PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Understanding Romney's Tax Return


BWillie
09-25-2012, 12:58 PM
I have been reading some things about Romney's tax returns, and trying to come to an understanding of it. I know it's easy to go omg omg he's rich and only was taxed on 14% of his income or whatever it is. However, reading up on it, he donated 4.1 million dollars to charity in 2011, which was more than 30% of his income.

So, obviously, he is going to have a tax deduction for that. BUT, he still had to donate 30%+! of his income to do it. And there is evidence that shows on average, for the last 20 years he has donated at least 15% of his income to charity each year. It seems to me that all of the headlines indicating he only "pays" 14% taxes on his income may be the wrong way to look at it. I hardly believe ANY of you on this board donate anywhere near 30% of their income to charity. I know I donate about 0.007% of my income a year to charity/United Way (about $50 per biweekly pay period), and I feel that is even way more than most people even do.

Again, I don't know everything about this issue. Would like to hear thoughts of those smarter than I am and what they think about this. Please don't base your responses on partisan hatred, just the facts at hand.

blaise
09-25-2012, 01:04 PM
No no. Fair share. He has to pay his fair share and then people will feel better about themselves.

mlyonsd
09-25-2012, 01:13 PM
He's a rich bastard that doesn't know anything about how to run a business or government.
He's less qualified than the community organizer that has called for redistribution of wealth all his life.

That's all you need to know,

KC native
09-25-2012, 01:32 PM
What definition of income are you using? His AGI or what he actually makes?

Deberg_1990
09-25-2012, 01:40 PM
He's a rich bastard that doesn't know anything about how to run a business or government.
He's less qualified than the community organizer that has called for redistribution of wealth all his life.

That's all you need to know,

Well said.

qabbaan
09-25-2012, 02:01 PM
I said this in the other thread, but my effective tax rate last year was only a little higher than his. I didnt do anything fancy. All I did was have a lot of charitable contributions. I didn't have a mortgage deduction or any dependents to claim. It doesn't take any loopholes or trickery to be under 15%.

I don't care if my effective rate is higher than his, because his income creates more jobs than mine, because he gives so much money to charitable causes, and because we are close and I think everyone should pay the same % no matter what their income level.

I also think there is a belief out there among a lot of people that they are paying 30% or more so in federal. They "feel" their total tax burden, not their effective federal tax rate, and so they hear "14%" and think they think Romney's total tax burden is half of theirs. Obviously that's wrong, but I think the media and others know this and are letting people think this without going into particulars that would clarify.

patteeu
09-25-2012, 02:11 PM
I also think there is a belief out there among a lot of people that they are paying 30% or more so in federal. They "feel" their total tax burden, not their effective federal tax rate, and so they hear "14%" and think they think Romney's total tax burden is half of theirs. Obviously that's wrong, but I think the media and others know this and are letting people think this without going into particulars that would clarify.

Should be "marginal", but other than that, you're exactly right. The large majority of people pay effective tax rates lower than 14%, most of them much lower. For example, a household with a $50K income pays a less than 5% effective rate. Unfortunately, we have a lot of tax illiterates who think 14% is a crazy low effective rate.

qabbaan
09-25-2012, 02:13 PM
Should be "marginal", but other than that, you're exactly right. The large majority of people pay effective tax rates lower than 14%, most of them much lower. For example, a household with a $50K income pays a less than 5% effective rate. Unfortunately, we have a lot of tax illiterates who think 14% is a crazy low effective rate.

Right. Thanks for the correction.

It illustrates how few people understand the basics of tax issues, and how effective the Democrat strategy here is. They talk about Romney's tax returns, but they don't want to talk tax policy at all.

Deberg_1990
09-25-2012, 02:23 PM
Right. Thanks for the correction.

It illustrates how few people understand the basics of tax issues, and how effective the Democrat strategy here is. They talk about Romney's tax returns, but they don't want to talk tax policy at all.

Yea, you have hit the nail on the head here. The media and Dem strategy is to continue to promote class envy and keep a huge block of voters uninformed.

Iowanian
09-25-2012, 03:19 PM
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ3C4V-wW5M0jti67dm5O4ruKPGxQ8NhwOGyaeSTI869aZbsyTa8w


Ding!

