I’m an evangelical and I am not bigoted….Not agreeing with him or trusting him on these issues does not make me a bigot!

CCRWM on August 4, 2008 at 9:03 PM

I agree that differing with a candidate on their policy or record does not make one bigoted.

I believe elraphbo is referring to those who opposed Romney on religious grounds – the extreme, fringe, “a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan” folks.

On Hot Air, the posters who fit that description could probably fit on the fingers of one hand…or two, perhaps, depending on who you ask. Only four really stick out in my mind.

Romney changed his positions on important social issues because it was politically expedient and that hurt him.

You seized on the media attack on Romney because it was easy to hide your bigotry that way. You people don’t fool anyone.

Another noticeable item here is the manner in which Chetry talks so fast, as if she has this talking point to get out, and she hasnt the time or skill to perfect her delivery.

By talking so fast, she sounds impatient, uninformed and amatuerish, as if she had memorized her question and is too scared to slow down and make her delivery sound professional.

Mike D. on August 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM

I thought she was doing that so she could get the hit in and he woudn’t have a chance to respond thus making it look like he agreed or she was right. He just didn’t let her get away with it…

This last week the McCain camp is gaining the big MO. Lets hope he can keep it.

Romney will move Conservatives (of which McCain needs) unfortunately the bigoted evangelicals may be lost, this is for the greater good.

Evangelicals have had their guy in Bush now it’s time to get on board with a McCain/Romney ticket.

(note: this is only for the “bigoted” evangelicals. I confess to being one of those until I watched Romney’s “Faith in America” speech. I have since repented but still see the bigotry in the “brothers and sisters”)

elraphbo on August 4, 2008 at 10:34 AM

I’m an evangelical and I am not bigoted. I did not support Romney because I suported Huckabee who thinks more along the same lines I do. Romney changed his positions on important social issues because it was politically expedient and that hurt him. Not agreeing with him or trusting him on these issues does not make me a bigot!

After slutty, ignorant leftist cnn talking heads, I really hate ignorant, bigots. Me thinks you are in for a very rude awakening at the Pearly Gates.

peacenprosperity on August 4, 2008 at 5:53 PM

they’ll be red.

and on fire.

Thanks for the info and link, I appreciate it.

Where do you get that info from, NJB? I looked at the Exxon-Mobil’s Annual Report (warning: big pdf) and the summary report of the Independent auditor PWC, noted in the finanacial statement near the end of the report (pg 40 of 52), this:

Income Taxes: $29.864B

Is there some explanation for this significantly different number that isn’t explained in the Annual Report.

FWIW, I might also note these items from their report that came before Net Income:

Sales based taxes: $31.728B
Other Taxes and Duties: $40.953B

Dusty on August 4, 2008 at 5:32 PM

Dusty, I got my information from Note 18 to ExxonMobil’s Annual report. (Sorry, I referred to the company by ticker (XOM) and the annual report by it’s technical regulatory filing name “10K” in my orignial posting.) Here is link to the 2007 10K filing (Warning Large download) For some stock analysts, the “annual report” is often not read, or at least the management discussion portion thereof. It is seen as mere puffery and does not often give concrete information. It is in the notes to the financial statments that the real information about a company is contained.

In all annual reports the financial statements represent consolidated statements. You have to look to the notes to the Annual report to discover breakouts of individual line items. Note 18 to ExxonMobil’s Annual report contains the breakout of “Income, Sales-Based and Other Taxes”

The $29.864 Billion figure you are looking at is a combination of the total U.S. Taxes (Federal, State, etc) of $5.12 Billion and non-U.S. Income taxes of $24.744 Billion. Therefore only 17% of XOM’s income taxes are paid to U.S. governmental entities. My figure 4.66 billion is the Federal portion of the U.S. income tax due for 2007.

He was a disaster in waiting.

SaintOlaf on August 4, 2008 at 12:01 PM

After slutty, ignorant leftist cnn talking heads, I really hate ignorant, bigots. Me thinks you are in for a very rude awakening at the Pearly Gates.

I hate slutty, ignorant leftist cnn talking heads.

“XOM paid $4.66 billion in federal income taxes in 2007 …”

[New_Jersey_Buckeye on August 4, 2008 at 1:12 PM]

Where do you get that info from, NJB? I looked at the Exxon-Mobil’s Annual Report (warning: big pdf) and the summary report of the Independent auditor PWC, noted in the finanacial statement near the end of the report (pg 40 of 52), this:

Income Taxes: $29.864B

Is there some explanation for this significantly different number that isn’t explained in the Annual Report.

FWIW, I might also note these items from their report that came before Net Income:

Sales based taxes: $31.728B
Other Taxes and Duties: $40.953B

sheesh.. I remember when she was on Fox News..

This is NOT the Kiran Chetry that I thought i knew..

{Shakes Head} :{

The McCain campaign needs to get him out in front of the media more

Lol, you know the first time I read that I thought it said “The McCain campaign needs to get him out in front of the media whore”.

SaintOlaf on August 4, 2008 at 11:45 AM

…riiiight.

Cap’n Ed states: What Chetry also misses in this exchange, and which Romney didn’t mention either, is the extraordinary amount of tax companies like ExxonMobil already pays. They paid three times as much in taxes as they made in profit in 2007.

Uncertain how your are coming up with this figure, Cap’n Ed. XOM’s net income (”Profit”) was $40.9 Billion in 2007. Your statement indicates that they paid $123 Billion in taxes. Looking at XOM’s 10K I’m not seeing that figure in the Income Statement or the notes.

XOM paid $4.66 billion in federal income taxes in 2007. (Source Note 18 to XOM 2007 10K) XOM paid an additional $630 million in State taxes. Total taxes paid to the various American governments: $5.12 Billion (Some differences due to deferred taxes etc). On $40.9 Billion of total profit, XOM paid 12.5%.

However that figure is not correct, or fair, as the profits take into account non-U.S. operations but only include U.S. taxes. To get a fair look at the U.S. tax treatment of Revenue/Profits from U.S. operations those should be limited to U.S. operations.

One way to look at it is to see that 31% of XOM’s revenues come from U.S. operations.(From Income Statement) Therefore 31% of the $40.9 billion is 12.69 Billion. Add back in the U.S. taxes to that approx. U.S. Profit and you have $17.73 billion. Thus the $5.12 billion tax on $12.69 billion is a tax rate of 28.8%.

Note 18 of the XOM 10K provides Income before Taxes brokedown by U.S. and Non-U.S. $13.7 billion of Income before Taxes reportedly comes from U.S. operations of total of $70.4 billion. (Only 18% of Income before Taxes are from U.S., whereas 31% of revenues were derived from U.S. possibliy due to high costs of U.S. operations or financial gerrymandering) $5.2 Billion of taxes on $13.7 Billion is a tax rate of 37.9%.

Possible explanations for why your figure of 3X the profits of XOM were paid in taxes: 1) Included Non-U.S. taxes paid which amounted to $91.3 Billion; 2) Included the 7.1 Billion of sales taxes collected (however this figure doesn’t factor into the total revenue of a firm as it is never the firm’s money, it is just a collection point); 3)miscalculation.

I think that including the $91.3 billion is misleading in several respects. Your posting lead the reader to infer that the taxes collected were collected by the U.S. or state governments.

In addition, some foreign governments that own the land that XOM drills upon structure their commission/profit participation as a tax on revenues in order to particpate on the upside. A private individual would be paid $10 per barrell for giving XOM permission to drill upon their land. Deals worked out with foreign governments often characterize this payment as a “tax” so that it gives the foreign government more power to unilaterlly change and gives some tax and financial benefits to the oil driller/producer. Therefore much of this $91.Billion “tax” would be better characterized as acquisition costs or continuing operating expenses.

Having worked with XOM on one occassion on a finacial matter, I must say I greatly admire how the company is run. It is the most efficient large company I’ve ever dealt with. (At least from the financing end, I’ve heard other stories about the way they treat geologists and engineers). I’ve never known a company to squeeze a penny as hard as those guys did.

Mike D. on August 4, 2008 at 1:03 PM

Kiran Chetry should not be allowed to discuss, on TV, economics with a former CEO and state governor. She aptly demonstrated through her questions that she has no idea what she’s talking about.

I wish Mitt had shut her down; it wouldn’t have taken much.

By talking so fast, she sounds impatient, uninformed and amatuerish, as if she had memorized her question and is too scared to slow down and make her delivery sound professional.

One of the worst sins a communicator can commit, but hardly surprising from CNN. Chetry’s producers have given her the hit o’the day on the big bad Rethuglican Mitt, and she’d better come through or the only story she’ll be covering this year will be “How to crochet a willy-warmer for that special someone.”

Windfall Profits Tax = The State decides how much profit a business can make. If they are making ‘too much’ – the State then gets to take that profit away and redistribute it. That’s abject big government Socialism/Marxism wealth red…

Talk about the kettle calling the pot black..

Why can’t we leave racism out of this?

I am shocked, shocked that this debate had been reduced to slinging racial, hurtful words.

Some Black Reverend hypocrite in 1…2….3…..