Posts Tagged Olympic

Cagle Post » A Staggeringly Stumbling Trip

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in GOP, Opinion, Perspective, Politics on August 7, 2012


 

WILL DURST

A Staggeringly Stumbling Trip

 

Raging Moderate by Will Durst

Mitt Romney has to be more relieved than an Iowa corn farmer in the middle of a thunderstorm to be back on home soil. Arms wide. Head back. Wet face. Smile. Podium steps. National Anthem.

The American electorate may harbor an ambivalent attitude towards the former governor of Massachusetts, but the reaction to his European Vacation from folks across the big pond could only be described as decisively derisive. If diplomacy were a hurdling sport, the guy stumbled over the lane chalk.

Rick McKee / Augusta Chronicle

The plan was for the GOP nominee to embark on a low-risk, three-country jaunt to raise his suspect foreign policy bona fides, but the seven-day charm offensive proved to be light on charm and heavy on offense. Good will hunting transformed into ill will gathering.

The first stop was Great Britain, where the Wee Bairne of Bain managed to pretty much insult the whole country. Romney told an interviewer that security problems surrounding the Olympics were disconcerting. And the gates of Hades opened and all sorts of evil tabloid creatures sprung forth.

He only said the same exact thing they had been saying for weeks in Merry Olde, but you know family. Siblings are allowed to call their father a harebrained lovable loser: cousins, not so much.

David Cameron snapped that London was a busy, world-class city and “not in the middle of nowhere,” which some interpreted as a snub targeting the man who famously saved the 2002 Winter Olympics. But the prime minister only demonstrated his own geographic ineptitude. Salt Lake City isn’t in the middle of nowhere; it’s in Utah.

Ann Romney traipsed along to offer moral support to her horse Rafalca, competing in Olympic dressage. Dressage being a French word describing an event where horse and rider perform predetermined movements. Like inter-species dancing. Which has to be illegal in at least half of the states Willard leads.

The Overseas Gaffe Express moved to the Middle East where Mr. Romney stuck a prayer in the Wailing Wall, presumably pleading to be struck dumb. Retroactively. Later he gave a speech saying Israel’s financial acumen and culture provided it with a major advantage over Palestine. Sort of ticking off the Palestinians. Not to mention a couple of Israelis who thought he called them thrifty.

 

The trip landed for a final stop in Poland and everyone held their breath. But all that happened on the outskirts of the evil continent of Europe was an aide cautioned a reporter to stop peppering the candidate with questions because they were in a holy site for Poles. And to emphasize the sanctity of the joint, he told the reporter to kiss his butt. Only he didn’t say butt, rather the word that rhymes with class. A quality of which he is obviously bereft.

The campaign was hoping to use this journey abroad to muffle the outcry over tax returns and set up the vice-presidential pick, but now even the most partisan Republican has to wonder how many consecutive blows to the head their candidate can take without visible bruising. Need to line up a platoon of makeup artists for Tampa.

Britain, Israel and Poland. Not what you call the Group of Death. Those aren’t the tough ones, Mitt. Got to rate their collective degree of difficulty in diplomatic terms at about a negative 2. But one thing you got to give him — at least he stuck his dismount.

 Cagle Post » A Staggeringly Stumbling Trip.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

BBC News – Who, What, Why: Why are US athletes taxed on Olympic medal wins?

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Taxes on August 5, 2012


 

Who, What, Why: Why are US athletes taxed on Olympic medal wins?

US swimmers Michael Phelps (r) and Ryan Lochte (l) show their gold and silver medals after the men's 200m individual medley swimming event at the London 2012 Olympic Games

The sweet taste of Olympic victory for US swimmers Ryan Lochte (l) and Michael Phelps (r)

US medal-winning athletes at the Olympics have to pay tax on their prize money – something which is proving controversial in the US. But why are athletes from the US taxed when others are not?

The US is right up there in the medals table, and has produced some of the finest displays in the Olympics so far.

Michael Phelps has broken the record for most Olympic medals ever, and16-year-old rising star Gabby Douglas has won the all-round gold in the gymnastics – the first African-American woman to do so.

So the US is feeling pretty proud of its athletes right now. But not everyone is happy to hear that their Olympic medal-winning athletes are being taxed on their medal prize money.

Athletes are effectively being punished for their success, argues Florida Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican, who introduced a bill earlier this week that would eliminate tax on Olympic medals and prize money.

“Athletes representing our nation overseas in the Olympics shouldn’t have to worry about an extra tax bill waiting for them back home,” said Rubio.

This, he said, is an example of the “madness” of the US tax system, which he called a “complicated and burdensome mess”.

The answer

·         The US, unlike most countries, has a “worldwide” system of tax, which means that money earned abroad is liable for US tax

The US Olympic Committee awards prize money to its medal winners – $25,000 (£16,000) for gold, $15,000 (£10,000) for silver, and $10,000 (£6,000) for bronze.

This money is considered taxable income by the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

According to the advocacy group Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), an athlete on the highest rate of tax (35%), could face a tax bill of $8,750 (£5,600).

The value of the medals themselves could be subject to tax too, according to the ATR – adding a further $236 (£150), $135 (£85), and $2 (£1.20) respectively for gold, silver and bronze.

The Olympic example highlights what they regard as the underlying problem of the US’ so-called “worldwide” tax model.

Under this system, earnings made by a US citizen abroad are liable for both local tax and US tax.

Most countries in the world have a “territorial” system of tax and apply that tax just once – in the country where it is earned.

With the Olympics taking place in London, the UK would, in theory, be entitled to claim tax on prize money paid to visiting athletes. But, as is standard practice for many international sporting events, it put in place a number of tax exemptions for competitors in the Olympics – including on any prize money.

That means that only athletes from countries with a worldwide tax system on individual income are liable for tax on their medals.

And there are only a handful of them in the world, says Daniel Mitchell, an expert on tax reform at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank – citing the Philippines and Eritrea as other examples.

But with tax codes so notoriously complicated, unravelling which countries would apply this in the context of Olympic prize money is a tricky task, he says.

Mitchell is a critic of the worldwide system, saying it effectively amounts to “double taxation” and leaves the US both at a competitive disadvantage, and as a bullyboy, on the world stage.

US medal money…

·         Gold - $25,000 (£16,000)

·         Silver - $15,000 (£10,000)

·         Bronze - $10,000 (£6,000)

“We are the 800lb (360kg) gorilla in the world economy, and we can bully other nations into helping enforce our bad tax law.”

The tax burden may not be as heavy as it first appears, however, as there are a number of credits and tax treaties which can either exempt or reduce the amount due, says tax lawyer and blogger, Kelly Phillips Erb.

She believes that the US tax system needs to be modified, and – most importantly – simplified.

The Rubio bill – by adding another exemption to the already complicated tax code – would only make matters worse, she says.

Congress is about to go off on a one-month recess, and with the Olympics already well underway, this is, says Erb, more about “political grand-standing” than anything else.

Not all athletes get prize money along with an Olympic medal – it depends what country you come from.

…And around the world

How much for a gold medal at London 2012 Olympics:

·         Singapore - $800,000 (£515,000)

·         Kazakhstan - $250,000 (£160,000)

·         Kyrgyzstan - $200,000 (£130,000)

·         Uzbekistan - $150,000 (£95,000)

·         Russia - $135,000 (£90,000)

·         Tajikistan - $63,000 (£40,000)

·         US - $25,000 (£16,000)

·         Australia - $20,000 (£13,000) plus face on a stamp

·         UK - No money - but their face on a stamp

Sources: BBC Uzbek, Reuters

Money is not awarded by the International Olympic Committee. The decision whether to offer prize money is made by the national Olympic Committees in each individual country, who also set the sum.

UK medal winners get no prize money – but get the honour of appearing on a stamp instead.

At the opposite end of the scale is Singapore, which is offering $800,000 (£515,000) for a gold medal.

Many countries in Central Asia are alsooffering large sums to medal winners.

John Hoberman, a sports historian and expert on doping at the University of Texas at Austin, says Americans are focusing on the wrong issue.

The real question, he believes, is whether athletes should be awarded prize money at all at the Olympics – and he is firmly in the “no” camp.

“Cash incentives are just an incentive to cheat,” says Hoberman.

He believes the more money you offer, especially in poorer countries, the greater the chance an athlete will be tempted to dope.

 BBC News – Who, What, Why: Why are US athletes taxed on Olympic medal wins?.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Why Mitt Screws Up | Alternet

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in GOP, Politics, Social on July 29, 2012


 

Why Mitt Screws Up

Let’s put Romney on the shrink’s couch: His disastrous London gaffes reveal a deep-seated anxiety.

July 29, 2012 

 

 

This story originally appeared at Salon.

People are asking, “What’s with Mitt Romney’s trip to the London Olympics?” He has made so many gaffes that the Daily Mail’s political editor asked, “Do we have a new Dubya on our hands?”

That question is most important for the American voter. What drove Dubya were anxiety and fear, much of which he masked with his tough-guy swagger and rhetoric – and with his disarming sense of humor. When asked direct questions by the press, however, Bush would often freeze like a deer in the headlights. His slips of the tongue became the stuff of talk-show hosts, magazine articles and even books.

Now we have Mitt Romney, the putative Republican candidate for president in the 2012 election. His gaffes are different from the 43rd president’s; they don’t involve mispronouncing words or frequently issuing nonsensical sentences. They are more social gaffes, ones that seem to be made without much thought – if any.  Bush was trying to say things he couldn’t say. Romney is not trying to say anything in particular, other than answer questions or make comments when called upon to do so. In fact he is too casual, and what comes out is often carelessly hostile.

When Brian Williams asked him what he thought about the London games, Romney first tried to answer the question directly – something most politicians usually don’t do. He said, “It’s hard to know just how well it will turn out.” He then began to talk about his own work running the 2002 SLC winter Olympics in what seemed like a canned response. What strikes me is the confidence with which he spoke and the remarkable lack of thought he exhibited. This has become a pattern for him, and not just on this trip. But it is more noticeable than before because he is largely left to his own devices, without prepared remarks that he could use in informal conversation.

That he was mocked and even rebuked by British leaders is less important to me than what lay beneath their criticism. Both the Mayor of London and the British Prime Minister commented separately about what they felt to be Romney’s insults regarding how Great Britain was running the games.

Psychoanalysts look for patterns of behavior and the meaning behind those patterns. But we also — especially in the case of public figures — look at the pressures brought to bear on the individual, both internally (what I do in my consulting room) and externally (social pressures that affect behavior). In Romney’s case, he is competing in his own Olympics against President Obama, who also happens to be the most internationally popular American leader in generations. So the pressure is on for him to prove himself.

Part of that pressure is self-generated, since a central component of Romney’s claim to greatness is that he ran the winter Olympics in 2002. Thus, he is under pressure to let people know that he can do it better – and he gave that impression in London. He has to prove to himself and others that he is indeed a superstar – especially since he knows he can’t touch Obama in a British popularity contest.

Salon’s Joan Walsh has remarked over the months about Romney’s seeming indifference to answering questions. His casualness led her to use the psychiatric term “dissociated” when describing his style. I think her observations are most trenchant, though it is hard for me to move into the territory of diagnosis.

But what is not hard to do is to think about what most likely motivates this behavior that puzzles so many in the media – including supporters who are frustrated with Romney’s unwillingness to disclose more of his tax returns. I think the force behind this behavior is massive anxiety, pure and simple. He is anxious about revealing who he is and about interacting with people he doesn’t know. He appears to have much less experience than Obama in interacting with people from all walks of life. Basically, he is uncomfortable except within his own family and in the presence of those who share his wealthy background and Mormon faith. There are many ways to defend against overwhelming anxiety, one of which is to act certain about every answer given.

What comes out besides this sense of smiling certainty are signs of anxious contempt toward others – whether it is how the British run their Games or saying that kids who can’t afford college should borrow money from their parents. Put together, these and many similar statements – his pleasure at firing people or his belief that corporations are people (is that why he can comfortably bankrupt some?) – are all evidence of a hostility not dissimilar to stories about his bullying of others during his prep school days. At this stage, I suspect Mitt Romney is too anxious to be an effective president. 

 Why Mitt Screws Up | Alternet.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Romney’s Olympic Trouble Continues : The New Yorker

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Borowitz Report, Humor/Parody on July 28, 2012


 

THE BOROWITZ REPORT

Fake news and political satire.

JULY 27, 2012

MITT ROMNEY’S OLYMPIC TROUBLE CONTINUES

Posted by Andy Borowitz

Romney.jpg

LONDON (The Borowitz Report)—Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s gaffe marathon at the 2012 Olympics in London continued unabated today.

Mr. Romney’s day got off to a bad start when he told a reporter for the Sunday Times, “I don’t mind that the British keep calling me a banker, but why do they pronounce it with a ‘W’?”

Any hope that the former Massachusetts governor would recover from such missteps was shattered after the Olympics’ Opening Ceremony, when he blasted former Beatle Paul McCartney for not being prepared to sing “Hey Jude.”

“He did not seem ready to sing that song, which was certainly disconcerting,” Romney said. “Maybe he should have gone with a song that he had done before.”

The Republican candidate’s visit did little to win over the British people, as a poll showed that a majority of Britons wanted the Opening Ceremony to conclude with the Olympic torch lighting Mr. Romney’s head ablaze.

Alfie Langlan, owner of the popular Earl’s Boot pub, in Central London, summed up Mr. Romney’s performance this way: “Mitt Romney is coming across as an out-of-touch rich person in a country that still has a Queen.”