Deberg_1990
09-27-2012, 07:44 AM
I said this in the other thread, but my effective tax rate last year was only a little higher than his. I didnt do anything fancy. All I did was have a lot of charitable contributions. I didn't have a mortgage deduction or any dependents to claim. It doesn't take any loopholes or trickery to be under 15%.

I don't care if my effective rate is higher than his, because his income creates more jobs than mine, because he gives so much money to charitable causes, and because we are close and I think everyone should pay the same % no matter what their income level.

I also think there is a belief out there among a lot of people that they are paying 30% or more so in federal. They "feel" their total tax burden, not their effective federal tax rate, and so they hear "14%" and think they think Romney's total tax burden is half of theirs. Obviously that's wrong, but I think the media and others know this and are letting people think this without going into particulars that would clarify.


Your a smart man. I wish the media would be more honest with this stuff.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/fact-check-is-romney-tax-rate-really-lower-than-yours/#ixzz27ZSphHft




President Obama's campaign, with a good dose of help from the media, is pushing a claim that millionaire Mitt Romney is taxed at a "lower rate" than someone making $50,000 a year.

The claim, though, is open to debate. It only holds up in a particular scenario in which both income and all payroll taxes are counted.

The president's campaign presumably is referring to Romney's release last week of his 2011 tax returns, which showed he paid an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent.

This revelation, as might be expected, fueled a wave of campaign stump speeches and videos. The latest was an Obama Web video blasting Romney's "strange take on tax fairness." It included clips of people accusing Romney of paying a lower rate than "average" Americans. An accompanying campaign email said: "Mitt Romney admitted he thinks it's fair that his $20 million income was taxed at a lower rate than someone making $50,000."

IRS data, though, shows that Romney's effective income tax rate -- that's what he pays as a percentage of his income once deductions and other benefits are factored in -- is actually far higher than what most Americans pay.

And it's certainly higher than what someone making $50,000 pays.

IRS data from 2010 shows someone making between $50,000 and $75,000 on average pays an effective rate of 7.8 percent. Even someone making between $100,000 and $200,000 pays a 12.1 percent rate -- also lower than Romney's.

So what is the Obama campaign referring to? There are a couple possibilities.

The campaign likely is trying to make the point that Romney's income -- at least the huge chunk of it that is derived from investments -- is taxed at a 15 percent rate, while others who earn their money from a paycheck are taxed at marginal income rates going all the way up to 35 percent.

The latter percentage, though, comes down once deductions and exemptions are included. The Tax Foundation estimated in a report in January that Romney's rate in 2010 -- which was also about 14 percent -- was higher than what 97 percent of Americans pay.

The math works out better for the Obama campaign's claims if all payroll taxes are included in the formula.

Since Romney earns most his income from investments and not from a paycheck, he doesn't have to pay much toward Social Security and Medicare taxes. But if both the employee and employer share of those taxes are included, according to a Tax Policy Center chart, the middle tier of earners would be paying a 15.5 percent effective rate. (As pointed out in an earlier report by FactCheck.org.)

That would be slightly higher than Romney's rate.

The Obama campaign, asked about its latest Web video, told FoxNews.com "you can't ignore the payroll tax" considering how big of a hit that is for most middle-class families.

The Obama campaign also referred FoxNews.com to Romney's comments to CBS' "60 Minutes.

In the interview, Romney was asked by reporter Scott Pelley whether Romney's rate is "fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?"

Without disputing that claim, Romney said it was fair and explained: "It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent."

The claim by Pelley, though, made certain assumptions without explaining them.

Obama used Pelley's phrasing to repeat the claim Monday on ABC's "The View."

"Yesterday Governor Romney on 60 Minutes said -- was asked does he think it is fair that he pays a lower tax rate than somebody that's making $50,000 a year, and he said yes," Obama said.

As the Media Research Center pointed out, an ABC reporter also claimed that Romney's 14.1 percent rate was "lower" than that of an auto mechanic making $75,000.

While Romney may or may not pay less than the average middle-class earner -- depending on how one defines middle class and how one defines tax rate -- one thing is clear: Romney does pay at a lower rate than the typical wealthy person.

IRS data for 2010 showed those making between $1 million and $10 million typically paid at an effective tax rate of more than 25 percent.

Amnorix
09-27-2012, 07:52 AM
I have been reading some things about Romney's tax returns, and trying to come to an understanding of it. I know it's easy to go omg omg he's rich and only was taxed on 14% of his income or whatever it is. However, reading up on it, he donated 4.1 million dollars to charity in 2011, which was more than 30% of his income.

So, obviously, he is going to have a tax deduction for that. BUT, he still had to donate 30%+! of his income to do it. And there is evidence that shows on average, for the last 20 years he has donated at least 15% of his income to charity each year. It seems to me that all of the headlines indicating he only "pays" 14% taxes on his income may be the wrong way to look at it. I hardly believe ANY of you on this board donate anywhere near 30% of their income to charity. I know I donate about 0.007% of my income a year to charity/United Way (about $50 per biweekly pay period), and I feel that is even way more than most people even do.

Again, I don't know everything about this issue. Would like to hear thoughts of those smarter than I am and what they think about this. Please don't base your responses on partisan hatred, just the facts at hand.

I give the guy credit for the donation, sure, but most people couldn't give 30% of their income to charity because, you know, they would have to stop eating. You can only give that kind of percentage if you've got wealth waaay beyond your needs.

He was also gearing up for a 2012 Presidential run, so I'd be surprised if 2011 wasn't an outlier for contributions. A more insightful baseline would be an average for the 5 or so years pre-dating 2011.

But honestly, I don't really give a rat's ass about how much he gives to charity, nor about how much wealth he has, other than to the extent it influences his position on issues etc. I don't penalize a candidate for being wealthy. If so, then George Washington (one of the wealthiest Americans in history, relatively speaking) would take a huge hit, for example.

Amnorix
09-27-2012, 07:55 AM
Oh, and charitable donations shouldn't be tax deductible to begin with, but that's another story (and one I'll never get what I want on, so I'm not going to worry about it).

mlyonsd
09-27-2012, 08:04 AM
I give the guy credit for the donation, sure, but most people couldn't give 30% of their income to charity because, you know, they would have to stop eating. You can only give that kind of percentage if you've got wealth waaay beyond your needs.Or you're POTUS where food, travel, and all other expenses are covered.

Amnorix
09-27-2012, 08:07 AM
Or you're POTUS where food, travel, and all other expenses are covered.


Sure, though you've still got to retire. Let's face it, Romney never needs to worry about money for the rest of his life. Most politicians can't really say that.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-27-2012, 08:22 AM
Sure, though you've still got to retire. Let's face it, Romney never needs to worry about money for the rest of his life. Most politicians can't really say that.

What planet are you from?

KC native
09-27-2012, 08:43 AM
Your a smart man. I wish the media would be more honest with this stuff.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/25/fact-check-is-romney-tax-rate-really-lower-than-yours/#ixzz27ZSphHft




President Obama's campaign, with a good dose of help from the media, is pushing a claim that millionaire Mitt Romney is taxed at a "lower rate" than someone making $50,000 a year.

The claim, though, is open to debate. It only holds up in a particular scenario in which both income and all payroll taxes are counted.

The president's campaign presumably is referring to Romney's release last week of his 2011 tax returns, which showed he paid an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent.

This revelation, as might be expected, fueled a wave of campaign stump speeches and videos. The latest was an Obama Web video blasting Romney's "strange take on tax fairness." It included clips of people accusing Romney of paying a lower rate than "average" Americans. An accompanying campaign email said: "Mitt Romney admitted he thinks it's fair that his $20 million income was taxed at a lower rate than someone making $50,000."

IRS data, though, shows that Romney's effective income tax rate -- that's what he pays as a percentage of his income once deductions and other benefits are factored in -- is actually far higher than what most Americans pay.

And it's certainly higher than what someone making $50,000 pays.

IRS data from 2010 shows someone making between $50,000 and $75,000 on average pays an effective rate of 7.8 percent. Even someone making between $100,000 and $200,000 pays a 12.1 percent rate -- also lower than Romney's.

So what is the Obama campaign referring to? There are a couple possibilities.

The campaign likely is trying to make the point that Romney's income -- at least the huge chunk of it that is derived from investments -- is taxed at a 15 percent rate, while others who earn their money from a paycheck are taxed at marginal income rates going all the way up to 35 percent.

The latter percentage, though, comes down once deductions and exemptions are included. The Tax Foundation estimated in a report in January that Romney's rate in 2010 -- which was also about 14 percent -- was higher than what 97 percent of Americans pay.

The math works out better for the Obama campaign's claims if all payroll taxes are included in the formula.

Since Romney earns most his income from investments and not from a paycheck, he doesn't have to pay much toward Social Security and Medicare taxes. But if both the employee and employer share of those taxes are included, according to a Tax Policy Center chart, the middle tier of earners would be paying a 15.5 percent effective rate. (As pointed out in an earlier report by FactCheck.org.)

That would be slightly higher than Romney's rate.

The Obama campaign, asked about its latest Web video, told FoxNews.com "you can't ignore the payroll tax" considering how big of a hit that is for most middle-class families.

The Obama campaign also referred FoxNews.com to Romney's comments to CBS' "60 Minutes.

In the interview, Romney was asked by reporter Scott Pelley whether Romney's rate is "fair to the guy who makes $50,000 and paid a higher rate than you did?"

Without disputing that claim, Romney said it was fair and explained: "It is a low rate. And one of the reasons why the capital gains tax rate is lower is because capital has already been taxed once at the corporate level, as high as 35 percent."

The claim by Pelley, though, made certain assumptions without explaining them.

Obama used Pelley's phrasing to repeat the claim Monday on ABC's "The View."

"Yesterday Governor Romney on 60 Minutes said -- was asked does he think it is fair that he pays a lower tax rate than somebody that's making $50,000 a year, and he said yes," Obama said.

As the Media Research Center pointed out, an ABC reporter also claimed that Romney's 14.1 percent rate was "lower" than that of an auto mechanic making $75,000.

While Romney may or may not pay less than the average middle-class earner -- depending on how one defines middle class and how one defines tax rate -- one thing is clear: Romney does pay at a lower rate than the typical wealthy person.

IRS data for 2010 showed those making between $1 million and $10 million typically paid at an effective tax rate of more than 25 percent.


ROFL You say the media should be more honest and then post a Faux news spin job for Mittens.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 08:55 AM
ROFL You say the media should be more honest and then post a Faux news spin job for Mittens.

I wouldn't go out in public in those clown shoes.

FishingRod
09-27-2012, 09:08 AM
Sure, though you've still got to retire. Let's face it, Romney never needs to worry about money for the rest of his life. Most politicians can't really say that.

With 5 years served in congress you qualify for their pension

"The pension amount is determined by a formula that takes into account the years served and the average pay for the top three years in terms of payment. In 2002, the average pension payment ranged from $41,000 to $55,000. For example, a member of Congress who worked for 22 years and had a top three-year average salary of $153,900 would be eligible for a pension payment of $84,645 per year.[3]"

This is assuming they do nothing else, Save no mony and don't take advantage of the fact insider trading is A-OK for them life is pretty grand for our public servants.

Deberg_1990
09-27-2012, 09:46 AM
ROFL You say the media should be more honest and then post a Faux news spin job for Mittens.

Explain to me whats spin about it?

KC native
09-27-2012, 10:01 AM
Explain to me whats spin about it?

There is a reason Mittens frames his tax rates in terms of income taxes (hint hint most of his income isn't subject to income or payroll taxes).

patteeu
09-27-2012, 10:03 AM
There is a reason Mittens frames his tax rates in terms of income taxes (hint hint most of his income isn't subject to income or payroll taxes).

That was clearly explained in the Fox News article that you called "spin". So again, what is it that you're calling spin?

KC native
09-27-2012, 10:14 AM
That was clearly explained in the Fox News article that you called "spin". So again, what is it that you're calling spin?

I guess you missed the implication in the article that Obama is being dishonest.

cosmo20002
09-27-2012, 10:17 AM
I don't see it noted anywhere in this thread that Mitt had to play some games with his return in order to get to the 14% rate. He had previously stated that he has always paid at least a 13% rate. But when the numbers were crunched for 2011, the rate was far below 13%. So, as the Romney camp's own statement explains--for the purpose of conforming to his earlier statement about the 13%, he actually declined to take some deductions to which he was entitled.

So, basically he paid more tax that he needed to so that he could still claim his 13% statement as true. Its interesting to note that Mitt proudly said that he's always paid what is required and not a penny more--and that if he paid more taxes than were required, he wouldn't be qualified to be president. His words, I'm just the messenger.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 10:20 AM
I guess you missed the implication in the article that Obama is being dishonest.

I didn't miss it, but ironically, the implication isn't that Obama is telling lies, it's that Obama is the one using spin to be deceptive. Unlike this article, or Romney in his answer to Scott Pelley, Obama tells only half of the story.

So, once again, where's the spin in the article?

patteeu
09-27-2012, 10:22 AM
I don't see it noted anywhere in this thread that Mitt had to play some games with his return in order to get to the 14% rate. He had previously stated that he has always paid at least a 13% rate. But when the numbers were crunched for 2011, the rate was far below 13%. So, as the Romney camp's own statement explains--for the purpose of conforming to his earlier statement about the 13%, he actually declined to take some deductions to which he was entitled.

So, basically he paid more tax that he needed to so that he could still claim his 13% statement as true. Its interesting to note that Mitt proudly said that he's always paid what is required and not a penny more--and that if he paid more taxes than were required, he wouldn't be qualified to be president. His words, I'm just the messenger.

This is the most absurd criticism ever.

KC native
09-27-2012, 10:26 AM
I didn't miss it, but ironically, the implication isn't that Obama is telling lies, it's that Obama is the one using spin to be deceptive. Unlike this article, or Romney in his answer to Scott Pelley, Obama tells only half of the story.

So, once again, where's the spin in the article?

Ok BEPatty. Mittens campaign has been the one focusing only on income taxes (remember the 47% line?). Mittens has heen the one trying to frame the argument to reflect favorably on him.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 10:30 AM
Ok BEPatty. Mittens campaign has been the one focusing only on income taxes (remember the 47% line?). Mittens has heen the one trying to frame the argument to reflect favorably on him.

So I assume we've reached agreement that the Fox News article wasn't really such a spin job afterall. Good for you for finally removing those clown shoes.

cosmo20002
09-27-2012, 10:33 AM
This is the most absurd criticism ever.

It's deceptive, and he's admitted the tactic was solely to conform to his earlier statement (of course, it also ignores his statement essentially that someone would have to be an idiot to overpay taxes). There's a debate about taxation rates going on and Mitt is disguising what his real rate would have been had he prepared his return in a normal manner.

Also, if he loses (or I suppose if he wins) he could amend his return to recoup his "gift" to the Treasury.

AndChiefs
09-27-2012, 10:37 AM
I don't see it noted anywhere in this thread that Mitt had to play some games with his return in order to get to the 14% rate. He had previously stated that he has always paid at least a 13% rate. But when the numbers were crunched for 2011, the rate was far below 13%. So, as the Romney camp's own statement explains--for the purpose of conforming to his earlier statement about the 13%, he actually declined to take some deductions to which he was entitled.

So, basically he paid more tax that he needed to so that he could still claim his 13% statement as true. Its interesting to note that Mitt proudly said that he's always paid what is required and not a penny more--and that if he paid more taxes than were required, he wouldn't be qualified to be president. His words, I'm just the messenger.

And Obama said he'd be a one-term president if he didn't fix the economy. Looks like the only candidate left is Gary Johnson.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 10:43 AM
It's deceptive, and he's admitted the tactic was solely to conform to his earlier statement (of course, it also ignores his statement essentially that someone would have to be an idiot to overpay taxes). There's a debate about taxation rates going on and Mitt is disguising what his real rate would have been had he prepared his return in a normal manner.

Also, if he loses (or I suppose if he wins) he could amend his return to recoup his "gift" to the Treasury.

It's not deceptive, it's defensive. If he were to have reported a less than 13% effective tax rate, he would have been attacked by the Obama campaign and by dedicated middle-of-the-roaders like you for having "lied" in his January estimate.

cosmo20002
09-27-2012, 10:43 AM
And Obama said he'd be a one-term president if he didn't fix the economy. Looks like the only candidate left is Gary Johnson.

He predicted he'd be a one-term president. Looks like his prediction is going to be incorrect. Or that the economy is fixed.

cosmo20002
09-27-2012, 10:53 AM
It's not deceptive, it's defensive. If he were to have reported a less than 13% effective tax rate, he would have been attacked by the Obama campaign and by dedicated middle-of-the-roaders like you for having "lied" in his January estimate.

I'm not arguing with you about the reason he did what he did. But it is deceptive because as the nation debates taxation levels for the rich, he went so far as to make a bad personal financial move just to create the appearance that the 14% rate is what people in his financial situation would pay.

He'll probably amend and get the money back later.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 11:04 AM
I'm not arguing with you about the reason he did what he did. But it is deceptive because as the nation debates taxation levels for the rich, he went so far as to make a bad personal financial move just to create the appearance that the 14% rate is what people in his financial situation would pay.

He'll probably amend and get the money back later.

You say you aren't arguing about reasons, but then you go and try to suggest that his reason was nefarious. He didn't do it to create a false appearance on behalf of the 1%, he did it to avoid the political trap of releasing an actual tax return that didn't correspond to his earlier estimates and to avoid the class warfare against him personally that has been so rampant this election season.

I think it's extremely unlikely that he'll amend and get the money back later.

cosmo20002
09-27-2012, 11:19 AM
You say you aren't arguing about reasons, but then you go and try to suggest that his reason was nefarious. He didn't do it to create a false appearance on behalf of the 1%, he did it to avoid the political trap of releasing an actual tax return that didn't correspond to his earlier estimates and to avoid the class warfare against him personally that has been so rampant this election season.

I think it's extremely unlikely that he'll amend and get the money back later.

He did it to avoid getting shit for paying less than the 13% he verbally claimed-I agree with you on that. And by doing that he created the false appearance that the 14% is the 'normal' rate he would pay. People assume he is going to file a return like a normal person with all income reported and all due exemptions, credits, and deductions taken. I'm not saying he did anything illegal, not saying he lied, but what he did is deceptive.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 11:22 AM
He did it to avoid getting shit for paying less than the 13% he verbally claimed-I agree with you on that. And by doing that he created the false appearance that the 14% is the 'normal' rate he would pay. People assume he is going to file a return like a normal person with all income reported and all due exemptions, credits, and deductions taken. I'm not saying he did anything illegal, not saying he lied, but what he did is deceptive.

He didn't give a false appearance at all. He publicly announced that he only took a portion of the charitable deduction for which he was eligible and he was very clear and open about why he did it. You can't get any more transparent than that.

cosmo20002
09-27-2012, 11:34 AM
He didn't give a false appearance at all. He publicly announced that he only took a portion of the charitable deduction for which he was eligible and he was very clear and open about why he did it. You can't get any more transparent than that.

Sure, it would have looked a lot worse if they didn't admit it up front. But they know that the continuing story on the return will be that he paid 14%, slightly higher than the year before. It also allows Mitt, when it comes up, to say "Hey, I paid 14%." I tend to doubt that he'll add the details of how he manufactured that figure. Deceptive.

patteeu
09-27-2012, 12:47 PM
Sure, it would have looked a lot worse if they didn't admit it up front. But they know that the continuing story on the return will be that he paid 14%, slightly higher than the year before. It also allows Mitt, when it comes up, to say "Hey, I paid 14%." I tend to doubt that he'll add the details of how he manufactured that figure. Deceptive.

Yet when given the chance to dispute the issue with Scott Pelley as to whether he paid a lower tax rate than a $50K per year household, he didn't do it even though he clearly pays a much higher effective income tax rate (even if the full charitable deduction had been taken). Wrong.

Mr. Flopnuts
09-27-2012, 02:13 PM
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_oZCLuUUzO7Q/RrjShaxNArI/AAAAAAAAAcI/K5BldX9V7vI/s320/sheep_shagger1.jpg

Which one of these are you?

Dallas Chief
09-27-2012, 04:24 PM
Ok BEPatty. Mittens campaign has been the one focusing only on income taxes (remember the 47% line?). Mittens has heen the one trying to frame the argument to reflect favorably on him.

How ignorant are you? Should he frame the argument to reflect negatively on himself? WTF? Grow up.