Again, more shit you can't makke up. How much lying can a demokrat do? Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

July 10: "Mitt Romney needs to come clean and release multiple years of his tax returns so we can see why he invested in a Bermuda corporation... So we can see why he's invested in Swiss bank accounts and accounts in the Cayman Islands...what is the allure of investments out of the country.

It would be nice if we had a candidate for president who was committed to America. "


Now revealed:

"Disclosure forms reveal that Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a member of Congress from Florida, previously held funds with investments in Swiss banks, foreign drug companies, and the state bank of India. This revelation comes mere days after the Democratic chair attacked presumptive Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for holding money in Swiss bank accounts in the past."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/dem-chair-invested-swiss-banks-foreign-drug-companies-and-state-bank-india_648350.html

------------------------------------

twitter @EyeAmU

what a dummy

People who live in glass houses should use curtains when they take a crap.

Not to split hairs, but "having investments in Swiss banks" and "having a Swiss bank account" are two very different things.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to split hairs, but "having investments in
> Swiss banks" and "having a Swiss bank account" are
> two very different things.


Yeah, that's a great campaign commercial right there. "Investments in Swiss Banks is OK, but having a Swiss bank account is Eeeeeeeeeeeeevilllllllllll." LOL, another fail from the democrats.

OJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, that's a great campaign commercial right
> there. "Investments in Swiss Banks is OK, but
> having a Swiss bank account is
> Eeeeeeeeeeeeevilllllllllll." LOL, another fail
> from the democrats.


Because you probably don't have two pennies to rub together, you probably don't understand stocks and the stock market. Let me explain the difference between "investing in a Swiss bank" and "having a Swiss bank account":

Investing in a Swiss bank, say UBS -- stock symbol: UBS, on the New York Stock Exchange, would require $10.79 for you to buy a single share.

Obviously this does not mean you are a wealthy person. When you buy this stock, if it pays a dividend you will be taxed under U.S. tax law. When you sell this stock, if you make a profit, not only will you be taxed for income, but also a capital gains tax on the profit -- either 30% (if held under 18 months) or 15% if held longer.

Buying a stock in a company that is listed on a U.S. stock exchange, regardless where the company is based (Switzerland, Japan, etc.) you are still putting your money in the U.S. economy and you are paying taxes to the U.S. government.

If you have a Swiss bank account, however, you are putting your money OUTSIDE the U.S. financial system. You are not paying U.S. taxes on the income you gain from your investments because you do not have to disclose how much money you have in the account or how much profit you are making with that money. The point is that people with Swiss bank accounts, and other "safe haven" countries like the Cayman Islands, Andorra, etc., you are not paying your fair share (in some people's eyes). For your average person, that is not such a big deal, but if you are running for office and want to spend OTHER people's tax money, perhaps it is.
Attachments:

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> If you have a Swiss bank account, however, you are
> putting your money OUTSIDE the U.S. financial
> system. You are not paying U.S. taxes on the
> income you gain from your investments because you
> do not have to disclose how much money you have in
> the account or how much profit you are making with
> that money. The point is that people with Swiss
> bank accounts, and other "safe haven" countries
> like the Cayman Islands, Andorra, etc., you are
> not paying your fair share (in some people's
> eyes). For your average person, that is not such a
> big deal, but if you are running for office and
> want to spend OTHER people's tax money, perhaps it
> is.

You started out well but then you kinda went off track...

Not all "Swiss bank accounts" are created equal nor are they some super double secret tax avoidance vehicles. Largely, between money laundering laws and tax treaties and greater pursuit by the US IRS, all of that secret account stuff is fantasy for the most part. And you still are required to disclose and pay taxes on income from such accounts (whether you do or not obviously is another matter).

Beyond all that, if you'd look at the actual specifics of the infamous "Swiss bank account" in question with respect to Romney, then you'd see that, as fully disclosed by his trustee, it actually was a simple money market account that the trustee used which was paying slightly above market rates at the time, from which he received a whopping $1,700 in interest which was reported for tax purposes.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not to split hairs, but "having investments in
> Swiss banks" and "having a Swiss bank account" are
> two very different things.
Attachments:

Swiss Miss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Beyond all that, if you'd look at the actual
> specifics of the infamous "Swiss bank account" in
> question with respect to Romney, then you'd see
> that, as fully disclosed by his trustee, it
> actually was a simple money market account that
> the trustee used which was paying slightly above
> market rates at the time, from which he received a
> whopping $1,700 in interest which was reported for
> tax purposes.

I'm not one of those who counts Romney's money for him. I was just pointing out to the OP that ordinary people can have investments in foreign companies. Most people do not have foreign bank accounts -- that is why there are so many questions on your tax forms about foreign bank accounts and holdings. The Democrat does not have foreign accounts, but investments in foreign companies. The two are quite different things.

The linked article is deliberately trying to confuse the two because both have to do with something "foreign". Your average person doesn't know the difference.

Its too bad democrats dont listen to what they are saying. Romney paid six million dollars in taxes last year. Instead of thinking of how rich he may be how about the fact that one U S citizen paid six million dollars in taxes. Is the tax system set up to fund the government or just as a means to punish success?

Very little was said by Obama about the GSA trip to Vegas where close to one million tax payer dollars was spent on something that could have been done on a video conference. Yet the government saw fit to spend a million and house employees in luxury suites providing champagne to swill down while Obama tells us we need to pay more. Pay more for what? This type of criminal waste of our taxpayer dollars. Recalling Obama lectured us to not spend money foolishly in Vegas just a year ago.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Swiss Miss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Beyond all that, if you'd look at the actual
> > specifics of the infamous "Swiss bank account"
> in
> > question with respect to Romney, then you'd see
> > that, as fully disclosed by his trustee, it
> > actually was a simple money market account that
> > the trustee used which was paying slightly
> above
> > market rates at the time, from which he received
> a
> > whopping $1,700 in interest which was reported
> for
> > tax purposes.
>
> I'm not one of those who counts Romney's money for
> him. I was just pointing out to the OP that
> ordinary people can have investments in foreign
> companies. Most people do not have foreign bank
> accounts -- that is why there are so many
> questions on your tax forms about foreign bank
> accounts and holdings. The Democrat does not have
> foreign accounts, but investments in foreign
> companies. The two are quite different things.
>
> The linked article is deliberately trying to
> confuse the two because both have to do with
> something "foreign". Your average person doesn't
> know the difference.

Yep, understood. I was just clarifying in the same way with respect to "swiss" which you left sounding kind of sketchy. As you noted "foreign" isn't necessarily the same as "foreign," "swiss" in this context means something distinctly different than the way that it's been represented. Both "foreign" and "swiss" in this case are equally disingenuous attempts to manipulate public opinion.

Ito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OJ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yeah, that's a great campaign commercial right
> > there. "Investments in Swiss Banks is OK, but
> > having a Swiss bank account is
> > Eeeeeeeeeeeeevilllllllllll." LOL, another fail
> > from the democrats.
>
>
> Because you probably don't have two pennies to rub
> together, you probably don't understand stocks and
> the stock market. Let me explain the difference
> between "investing in a Swiss bank" and "having a
> Swiss bank account":
>
> Investing in a Swiss bank, say UBS -- stock
> symbol: UBS, on the New York Stock Exchange, would
> require $10.79 for you to buy a single share.
>
> Obviously this does not mean you are a wealthy
> person. When you buy this stock, if it pays a
> dividend you will be taxed under U.S. tax law.
> When you sell this stock, if you make a profit,
> not only will you be taxed for income, but also a
> capital gains tax on the profit -- either 30% (if
> held under 18 months) or 15% if held longer.
>
> Buying a stock in a company that is listed on a
> U.S. stock exchange, regardless where the company
> is based (Switzerland, Japan, etc.) you are still
> putting your money in the U.S. economy and you are
> paying taxes to the U.S. government.
>
> If you have a Swiss bank account, however, you are
> putting your money OUTSIDE the U.S. financial
> system. You are not paying U.S. taxes on the
> income you gain from your investments because you
> do not have to disclose how much money you have in
> the account or how much profit you are making with
> that money. The point is that people with Swiss
> bank accounts, and other "safe haven" countries
> like the Cayman Islands, Andorra, etc., you are
> not paying your fair share (in some people's
> eyes). For your average person, that is not such a
> big deal, but if you are running for office and
> want to spend OTHER people's tax money, perhaps it
> is.


And you dont understand what a blind trust is.

We get it shes a liberal youre a liberal therefore anything she does is fine, yet republicans will be held to a much different standard by idiots like you

youre an idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We get it shes a liberal youre a liberal therefore
> anything she does is fine, yet republicans will be
> held to a much different standard by idiots like
> you

Labeling me a "liberal" does not have any relevance to my point. I am not arguing that Romney is a bad man for having foreign bank accounts in what are traditionally known as "safe haven" countries. My point was that the Democrat does not have these accounts, she has investments in foreign companies. Comparing the two is disingenuous.

I don't have "liberal" views or "conservative" views. I attempt to have views based on what facts I see. I don't like either party because they are all the same bunch of crooks.

All of these little "arguments" between the two parties, particularly the labels of "conservative" and "liberal" is all just bullcrap to keep the electorate distracted while they go about their business of rewarding their political donors.

I'll be the first to call bullshit on either side when I see an obvious attempt at political chicanery.

Obama is not the "communist" that the right tries to paint him as (or that he attempts to be on the campaign trail) -- he is a corporate whore just like Romney. The difference is that the Democratic Party loves big business because they love Big Labor.

The biggest problem of the Bush years was not the mismanagement of two wars, the bumbling of capturing and killing Osama bin Laden or even the horrible mismanagement of the Katrina aftermath. His biggest failure was that he presided over the final stages of complete deregulation of the marketplace that has allowed the biggest banks to eat up every little bank, the creation of monopolies or duopolies in every major industry and outright corruption of the political system.

Obama's biggest problem is not that he is a tax-and-spend liberal democrat (he is), or that his whole life is based on the belief that the government is the solution to all of our problems, his biggest problem is that he is a horrible manager and is completely inept at running the country. He is an eloquent speaker (compared to Bush but that's not saying much), but he has no ability to use the bully pulpit to form or push an agenda. We have watched him drift from malaise to melancholy for the past 3 1/2 years with no solutions other than to "build consensus" when it is obvious that the Congress is deadlocked.

Now, here's something bold and I never thought I would say this, but his saving grace has been the appointment of Hillary Clinton as Sec State. His foreign policy successes have been refreshing compared to a decade of U.S. vs. the World. We're almost totally out of Iraq and soon we will be out of Afghanistan. We avoided getting involved too heavily in Libya and so far we have refrained from putting boots on the ground in Syria.

So... Do not try to put a label on me as "liberal" or "conservative". I am neither. I don't have the talking points memorized for one side or another and I don't listen to the talking heads on either side. I get my news from print or from the BBC because I can't stand to listen to the mindless, uneducated whining from the idiots on TV. The news in the U.S. has degraded into entertainment and the problem is the electorate is not sophisticated enough to understand the underlying argument -- they just like to see a good fight.