 Romney’s Olympic Trouble Continues : The New Yorker.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

The gaffe-tastic Mr. Romney – Salon.com

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Opinion, Perspective, Politics on July 28, 2012


 

THURSDAY, JUL 26, 2012 10:45 AM CDT

The gaffe-tastic Mr. Romney

He tells the British their Olympics planning isn’t up to snuff, the latest in a string of bizarre, entitled insults

BY JOAN WALSH

 

The gaffe-tastic Mr. Romney

 

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney arrives at 10 Downing Street to meet with British Prime Minister David Cameron in London. (Credit: Reuters/Jason Reed)

 

Maybe he was just trying to make up for his adviser hyping his “Anglo-Saxon heritage.” On Thursday, rather than displaying his affinity for the British, Mitt Romney insulted them by questioning the professionalism of their Olympics planning.

“It’s hard to know just how well it will turn out. There are a few things that were disconcerting,” he told NBC’s Brian Williams. “The stories about the private security firm not having enough people, the supposed strike of the immigration and customs officials, that obviously is not something which is encouraging.” The British press was unamused. The Telegraph’s website screamed: “Olympics: David Cameron rejects Mitt Romney’s suggestion Britain is not ready,” while The Times of London headlined the story “PM rebuffs Romney over readiness for Olympics.”

Cameron himself told reporters: “This is a time of some economic difficulty for the UK, but look at what we are capable of achieving as a nation even at a difficult economic time,” he said. “I think we will show the whole world not just that we come together as a United Kingdom but also we’re extremely good at welcoming people from across the world.”

Clearly, the same can’t be said for Romney.

“I will obviously make those points to Mitt Romney,” Cameron added. “I look forward to meeting him.”

I bet. Way to keep that “special relationship” special, Mitt.

I’ve called Romney “gaffe-tastic” before, but I found myself shocked by his tone-deaf, condescending remarks in London. I mean, we expect it in this country. Romney’s Olympics gaffe made me think about when, campaigning in Pittsburgh, the candidate insulted a local bakery by disdaining its baked goods. “I’m not sure about these cookies. They don’t look like you made them,” Romney said to the woman next to him. “No, no. They came from the local 7/11 bakery, or whatever.” In fact they came from the local Bethel Bakery, whose owner later told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell he was offended by Romney’s remarks.

Or when he visited the Daytona Raceway in Florida during a rainstorm and insulted fans wearing plastic ponchos. “I like those fancy raincoats you bought,” he said. “Really sprung for the big bucks.” Bill O’Reilly later suggested Romney’s comment sounded “elitist,” to which Romney replied he’d just wanted to wear a “garbage bag,” too. And while we’re on the NASCAR topic: Romney was also asked if he followed the sport. “Not as closely as some of the most ardent fans, but I have some great friends who are NASCAR team owners,” Romney responded.

Or how about the time he talked to unemployed voters while campaigning in Florida last year, and told them, “I should tell my story. I’m also unemployed.” (Romney’s estimated tax returns showed his net worth at nearly $250 billion in 2011.) Or the other time he commiserated with the unemployed and economically insecure by saying, “There were a couple of times I wondered whether I was going to get a pink slip.”

Then there’s that bizarre interlude with black voters in Jacksonville, Fla., during the 2008 campaign, where he broke out into “Who Let the Dogs Out?” and remarked on a child’s necklace with “bling, bling, baby!” (Maybe that one doesn’t count, because it’s hard to argue Romney was sincerely courting black voters.)

You can find these kinds of baffling, insulting gaffes going all the way back to his first Senate run, when he tried to charm a woman voter in Waltham, Mass., who was reluctant to shake his hand. “I know, you haven’t got your makeup on yet, right?” he told her, awkwardly adding, “You do, you do.”

What accounts for Romney’s capacity to consistently insult even those he’s trying to court? I’d argue it’s his fantastic sense of entitlement, with its accompanying inability to feel empathy for the less fortunate. It may or may not be connected to his pranking/bullying impulse, which showed itself in his school days when he forcefully cut the hair of a gay classmate, led a sight-impaired teacher into a closed door, or intimidated friends by impersonating a state trooper. Romney clearly lacks the ability to put himself in the shoes of others (except other wealthy business owners). That’s a bad trait on the campaign trail, but when it extends to the leaders of other sovereign nations, it’s a terrible trait in a president.

Why is this race close?

 The gaffe-tastic Mr. Romney – Salon.com.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 263 other followers

%d bloggers like this: