax loop holes and pay more without getting a refund if he wanted to pay more. Point is he doesn't. He wants other millionaires to do it.
Click to expand...
Uh, no, he doesn't want "other millionaires" to "not abuse (?)" tax breaks, he wants the elimination of said tax breaks.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Uh, no, he doesn't want "other millionaires" to "not abuse (?)" tax breaks, he wants the elimination of said tax breaks.
Click to expand...

Were'nt you praising Obama for creating tax breaks just a few threads ago? Saying how it helped people pay less taxes...

Then, now it's that we don't have enough money, and should eliminate tax breaks?

Multi's point is still valid... it's tough hearing a millionaire that paid 21% of his income towards taxes (well below the 35% bracket for his income level, and only about half of the 39.75% tax that his income would be expected to pay under his own plan)... try and argue that we shouldn't have tax loopholes... while he's driving a semi through holes like the ones that he helped create in the tax code...

That's like the guy who yells at you to shut up because you're being too loud... or curses at you while telling you to watch your language... or tells you the buck stops with him and he will take the blame then turns and blames the other party for his failures/lack of production...

It's entirely hypocritical... which is actually quite in line with how this president has chosen to act, nearly every step of the way...
 

It's Okay it's only the Daily Caller, one of the handful of places that would keep a reporter who made that stupid ****ing argument. Jon Steward doesn't mock the Romney-Bot for having $$$$$, that would be ****ing stupid & "lame". He mock the stupid & lame things that he does, almost on a Daily basis. The Daily Caller is for those who need writen conformation of Fox (small n) news' viewpoint. If you (editorial you) don't want to be exposed to humor at your sides expence, just wait for the youtube of when Steward is hittin' on the other side of the asile. Fox (small n) news will play 'em. :peace
Erod said:
I mean, do these guys think we're stupid and don't recognize the blatant hypocrisy of multimillionaires crticizing Romney for being rich?

Unfortunately, half of us don't, apparently.
Click to expand...
 

While the present tax code is the law of the land, it is no different than Rep. Ron Paul (R) accepting his SS, or President Obama allowing a SuperPac to be started to fight for the left. You may be fighting to change a law, while taking advantage of existing law. :peace
Hicup said:
Then he should pay it? What's he waiting for, seriously? Why not lead by example Johnny? Same goes for Buffet, and any other liberal pinhead. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...
 

So by your definition, The Romney-Bot should pay NO Taxes whatsoever?
Redress said:
Following the rules in place while advocating for a change in the rules is not hypocrisy. It also is a piss poor way to argue against such rules changes.
Click to expand...
 

It will be hard making up for the lost revenue of ten years & two wars in one year, so lets just cut taxes for the "Job Creators" & squeeze a little more out of the working poor.
How can that make sense to anyone? :doh :peace
Samhain said:
Doubling the income tax rate for those making 1 million or more would raise ~125 billion a yr.

Making the income tax rate for those making 1 million or more 100% would raise about 700 billion a yr.

In the first case, which is infinitely more realistic than the latter, you sill have well over a trillion dollar shortfall.

Granted, I suspect that for year two of either of those income tax rates, the returns would be drastically lower as those earners ran for the hills.
Click to expand...
 
Erod said:
I mean, do these guys think we're stupid and don't recognize the blatant hypocrisy of multimillionaires crticizing Romney for being rich?

Unfortunately, half of us don't, apparently.
Click to expand...

This attempt at a point is a complete fail when you read the last line "when he reaches his age".

That makes no f--ing sense at all.

FAIL.
 
IndepCentristMA said:
Were'nt you praising Obama for creating tax breaks just a few threads ago? Saying how it helped people pay less taxes...
Click to expand...
I notice you have no link, no surprise.

Then, now it's that we don't have enough money, and should eliminate tax breaks?
Click to expand...
You are confusing yourself, no surprise.

Multi's point is still valid... it's tough hearing a millionaire that paid 21% of his income towards taxes (well below the 35% bracket for his income level, and only about half of the 39.75% tax that his income would be expected to pay under his own plan)... try and argue that we shouldn't have tax loopholes... while he's driving a semi through holes like the ones that he helped create in the tax code...
Click to expand...
Um, you are getting more confused, Jon Stewart DID NOT help in creating the tax code.

That's like the guy who yells at you to shut up because you're being too loud... or curses at you while telling you to watch your language... or tells you the buck stops with him and he will take the blame then turns and blames the other party for his failures/lack of production...

It's entirely hypocritical... which is actually quite in line with how this president has chosen to act, nearly every step of the way...
Click to expand...
LOL.....severe context issues there, no surprise.
 
Texmex said:
People like you want to balance the budget off the backs of the poor who cannot afford to pay, while sucking up to the rich, bitching that they pay too much. Typical right-wing stance!
Click to expand...

Dude, piss off. I paid more just last month than most people make in a year, so spare me your ridicule.


Tim-
 
Erod said:
I mean, do these guys think we're stupid and don't recognize the blatant hypocrisy of multimillionaires crticizing Romney for being rich?

Unfortunately, half of us don't, apparently.
Click to expand...

Deemed hypocritical by Fox News... pathetic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom