Obama: “Mitt Romney sure can afford to pay a little more”

posted at 2:01 pm on September 23, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

The release of over two decades of Mitt Romney’s tax information on Friday must have been so anticlimactic for Team Obama — not only does it turn out that Romney contributed a boatload of money towards the federal coffers, but he’s also an almost wildly generous and charitable individual to boot. After the monumentally huge deal Team O made out of the tax returns, with dodgy “secrecy” ads and unsubtle fat-cat jabs out the wazoo, they don’t seem to be seizing on the information with quite the fervor you would’ve expected.

Yes, Romney is hugely wealthy, and hey, maybe some of his money was harbored in offshore bank accounts — so what? Those things aren’t illegal. Being a talented businessman, creating jobs, and acquiring plentiful personal wealth is something a heck of a lot of Americans probably wouldn’t mind doing themselves, and if President Obama is so averse to perceived tax loopholes and financial rejiggering, why the heck hasn’t he done anything about it? Quit attacking the symptoms, and maybe step up to the plate and attack the disease.

So, it looks like more of the same old, same old — the messaging is just continuing on with the “fair share” nonsense (the fact that we have a graduated income tax and that “fair share” is actually viable political rhetoric, will never cease to amaze me). At a campaign rally in Milwaukee on Saturday, via The Hill:

“We have always said in this campaign that change takes more than one term,” Obama said, asking for more time to finish the job he started as president.

The president also sought to highlight the contrasts between Romney and himself on several issues, including energy, Medicare and taxes. Obama has said he would raise taxes on those making $250,000 or more annually and at the rally he argued against more tax cuts for the wealthy.

“I can afford to pay a little more and Mitt Romney sure can afford to pay a little more,” Obama said. “We don’t build the economy from the top down. We build it from the bottom up.”

For goodness’ sake — these tax hikes, which will produce a questionable amount of additional federal revenue and will have much more damaging and far-reaching effects on the private sector as a whole, are sure meant to pay for a lot of things! To hear President Obama tell it, they’re going to stop the sequester, pay for ObamaCare, build roads and bridges, better our education system, and stop the rise of the oceans while they’re at it. But hey, who needs profit incentives — why don’t we just go crazy and impose a maximum-income cap while we’re at it?

Let’s hope that more Americans will wake up and realize they’re being spoon-fed a load of populist waffle before too much longer. And hey, maybe they will — all these contradictory polls are starting to make me go cross-eyed, but Gallup and Rasmussen aren’t looking too shabby there. But, but — pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Obama campaign manager Jim Messina told reporters on Saturday that despite national tracking polls showing the president and Romney tied, Obama is still winning. …

“I think you will see a tightening in the national polls going forward,” he said. “What I care way more about it Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, Wisconsin, etc. In those states, I feel our pathways to victory are there. There are two different campaigns, one in the battlegrounds and one everywhere else. That’s why the national polls aren’t relevant to this campaign.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

When You Appease Tyrants, They Just Hate You Even More

M2RB: Papa Roach, Berlin, 2011

Resist We Much on September 23, 2012 at 2:58 PM

KMC1 on September 23, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Re the Nobel money, you can bet that little Bammie used the ‘charitable donations’ loophole to reduce the income tax liable on his other ‘earnings’.

slickwillie2001 on September 23, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Keep in mind that Rywall is a Canadian so none of this is any of his damn business anyway.

Terrye on September 23, 2012 at 2:33 PM

He’s a marxist…world victimhood is their goal…”spread the misery” is their mission statement…”if everyone can’t be wealthy, no one can (except we in central planning)” is what they believe…

Just look at how well it’s worked throughout history…just look at Cuba and North Korea’s “Workers Paradise”…
/
ASS-CLOWN PARTY

Strike Hornet on September 23, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Yes Governor Romney can afford to pay more in income taxes, but if he was to do so much of that money would be wasted, vs whatever he might do with that money privately.

If he gives a million dollars in taxes to the government, between half and three-quarters of it is burned up in government inefficiency, corruption and graft, and waste because of proggie legislation like Bacon-Davis. The fraction left is all that is available for true wealth-building if spent wisely by the federal government, which rarely happens.

This is why government has to be restricted to constitutional responsibilities. They have a designed-in inefficiency.

slickwillie2001 on September 23, 2012 at 3:04 PM

He’s a marxist…world victimhood is their goal…”spread the misery” is their mission statement…”if everyone can’t be wealthy, no one can (except we in central planning)” is what they believe…

Strike Hornet on September 23, 2012 at 3:01 PM

The Incredibles. Is there anything they can’t do? :)

Axe on September 23, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Oh, dry up, turdboy.

Pork-Chop on September 23, 2012 at 3:07 PM

How much did you get from your friends in the Mideast Obama?

Who paid your tuition and your world trip as an impoverished student who never earned a dime at the time?

Don L on September 23, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Yes Governor Romney can afford to pay more in income taxes,

slickwillie2001 on September 23, 2012 at 3:04 PM

Well if that is the measuring stick …watch out America.

CW on September 23, 2012 at 3:07 PM

So Drywall is canadian?

Obama campaign outsourcing needed troll jobs for americans?

Barred on September 23, 2012 at 3:08 PM

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog
If Romney makes $13m per year, and was taxed at 100%, he’d have to work 40 years to pay for 1 Solyndra.

hoosiermama on September 23, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Why is it Obama that your constituents can’t afford to pay more. Might it have something to do with government dependency and leeching of of the productive people like Romney?

Don L on September 23, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Obama donated the entire $1.4 million he got from the Nobel Prize to charity.

You mean he didn’t pay taxes on it? Why, that just isn’t fair!

TexAz on September 23, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Folks who work and pay income tax know that on April 15, the goal is to legally pay as little income tax as possible. We all brag about how we took advantage of some loopy-hole to avoid giving uncle tax man a penny more than we had to. So, many taxpayers applaud Romney.

they lie on September 23, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Hey dum dum

He was referring to stopping the bleeding and pointing the economy in an upward direction, not solving everything.

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Awww… look at it trying so hard.

ShadowsPawn on September 23, 2012 at 3:10 PM

they lie on September 23, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Paul Krugman, the lefty “economist”, had set up a trust for his children to avoid the death tax.

Barry had also set up accounts for his daughters and had funded them with money that are tax deductible, so spare me the hypocritical double talk.

bayview on September 23, 2012 at 3:14 PM

so spare me the hypocritical double talk.

bayview on September 23, 2012 at 3:14 PM

that is not directed at “they lie”, but to the “surely someone else can pay more” crowd.

bayview on September 23, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Yes Governor Romney can afford to pay more in income taxes, but if he was to do so much of that money would be wasted, vs whatever he might do with that money privately.

If he gives a million dollars in taxes to the government, between half and three-quarters of it is burned up in government inefficiency, corruption and graft, and waste because of proggie legislation like Bacon-Davis. The fraction left is all that is available for true wealth-building if spent wisely by the federal government, which rarely happens.

This is why government has to be restricted to constitutional responsibilities. They have a designed-in inefficiency.

slickwillie2001 on September 23, 2012 at 3:04 PM

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog
If Romney makes $13m per year, and was taxed at 100%, he’d have to work 40 years to pay for 1 Solyndra.

hoosiermama on September 23, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Exactly.

talkingpoints on September 23, 2012 at 3:17 PM

It’ll be so nice when we do not have to listen to Obama anymore.

coldwarrior on September 23, 2012 at 2:14 PM

I would truly, sincerely like to believe that, but with DemocRATS, it’s always-always-ALWAYS party-before-country. Look at Jimmah & Bubba; do you really believe that SippyCup is going to one second act like an adult? When was the last time you heard Bush Sr. or Bush Jr. speak out of office on a current occupant?

Sadly, Obama is the Herpes of Modern Politics. He and that hideous wife of his will be constants on Bill Maher, The Daily Show, Letterman, MSNBC, CNN, The View, Ellen, ad nauseam.

Because SippyCup has deliberately ‘poisoned the well’ so effectively (this is why I think he’s trying to lose & merely feathering his nest with campaign donations), any unpopular or unfortunate events that befall Romney will be met with swift-and-smarmy rhetoric from this clown in the form of, “See? See? I warned you, voters!”

And if Romney/Ryan manage to turn things around in short order, this thuggish little punk with a big mouth and no brains will be running around the world, stating that the U.S. sucks for not re-electing him and that all the poor nations will now suffer because of ER (Evil Republicans).

SnarkySam on September 23, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Why is it Obama that your constituents can’t afford to pay more. Might it have something to do with government dependency and leeching of of the productive people like Romney?

Don L on September 23, 2012 at 3:09 PM

This is exactly the point I make to Leftards I encounter. Similarly, I always ask how many times are we going to help Haiti? “Africa” in general? The dirty secret is that we help their dictators, not the people who need the help. It all must stop.

SouthernGent on September 23, 2012 at 3:18 PM

So Drywall is canadian?

Obama campaign outsourcing needed troll jobs for americans?

Barred on September 23, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Several of our trolls are. In the PRC free speech has been very limited by the Human Rights star chambers. I don’t believe a site like HA could exist in Canada, so they have to come here.

slickwillie2001 on September 23, 2012 at 3:18 PM

If the government took ALL the wealth from
Everyone – it would “fund” the government
for one year. Then what?

How about we de-fund the government
and let everyone just keep their own money?

redguy on September 23, 2012 at 3:19 PM

According to the liberals, no matter how much the wealthy pay in taxes, they can always pay a little more.

According to the liberals, no matter how cold it is, it is still too warm.

According to the liberals, no matter how many people are on food stamps, there still aren’t enough.

According to the liberals, no matter how many abortions there have been, there should be more.

According to the liberals, not matter how big government is, it should still be bigger.

Damn, I just realized this list could go on forever….

TexAz on September 23, 2012 at 3:19 PM

I’ll always trust what Messina says. He’s got such a nice smile.

a capella on September 23, 2012 at 2:07 PM

BTW, he is available for babysitting, -evenings in the DC area.

slickwillie2001 on September 23, 2012 at 3:21 PM

A little over a year ago I read a story about a bank in Chicago called “Shore Bank”. In a nutshell as the story went, right now, everyone who is in play on Obama’s team will be set for life in that this little bank is the center of all that green energy Obama and his team is reaching for. Maybe it is true that Obama cares about the environment, but I suspect more so that he’s looking out for his big “payoff”. The story disappeared very quickly and haven’t heard much more about this. Does anyone know more?

fistbump on September 23, 2012 at 3:21 PM

Václav Klaus Warns That the Destruction of Europe’s Democracy May Be In Its Final Phase

M2RB: Pink Slip Delivery

You’ll love the M2RB “The End of Democracy” by Pink Slip Delivery. Here are the lyrics:

It’s the end of democracy
It’s the end of democracy
The hope is lost in the change
And, it’s not much left to hold on to
And, the blackout’s got you feelin’ strange
That no one’s noticed beside you
Uh-uh I think you know who I’m talkin’ about

It’s the end of democracy / it’s the end of democracy
It’s the end / you / you’ve got the right to be angry
The man on the hill has betrayed you
He’s got a brain he calls zig zig ziggy strangelove
I think it’s about time we hit override
What say you? (then they come and take me away)

It’s the end of democracy
To them taking it all is just a big game
Uh-uh I think you know who I’m talkin’ about
Now, we’ve met the New Boss
Much better with the Old Boss
Now, we’re hoping that he’ll get lost
Yeah, yeah, yeah, ’cause no one told us what it would cost, nah no

Feel your freedom slipping away, a little more every day?
How this song ends, it’s all up to you
How this song ends, it’s all up to you, you, you, you
It’s your country
It’s your life
It’s your money
It’s your wife

I’ll keep my constitution
My guns and religion,
My constitution,
My guns and religion,
My constitution (it’s the end, it’s the end)

This is your country, it belongs to you
This is your good country, it belongs to you
It belongs to you

Resist We Much on September 23, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Mitt ‘paid a little more’ of his own free will, to the tune of $4 million–over and above $1.9 million in taxes. That latter figure, as we all recall, is called by the left an overpayment that somehow disqualifies Mitt from being president.

I wish I was in position to be able to pay $1.9 million in taxes, and give away $4 million more without batting an eyelash.

If you think about those taxes Mitt paid versus Obama’s ideas about wealth redistribution, only $760,000 went to the ‘poor’. Consider that for a moment, you liberals. Pffft!

You know, there are people in the world who a little slow. There are some other people who might be called dumb.

But ‘intellectuals’ like Obama, Hillary, and the trolls who infect this site and others like it are just plain ignorant.

Liam on September 23, 2012 at 3:24 PM

KMC1 on September 23, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Re the Nobel money, you can bet that little Bammie used the ‘charitable donations’ loophole to reduce the income tax liable on his other ‘earnings’.

slickwillie2001 on September 23, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Hmmm…that’s funny, the troll ran away when confronted with facts…..hmmmm….usually that just makes them try harder……lol….

KMC1 on September 23, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Resist We Much on September 23, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Sorry to not have looked up – thus no quote :)

You are the best.

Schadenfreude on September 23, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Hmmm…that’s funny, the troll ran away when confronted with facts…..hmmmm….usually that just makes them try harder……lol….

KMC1 on September 23, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Well, it is a Canadian troll.

After all, how hard would you fight for a Stephen Harper hypocrisy or screw-up?

Resist We Much on September 23, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Schadenfreude on September 23, 2012 at 3:28 PM

No prob. Just correcting you in “phunnery.”

Resist We Much on September 23, 2012 at 3:31 PM

Hey dum dum

He was referring to stopping the bleeding and pointing the economy in an upward direction, not solving everything.

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 2:19 PM

All your shilling and misdirection for Obama will not help the NDP regain any semblance of relevancy in Canada again.

But speaking of misdirections, did you ever answer my question on the difference in CONSERVATIVE PM Harper’s handling of the Canadian embassy in Iran as opposed to Obama’s in Libya? And no mewling about terms, please and keep your half built strawmen to yourself.

The question stands. Thanks in advance!

kim roy on September 23, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Wm. Shakespeare wrote a great tragedy “Titus Andronicus”.

The central theme of “Titus” is that a wealthy man spends his entire fortune wining and dining his friends, buying friendship, and making gifts to his friends in need. A young couple come to him seeking dowry money for her so that they may be married because his generosity is well known and unparalleled.

Our once wealthy man finds he’s tapped out. What to do? But then he realizes that he still has credit. He borrows a vast sum, enough to give the young couple and to keep up his generous lifestyle for some time.

Eventually, though, the man from whom he borrowed the funds desires repayment of the loan.

Our generous soul is tapped out and, worse, he has no means to raise the funds.

The man who demands repayment takes possession of the borrowers home and all he owns in lieu of repayment.

Our generous soul is dispossessed. He is forced to go live in the forest, because all of his erstwhile ‘friends’ have no love for him, now that he’s broke.

He becomes bitter, is driven mad with rage, and when he accidentally stumbles on a fortune in lost treasure in the forest, he uses it to seek revenge on his erstwhile friends and their city.

What do we take away from “Titus Andronicus”?

Just this. Our protagonist was NOT being generous.

He was using wealth to try and buy friends, and when he ran out of his own wealth, he borrowed more to keep it up.

When he could not repay his loan, the act of borrowing those funds to continue his lifestyle became THEFT.

Titus was NOT generous, he was, in fact a THIEF.

So, when Mitt Romney gives a large portion of his wealth away, and asks nothing in return, THAT IS CHARITY. Those who benefit from his largess don’t even know from whence it came.

When the federal government takes our money, and wastes it trying to buy friends, through ‘foreign aid’ and supporting organizations like the UN, and ‘redistributing’ it to those who will not support themselves, it is THEFT, not largess. When the federal government borrows trillions of dollars beyond our tax contributions to continue that ‘redistribution’ and has no immediate, viable plan for repayment of that debt, its THEFT, from our future generations if not our immediate creditors.

We do not surrender our tax dollars as tribute.

We do not pay taxes so that the federal government may use those funds to buy friends.

The term ‘national interest’ is broad and amorphous, and can be meaningless, and completely dependent upon a moment or an ideological agenda.

We pay those taxes into the national treasury to provide for the necessary cost of running the nation’s defense and necessary institutions which are built to provide for the needs of the citizens and legal immigrants of this nation.

thatsafactjack on September 23, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Obama donated the entire $1.4 million he got from the Nobel Prize to charity.

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 2:38 PM

A decent man would have declined it. It was stupid to give it and even more stupid to accept it, based on nada.

You are such a sorry azz on all else, which is sad to see. I expect this from the non-’erudite’ leftists.

Schadenfreude on September 23, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Romney donates his money.

Obama ‘donates’ yours.

Wake up America, or perish.

Schadenfreude on September 23, 2012 at 3:38 PM

thatsafactjack on September 23, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Nice, very nice!

Schadenfreude on September 23, 2012 at 3:38 PM

We do not pay taxes so that the federal government may use those funds to buy friends.

thatsafactjack on September 23, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Schadenfreude on September 23, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Resist We Much on September 23, 2012 at 3:30 PM

He pretends to be a former MP.

Schadenfreude on September 23, 2012 at 3:40 PM

FTR, The Grifter-in-Chief and his holier than thou race-baiting wife once tried to deduct a contribution they made to the Congressional Black Caucus
from their taxes. And as this story notes they were miserly until BO decided to run for office.

“I can afford to pay a little more and Mitt Romney sure can afford to pay a little more,” Obama said.

So write out a check to the U.S. Treasury and STFU.

“We don’t build the economy from the top down. We build it from the bottom up.”

Horse Manure.

And do note the Romneys have 5 children and countless grandchildren to spread their wealth around to. Why would any sane person want to give extra money to the U.S. Treasury to be squandered by corrupt Democrats and their crony donors?

Buy Danish on September 23, 2012 at 3:41 PM

Schadenfreude on September 23, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Thank you.:)

thatsafactjack on September 23, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 2:19 PM

You’re truly a willing useful idiot. For a supposed thinking individual you should be embarrassed.

CW on September 23, 2012 at 2:57 PM

…he used to keep up the babbling on a thread for years on this site… no matter how wrong he was…but notice how Dick Dryrot comes in now…pi$$es on himself a few times and leaves to change moms pants…he’s even getting tired of his urine rash!

KOOLAID2 on September 23, 2012 at 3:44 PM

From the bottom up? So poor people, or as Obama likes to call them, the “middle class,” are now going to create jobs?

Good lord our president is clueless..

milcus on September 23, 2012 at 3:47 PM

thatsafactjack on September 23, 2012 at 3:34 PM

Er … so Jackie … um

Axe on September 23, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Axe on September 23, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Read the entire play, first folio. I left out all of the rape and violence, the political intrigue and various contrivances of the plotters, as not salient to Titus’ attempted rise to power. For the purposes of this application, its a distraction.

thatsafactjack on September 23, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Obama donated the entire $1.4 million he got from the Nobel Prize to charity.

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 2:38 PM

So? It was not as if he earned any of it.

Terrye on September 23, 2012 at 4:11 PM

Axe on September 23, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Sorry, of course, you’re right, “Timon of Athens”.

Its been awhile. I mixed “Titus” and “Timon”. I’m not in my library or I would have looked it up first. Went off the top of my head, but the central themes and my point is salient, I just cited the wrong play.

Thanks for the nudge and your patience, Axe. Please accept my apology. Well spotted. :)

thatsafactjack on September 23, 2012 at 4:12 PM

thatsafactjack on September 23, 2012 at 3:56 PM

I have. :) That wasn’t the point. The point is I know where that comment should go, in short-essay form, but I haven’t figured out how to get it there yet. :)

Carry on. I’ll work all this out.

Axe on September 23, 2012 at 4:17 PM

thatsafactjack on September 23, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Still not the point. :)

Axe on September 23, 2012 at 4:18 PM

lol

Axe on September 23, 2012 at 4:18 PM

RWM, in case you hadn’t seen.

Schadenfreude on September 23, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Axe on September 23, 2012 at 4:17 PM

I’m delighted that you nudged me to get it right, in that case! And I’m flattered that you would consider it useful. :)

Please make the necessary correction, if you would be so kind.:)

thatsafactjack on September 23, 2012 at 4:23 PM

“I can afford to pay a little more and Mitt Romney sure can afford to pay a little more,” Obama said. “We don’t build the economy from the top down. We build it from the bottom up.”

What IS the right amount.

NAME THAT AMOUNT.

Go ahead, NAME IT. Say exactly how much.

And you don’t build up the bottom by stealing from the top: it just doesn’t work that way.

ajacksonian on September 23, 2012 at 4:23 PM

If his “charity” had not been tax exempt,
do you think the Husseins would have given
their Nobel winnings as charity ?

burrata on September 23, 2012 at 4:34 PM

“I can afford to pay a little more and Mitt Romney sure can afford to pay a little more,” Obama said. “We don’t build the economy from the top down. We build it from the bottom up.”

What a bunch of meaningless babbles.

bayview on September 23, 2012 at 4:40 PM

At least Mitt EARNED the taxes he paid, DOUBLE that, no less.

pambi on September 23, 2012 at 2:42 PM
——-
Nobody who ever won a Nobel Prize earned it.
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Oh boy, did Obama give Mitt a wide open shot at him on this one. Mitt Romney isn’t like this, but he could tell the world where all his charitable contributions went and what got accomplished with them and then ask, “If I had give the Obama Administration another $3 million dollars, where would it have gone? To Solyndra? To hire teachers? To the SEIU union workers? To Media MAtters, to help our Justice Department with messaging?” Does anyone actually believe the government would do a better job with the money than Mitt Romney?

bflat879 on September 23, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Obama donated the entire $1.4 million he got from the Nobel Prize to charity.

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 2:38 PM

I just looked at Obama’s 2009 tax return – Schedule A, Gifts to Charity.

The total is $329,100, not $1.4 million+.

Did Obama file a fraudulent tax return in 2009? The $1.4 million should have showed up as income, and the donation should have showed up on Schedule A.

faraway on September 23, 2012 at 4:56 PM

The list of charities that Obama claimed to donate the money to is pretty pathetic.

tom daschle concerned on September 23, 2012 at 4:59 PM

“Yeah…But Romney…he’s still way too rich and he’s well waaaay tooo rich….sputter…cough…blink…” – Obama

workingclass artist on September 23, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Did Obama file a fraudulent tax return in 2009? The $1.4 million should have showed up as income, and the donation should have showed up on Schedule A.

faraway on September 23, 2012 at 4:56 PM

The tax return acted stupidly !!

burrata on September 23, 2012 at 5:01 PM

Romney pays his taxes and contributes a lot to charity, but Obama and his idiot liberals are still angry because Romney is still rich.

These liberals won’t be saisfied unless everybody else is as miserable as they are.

Kyle_Reese on September 23, 2012 at 5:06 PM

I just looked at Obama’s 2009 tax return – Schedule A, Gifts to Charity.

The total is $329,100, not $1.4 million+.

Did Obama file a fraudulent tax return in 2009? The $1.4 million should have showed up as income, and the donation should have showed up on Schedule A.

faraway on September 23, 2012 at 4:56 PM
———

No, dum dum he did not:

As part of his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, President Obama won $1 million. Because, as expected, he gave the money to charity, it was excluded from his taxable income. Yesterday’s release of President Obama’s tax returns provides more information about the charitable transfer of the $1 million, and also raises some interesting questions about the timing of the transfer.
Documents posted with President Obama’s tax return include a letter dated March 10, 2010, from the President to the Nobel Committee directing which charities were to receive the prize money, and a letter dated April 12, 2010, from the Nobel Foundation confirming that the prize money had been sent directly to the charities. Under Section 74, gross income does not include amounts received for the Nobel Prize if, among other requirements, “the prize or award is transferred by the payor” to a qualified charity or governmental unit “pursuant to a designation made by the recipient.” The evocative April 12 date made us wonder: Would it have mattered for purposes of Section 74 if the Nobel Foundation had not sent the money to the designated charities prior to the filing of President Obama’s tax returns? Is there any time by which a recipient must make the designation? Is there any limit on how long the payor can take to transfer the prize money?

Section 74 doesn’t give any guidance about these timing questions, and the legislative history says only that the grant must be made before the recipient or an associate of the recipient has received any benefit from the award. S. Rep’t No. 99-313. The IRS has issued guidance on the question, Revenue Procedure 87-54, which says only that in order to fall within the Revenue Procedure’s safe harbor, the designation should be made before the potential recipient actually receives the money (so that there’s no way he can receive any benefit from the award). It appears that President Obama never actually received the money–that the money was available to him, but the Nobel Foundation held onto it until he told them where it should be transferred. This doesn’t explain the date of either of the letters included with the tax return.
More guidance is available in a proposed regulation from 1989, Prop. Treas. Reg. 1.74-1. Taxpayers are not required to follow proposed regulations. But for political reasons, the President’s tax advisors probably want to prepare the most conservative return possible, and that might include following a proposed regulation. Under the proposed regulation, to qualify for exclusion under Section 74, (1) a “qualifying designation” that the prize is going to be donated must made within 45 days of the prize’s being granted, and (2) the prize must be transfered to the charity no later than the due date of the return for the tax year in which the prize would otherwise be includible in the recipient’s gross income.

According to that April 12 letter, the Nobel Foundation did transfer the money prior to April 15, 2010, the due date of President Obama’s 2009 return, so that meets the second requirement of the proposed regulation. But what about the first requirement? Under the proposed regulation, the award was “granted” when the money was under President Obama’s dominion and control. The Nobel Foundation presented the prize to President Obama on December 10, 2009, the date of Nobel’s birthday, when the ceremony is always held. Even if, as appears to be the case, he didn’t actually receive the money, and thus couldn’t obtain any benefit from it, he still would have been in constructive receipt of the money if the Foundation had made that money available to him (as it appears that they did). At any rate, because these documents were included with the President’s 2009 tax return, it seems that his advisors think that but for his giving the money to a charity, the amounts would have been included on his 2009 return, which suggests that he would have been in constructive receipt of the money sometime in 2009. March 10 is, of course, more than 45 days after the end of 2009.

But even if the Nobel Foundation didn’t receive the letter naming the specific recipients until more than 45 days after the award was granted, the President still might meet the requirements of the proposed regulation (though of course, because this is a proposed regulation, it doesn’t matter whether he meets the requirements). The regulation says that a qualifying designation does not need to state a specific recipient, just a class of recipients, so if he advised the Nobel Foundation earlier that he was going to donate the money to a charity, it would be fine under the proposed regulation not to name the specific charities until later. He may well have done so.

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 5:15 PM

D

ave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Bypassed your self-defensive screed without reading.

You liberals, especially those from Canada, are quite so full of yourselves, aren’t you?

You keep claiming some self-imagined moral and political high ground. But, in the end, you (and YOU in particular) really have nothing.

All liberals do around here is pontificate and condemn. But when you think about it, they have nothing better to offer in return. Liberals like saying it’s good to feed the poor, but when it’s done by a man opening his own wallet, liberals say shit like “You’re trying to avoid paying taxes!”

I used to be very liberal. The reason I stopped being liberal is because of liberals like Dave Rywall.

Mr. Rywall: The reason most Americans don’t embrace liberalism is because of its advocates like you.

I know you won’t like this but…People like you and you yourself are a total detriment to your own cause.

Keep in mind, too, please: Stalin shot people like you, though they were loyal Party members.

Liam on September 23, 2012 at 5:28 PM

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Obama’s Nobel nomination was made exactly 12 days into his term. He had not signed one single bill, he had not even made a significant speech in those 12 days. He had attended congratulatory receptions and balls held in his honor.

His nomination was based entirely on speeches he had made in the campaign, and the fact that he managed to be elected in the first place.

If anyone deserved a Peace Prize in his name, it was his speech writers and campaign staff.

As Obama, himself, said, he was “only an empty slate”.

thatsafactjack on September 23, 2012 at 5:33 PM

You and I have to pay taxes on our prizes and winnings.

Obama schemed to take advantage of a little known tax loophole to not pay the taxes that you and I would pay.

faraway on September 23, 2012 at 5:35 PM

David Burge ‏@iowahawkblog
If Romney makes $13m per year, and was taxed at 100%, he’d have to work 40 years to pay for 1 Solyndra.

hoosiermama on September 23, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Well said Iowahawk!

RJL on September 23, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Documents posted with President Obama’s tax return include a letter dated March 10, 2010, from the President to the Nobel Committee directing which charities were to receive the prize money, and a letter dated April 12, 2010, from the Nobel Foundation confirming that the prize money had been sent directly to the charities. Under Section 74, gross income does not include amounts received for the Nobel Prize if…

So Obama cheated the federal government of taxes on that money by sending it directly to an organization rather then accepting it himself, paying taxes, then forwarding the money.

Those were shameful actions for a big government redistributionist like Obama.

RJL on September 23, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Erika, it isn’t ‘populist waffle’ – it is straight up marxist class warfare and it needs to be identified as such. Such garbge is and should be completely antithetical to the makeup of America – yet some large percentage of our nation is utterly ok with it. And 95%++ of our PC journalists / pundits as well. It’s disgusting and EVERY time Obama opens his marxist piehole about it there ought to be someone in his audience crying ‘J’ACCUSE!’ at that redistributionist bastard.
And that is all beyond the issue that it’s an outright lie that it will make any difference whatsoever. The Socialists can slay ever single Golden Goose in America and their combined wealth is some few days’s total of the amount of money our government wastes. The morons at the Democrat trough lap this garbage up, cluelessly cheering the ruination of this nation. It needs to be called what it is.

rayra on September 23, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Did anyone estimate how much the collective OWS movement has paid in taxes in 2011? And donations.

Something tells me Romney has paid more than they did and EASILY donated WAY, WAY more. They do not donate, they live on donations.

riddick on September 23, 2012 at 6:07 PM

How do you build an economy from the bottom up, if those at the bottom are on the dole? They can’t contribute if they need job training, food stamps and disability payments just to make it from one day to the next. The empty chair needs better bumper sticker points.

Kissmygrits on September 23, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Romney’s $13m 2011 income would make him 8th highest paid player on the NY Yankees. Before endorsements.
-Iowahawk

The man is a national treasure.

ajacksonian on September 23, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Documents posted with President Obama’s tax return include a letter dated March 10, 2010, from the President to the Nobel Committee directing which charities were to receive the prize money, and a letter dated April 12, 2010, from the Nobel Foundation confirming that the prize money had been sent directly to the charities. Under Section 74, gross income does not include amounts received for the Nobel Prize if…

So Obama cheated the federal government of taxes on that money by sending it directly to an organization rather then accepting it himself, paying taxes, then forwarding the money.

Those were shameful actions for a big government redistributionist like Obama.

RJL on September 23, 2012 at 6:04 PM

This.

If he so strongly believes all money belongs to the government, and that its “patriotic” to pay more taxes – why the hell did he just steal from it?!?!

“Liberals” lie. It’s what they do.

KMC1 on September 23, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Romney’s $13m 2011 income would make him 8th highest paid player on the NY Yankees. Before endorsements.
-Iowahawk

The man is a national treasure.

ajacksonian on September 23, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Simply awesome exchange! Lol!

KMC1 on September 23, 2012 at 6:24 PM

At least Mitt EARNED the taxes he paid, DOUBLE that, no less.

pambi on September 23, 2012 at 2:42 PM
——-
Nobody who ever won a Nobel Prize earned it.
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha

Red Green on September 23, 2012 at 4:51 PM

How exactly did O’bamna “earn” his Nobel Prize, Uncle Red? After all, it was awarded to him after he had only been in office for 8 months, during which time he “accomplished” absolutely nothing as far as foreign policy is concerned.

F-

Del Dolemonte on September 23, 2012 at 6:45 PM

“We have always said in this campaign that change takes more than one term,” Obama said

UH….NO! IIRC “If this isn’t done in one term, this will be a one-term proposition.”

GarandFan on September 23, 2012 at 7:10 PM

To hear President Obama tell it, they’re going to stop the sequester, pay for ObamaCare, build roads and bridges, better our education system, and stop the rise of the oceans while they’re at it.

Er, uh, wasn’t this the same BS “The One” was selling in 2008? I voted for McCain in 2008, but seriously, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice into voting for Obama…shame on me ’cause I’m a f-ing moron!

Liberty or Death on September 23, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Hey dum dum

He was referring to stopping the bleeding and pointing the economy in an upward direction, not solving everything.

Dave Rywall on September 23, 2012 at 2:19 PM

June 2009, end of recession. Employment-Population Ratio?
59.4% of the workforce was employed.

Jone 2010, 1 year into the “recovery”?
58.5% of the workforce was employed.

Currently?
58.3% of the workforce is employed (lowest month in the past 12).

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000

So… when we turn this thing around and “point the economy in an upward direction”… when does that START? Can we expect to see that sometime soon?

Or are we supposed to keep having a smaller and smaller percentage of the workforce employed? Is that the “upward direction” now? Have we redefined “UP”?

Wait, let me guess; the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, part of the Department of Labor… is biased?

gekkobear on September 23, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Did the Obama campaign just say that they only care about the voters in 4 states? Shouldn’t there be a lot of hysterics from the media over that? Sigh.

Conservative in NOVA on September 24, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Comment pages: 1 2