View Full Version : Mitt's taxes part 2
Well well well, it would seem Romney demanded several years of his potential running mates taxes.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/12/us-usa-campaign-romney-taxes-idUSBRE87B0I520120812
Hummm....let's see..Mitt, the ever smart business man, expects to see some sort of tract record, or financial health, or simply the important detail of his running mate before he 'buys' this product. No secrets from Mitt! Nope, no smart business man would even think of investing everything, putting all the eggs in one basket, so to speak, without seeing the past financial health, and record, of that investment for many years, and not just one. NO, no careful, thoughtful investor would do that, now would they?
Unfortunately he doesn't seem to think WE THE PEOPLE deserve the same consideration.:( We are the little people, after all, and are just too stupid to understand anyway, and after all, he is him, therefore above the rules, or protocol, or suspicion actually. He does deserve it and, and, and, it's his turn...and we should just TRUST him. Just like we trusted Nixon with his plans and secrets and...wait, even Nixon released 4 years!
Ask yourself, or ask your candidate Romney, why doesn't he think WE, the American public whom he expects to elect him to the highest office in the world, deserve at least the same consideration HE expected during his search for a running mate?
Once again, Romney has placed himself well above us, the American public, and thumbed his nose at our attempt to make the best choice in this investment into our future. What he would never ever ever do, he expects us to do.
I'll reserve further comment until we get down to Mitt's sales tax. Assuming threads on his State, real estate, auto and a few other assorted taxes will come first. He's probably not going to turn them over peggy. Most of us think he should so he can move on, but its a no win move now. The Dems are set to pick them apart no matter what is revealed and the Reps don't appear to be in the mood to give them cannon fodder.
I can assure you that if I were to release my taxes no one would be able to "pick them apart" beyond analyzing what I made and what I paid.
But then I don't employ every trick in the book to avoid taxes...
What Governor Romney may or may not have paid in taxes is one of the sure division points his opposition is attempting to create and exploit. No matter what they show, it won't be enough.
At least now, Harry Reid and Peggy can spend their days speculating and imagining the worst simply because it makes them happy. The rest of us can rest assured that if there were anything out of the ordinary, someone would have leaked it by now or it would be a matter of public record as the IRS took legal action to reconcile his debt.
We all know he earns the majority of his income from investments, which have traditionally been taxed at a lower rate than regular income due to the double taxation of corporate then capital gains taxes. Making further issue of it is simply a diversion from the real issues of the day.
SteveinMN
8-12-12, 10:14pm
What Governor Romney may or may not have paid in taxes is one of the sure division points his opposition is attempting to create and exploit. No matter what they show, it won't be enough.
At least now, Harry Reid and Peggy can spend their days speculating and imagining the worst simply because it makes them happy. The rest of us can rest assured that if there were anything out of the ordinary, someone would have leaked it by now or it would be a matter of public record as the IRS took legal action to reconcile his debt.
Alan, your take on issues in this forum has been fair, IMHO, so this comment is not directed to you.
I could not help thinking, though, as I read your post, that this reasoning should apply to the "birthers" as well. If there were anything out of the ordinary with Obama's birth certificate, someone would have leaked it by now or it would be a matter of public record. If the Republicans can support Romney's refusal to release his tax returns, could they call off the birther dogs?
Alan, your take on issues in this forum has been fair, IMHO, so this comment is not directed to you.
I could not help thinking, though, as I read your post, that this reasoning should apply to the "birthers" as well. If there were anything out of the ordinary with Obama's birth certificate, someone would have leaked it by now or it would be a matter of public record. If the Republicans can support Romney's refusal to release his tax returns, could they call off the birther dogs?
I guess you'd have to identify the "birther dogs" because I'm not sure what to make of that phrase. It's not like the *Speaker of the House claimed from the House floor that he had an anonymous source who claimed that the President was born in Kenya and now it was up to the President to prove it false. Then to have this followed up by a past majority leader of the *Senate affirming that "it is fact".
Of course, private individuals should feel free to believe what they wish, but I'm not sure I've seen officials from the highest elected offices in the land act as irresponsibly as we've seen these past couple of weeks.
*Houses of Congress intentionally jumbled
ApatheticNoMore
8-12-12, 10:29pm
If I was to release my taxes everyone else would be as confused by the darn things and as unable to make heads or tails of them as I am :laff:
I can assure you that if I were to release my taxes no one would be able to "pick them apart" beyond analyzing what I made and what I paid.
But then I don't employ every trick in the book to avoid taxes...
Did you pay more than you needed to on April 15? Some people are in a position to file a 1040EZ. That would be pretty easy to read. Others have multiple asset classes and multiple income streams and take advantage of the opportunity to claim expenses against income as is allowed in the US tax code. The "tricks" as you call them. That can make things quite a bit more complicated. I personally employ every "trick" I can think of, including strategic planning, to lower my tax burden, or "avoid" taxes as you like to say. Paying more than is required is just dumb, not patriotic. Unless of course you think the government does a better job of managing your money than you do. In that case please feel free to send in a little extra.
Did you pay more than you needed to on April 15? Some people are in a position to file a 1040EZ. That would be pretty easy to read. Others have multiple asset classes and multiple income streams and take advantage of the opportunity to claim expenses against income as is allowed in the US tax code. The "tricks" as you call them. That can make things quite a bit more complicated. I personally employ every "trick" I can think of, including strategic planning, to lower my tax burden, or "avoid" taxes as you like to say. Paying more than is required is just dumb, not patriotic. Unless of course you think the government does a better job of managing your money than you do. In that case please feel free to send in a little extra.
Agreed, our accountant figures our taxes both with and without standard deduction to see with way is less expensive for us. Another "trick."
I guess you'd have to identify the "birther dogs" because I'm not sure what to make of that phrase.
I was using "call off the dogs" as a figure of speech (clumsily). People are free to believe whatever they wish, but I think Republican leadership has been remiss in killing the birther meme. The mouths on Faux News and right-wing talk radio and Drudge are promoting a lie. The Speaker of the House and other elements of Republican leadership could tell them to knock it off in public. But they don't.
I was using "call off the dogs" as a figure of speech (clumsily). People are free to believe whatever they wish, but I think Republican leadership has been remiss in killing the birther meme. The mouths on Faux News and right-wing talk radio and Drudge are promoting a lie. The Speaker of the House and other elements of Republican leadership could tell them to knock it off in public. But they don't.
And, the President could tell Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and his super PACS to knock it off as well, but hasn't, and won't.
The reason being is that politics is a smarmy business, engaged in by smarmy people who will do and say anything to achieve a goal. And you know why? Because people believe everything they hear that validates their own prejudices. That's why we have multiple threads about Romney's taxes.
You can pick and choose which ones you find offensive and which ones get a pass, but in reality, they're all just wrong.
So, why did Romney demand several years of tax returns for Ryan? Why was that important? If something was amiss, wouldn't that have 'leaked'?
so, all you supposedly savvy business people would invest everything, essentially, in a business without even the slightest inquiry into their financial health/tract record? Really? Don't you think something would have 'leaked' if it was not sound? Come on, tell me you would invest everything without looking at many years financial reports.
What kind of business person would do that? Not a very good one.
This is a business proposition, as Romney himself keeps trying to tell us. "Elect me because I'm such a savvy business person" OK, prove it, and give us the opportunity to make a sound business decision.
It's protocol, it's traditional, I didn't just make this up, even thought some of you would try to make this some vendetta I have invented. Trying to make it a 'rich' thing is bogus as well. First of all, we know he is rich. Duh! No surprise there. Second of all, he isn't the first rich guy to run for office. He may think he is special but he's not.
Of course the pols would go over his returns, just like you know he went over his opponents with several fine toothed combs. He probably had an army going over everyone's including Obama's and now Ryan's. And how did that happen? Because they had NOTHING TO HIDE and they released their taxes.
This man has said that on DAY ONE he is going to give himself a huge gift of tax breaks. And yet, we can only assume he has paid no taxes. Why are we giving him a tax break again? Why are we giving him and his rich buddies a tax break again? I really really want to know. Please someone tell me why the super wealthy need a tax break, or even a continuation of the Bush tax breaks. You can't have it both ways.
It is reasonable for me to want this guy, who expects the credit card and the keys to the car, to prove to me that he deserves a huge tax break. And until he signs a pledge saying he will not pursue a tax break for himself and his buddies, and stop the Bush tax breaks, I will keep insisting on seeing why not.
This is not a minor issue, even though some would try to make it so. I did not get where I am today by making poor business decisions.
Gregg, do you invest in a company, a huge investment, without thorough investigation of the financial records?
Do you Alan?
Does any smart business person?
Gregg, do you invest in a company, a huge investment, without thorough investigation of the financial records?
No peggy, I don't. But then I did agree with you early on by saying I think Mr. Romney should release his taxes. Why the GOP movers and shakers wanted him to hold back is something I can't tell you: I just don't know. I do not have any reason to believe Romney did anything illegal. Swiss and Cayman accounts may sound like the stuff of a Grisham novel to some, but its not illegal or unethical or all that uncommon to use those kinds of accounts.
Full disclosure early on is almost always the best policy. I'm disappointed that is not the choice that was made and think that now Mr. Romney & his campaign are now between a rock and a hard place. Speaking practically, unless some outright fraud was revealed (which I do think is highly unlikely), there just isn't going to be much in the man's tax return that would cause me to change my vote. Like the rest of us, he's not perfect and like any other, he's not a perfect candidate. Either Romney or Obama is going to be our next president and both come with baggage. Regardless of what's in his taxes I think Romney is more likely to lead the US in a direction that will ultimately be better for this country. That is why I will probably vote for him, not because I think he's a saint. You feel differently. Not sure what else to say that might make you feel better?
Why, Gregg? Why do you think Romney is more likely to lead the US in a direction that will benefit us all? Which policy, or position has he that makes you say that?
This whole tax thing shows him to be secretive, and fairly arrogant in that he feels he doesn't need to play by the rules of the game. But then, you said you will vote for him anyway so i guess he is right. He doesn't need to play by the rules of the game. I wonder what other rules he feels he doesn't need to follow? We'll never know cause you, and all the others out there like you, will turn your back and pull that lever without demanding a single thing of him. Or even the truth. Maybe you all can't handle the truth, and that is why you don't really care to know.
You keep saying you don't think he has done anything illegal, but how do you know? How does anyone know? No one who voted for Nixon thought he was a crook either, but he was secretive, and ran on a whole lot of 'Trust me', just like Romney. Romney may be innocent, or as crooked as the day is long, but, until he comes clean, it's like quantum physics. There could be anything, and everything in those returns! I doubt there is nothing, cause if there were he would release them.
So, again I say, what's he hiding, cause he's hiding something! Yeah, maybe hiding your cash in offshore accounts isn't exactly illegal, but it sure is scummy for someone who wants to be President! And greedy! How greedy do you have to be to not tidy up that little aspect knowing you would run for President! (and he has known for at least 10 years) Greed and Arrogance! Wow! Is this all the Republican party stands for anymore?
Watch Faux News for even a little bit and you will hear "elite" said with a sneer at least 10 times an hour in reference to liberals. Well folks, you are trying to elect the king of elite. Doesn't get anymore Elite than Romney.
With this tax thing, I can only come to two conclusions. Either he is hiding something, maybe even something illegal, or he is an incredible coward, or maybe both.
But, make your case. I'm listening. Tell me what you like about him, specifically. Which policy, which plan of his do you like? Which position of his do you think will take the US in the right direction?
No one who voted for Nixon thought he was a crook either...
Overall I think it was a lot easier to get away with things in 1968 than it is now. In a world where every move you make leaves a trail of some kind and where there are countless would be sleuths (amateur and professional) out scratching the ground and the Today show will chat with anyone who knew you in 3rd grade, I just don't see how Mitt Romney's past could be that sordid without someone broadcasting it. He's rich, but he ain't rich enough to buy them all off.
But, make your case. I'm listening.
I'm no big Romney fan peggy. Truth is I'm pretty neutral about him, no big high or low. The main reason I will probably vote for him, like I said above, is that I think he has a better shot at leading the US in a direction where we (IMO) need to go. I think we have a better shot at it with a Republican administration than we do by reelecting the President. Money isn't the answer to everything and throwing money at a problem hardly ever works, BUT in terms of the government everything DOES run on money. I believe our spending is out of control and unsustainable. I believe our economy is in very bad shape. There is too much debt, public and private. Until the economy recovers we won't be able to truly fix anything else, but I don't believe Mr. Obama feels that way. To be sure the President has had a hard row to hoe in the last 3.5 years and the stagnation in Congress is not all his fault, but I have simply not seen the kind of leadership from him that I had hoped for. I never hoped for him to fail because that means we all failed, but he has not succeeded with what I hoped he would so I plan to vote for someone who will take a different approach. We talk about the lesser of the evils. Unfortunately for me that is exactly what this election is about. I probably didn't help my chances to land a job on the campaign with that one, huh?
I can understand Democrats leaping to the conclusion that there must be tax cheating going on, when they nominate and support people like Timother Geithner, tax cheat, for Secretary of the Treasury. People often suspect others of engaging in the same sort of immoral activity they themselves are engaged in, or drawn to...
"Tax experts blame Geithner’s error on the IMF’s atypical tax arrangement. Because it’s an international organization, it’s exempt from withholding employees’ payroll taxes.
U.S. employees get additional salary to cover the IMF’s share of their payroll taxes. They’re responsible for paying the tax, considered a “self-employment tax,” as part of their personal tax returns.
Geithner did his own taxes in 2001 and 2002. An accountant did them in 2003 and 2004.
“Usually, all this stuff is taken out of your paycheck, so this particular arrangement is unusual,” said George Yin, a tax professor at the University of Virginia Law School and former chief of staff for the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. “It would be much more troubling if he didn't understand some basic principle of economics.”
Hardly an out and out cheat. Inattentive, maybe, but not trying to hide something, like Romney. And anyway, Obama released many years tax returns. Geithner isn't running for President, Romney is.
Secretive, arrogant, greedy... your kind of guy, I'm sure.
You know, Paul Ryans tax plan eliminates taxes for capitol gains. Eliminates them, completely! And of course, Romney said if Ryans plan were to cross his Presidential desk tomorrow, he would sign it. Wow! Could he give himself a bigger gift? Nope. Sure is a sweet trade off for pretending you care about the country for 4 years, although he doesn't even really need to pretend, does he. You will vote for him anyway! Ahh..but you are one of those benefiting from that giant suck from the middle class to the wealthy. We all sleep better at night knowing you can spend an extra 5,000 on ammo for target practice each month. He has that R (well, more like an etch-a-sketch R) on his butt. Good enough!
I guess I can see how republicans could care less if this guy has cheated on his taxes, as their focus is on the dismantling of America, raping and plundering what they can of what's left. They can't wait to continue the redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy, and they are so close with the election of one of their own, they can taste it. With Paul Ryans budget, and Mitt's lack of caring (he just wants the title) it's a done deal.
The real sad characters in this little drama are all the tea partiers who actually thought they were a part of something big, and something good. They were used, completely, and the brains of the republican party (sadly only the leaders cause they scorn education for anyone else) could give a rip about them, using their ignorance knowing they will do whatever they are told, believing whatever they are told, carrying signs that say whatever they are told.
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2012/02/17/why-do-beneficiaries-of-government-programs-vote-for-pols-who-would-cut-those-programs/
I have faith in the vast middle who will not let this scam go on. Even the tea partiers will eventually see that this empty suit, who is the elite of the elite, who so despises and holds nothing but contempt for them that he lets them know he expects them to vote for him despite the contempt he holds for their intellect in choosing a President.
I'm pretty sure even you , bae, wouldn't invest such a vast amount with such importance in a company without spending a lot of time investigating past performance and financial records, and more than 1 year I'll wager. How little you must think of your fellow tea partiers to feel they don't deserve this important information. But then, one does not need to analyze a tool. One only needs it to work.
Secretive, arrogant, greedy... your kind of guy, I'm sure.
Lonely silence,
a single cicada's cry
sinking into stone
I can understand Democrats leaping to the conclusion that there must be tax cheating going on, when they nominate and support people like Timother Geithner, tax cheat, for Secretary of the Treasury. People often suspect others of engaging in the same sort of immoral activity they themselves are engaged in, or drawn to...
If I suspect Mitt Romney of obfuscation around possibly unethical behavior, I must therefore be a lying captain of industry myself? If I were the kind of person to jump up and down like Rumpelstiltskin and bluster and threaten when I felt offended I'd be a dervish banshee on a pogo stick right about now.
...I'd be a dervish banshee on a pogo stick right about now.
Funny Jane, what a great image! :laff::laff::laff:
Secretive, arrogant, greedy... your kind of guy, I'm sure.....He has that R (well, more like an etch-a-sketch R) on his butt.......I guess I can see how republicans could care less if this guy has cheated on his taxes.....their focus is on the dismantling of America.....raping and plundering.....
Take a deep breath peggy. I figured out a long time ago that we're not going to convert you and I'm sure you came to the same conclusion regarding most of the conservatives here. That's ok. There is still value in talking to each other, but pounding your fists on the table and insulting people diminishes your message. Passion is good, vitriol isn't.
There's a lot of people in this country that don't think the President has us on a good path. It might pay to actually listen to what they have to say. Not all of them are your target Fox/Rush junkies. Not all of them are uber-wealthy. They aren't all ignorant rednecks being spoon fed right wing ideology. They are just as diverse as Mr. Obama's supporters are. You (the proverbial one) can rant and rave and draw cheers from the crowd that already has the same party line ideas you do. That's a great way to get an ego stroke, but it won't change anything. Mitt Romney is doing pretty well in the polls because he heard what people think the President is doing wrong and is promising to change that. I think Mr. Obama would be doing better if he listened a little closer to the exact same people because there are apparently a lot of them.
ApatheticNoMore
8-14-12, 11:59am
I don't see the real point in ganging up on peggy. For what? Partisanship? Partisanship is a major problem, but there's just as many partisans on the other side.
As for presidential candidates: my problem has always been where I have the most profound disagreement with the President's path, Romney seems to take the same positions, he's an echo not a choice! Civil liberties, expansive military action etc.. So what is the real gain of trading tweedledee for tweedledum? Beats me. I have other issues with the President where I doubt Romney would be any better either, for instance this administration has done a horrible job of protecting the environment. But .... Honestly if all we are going to get is the same policies but more cutting of Medicare, color me completely unimpressed. That's the sell?
As for presidential candidates: my problem has always been where I have the most profound disagreement with the President's path, Romney seems to take the same positions, he's an echo not a choice! Civil liberties, expansive military action etc.. So what is the real gain of trading tweedledee for tweedledum? Beats me. I have other issues with the President where I doubt Romney would be any better either, for instance this administration has done a horrible job of protecting the environment. But .... Honestly if all we are going to get is the same policies but more cutting of Medicare, color me completely unimpressed. That's the sell?
ANM, you've hit upon a very important point. Aside from whatever posturing and kowtowing Obama and Romney may do for the more -- ahem, vocal -- elements of their parties, they really are not that different. Romney 1.0 (the MA Governor) actually was fairly centrist. Obama, reviewed through the lens of Democratic liberalism, is somewhere just to the left of Nixon, if that far away. There is no real choice here, no third parties with viable candidates. And we all suffer for that lack of diversity because it means the differences are the fringes.
I think Ron Paul is a terrific candidate -- for some other country. I don't think that even the Tea Party is up for his brand of self-reliance. But Paul vs. Obama would be a real choice. But we won't get that choice, because there really is nothing beyond Democrat and Republican in the U.S. I would love to see ranked runoff non-Electoral-College voting for President, with people able to rank and vote for their first three choices. No one makes a majority? Runoff of the three biggest vote-getters. Right now I get to cast a vote for Obama or against Romney (or vice versa); there's no good way to indicate a preference in politics or philosophy. Here we are. Would it kill us to try something different?
I don't see the real point in ganging up on peggy.
Nobody's ganging up on peggy. She's an intelligent person with very (VERY!) strong opinions. She's also the author of this thread. If you start a thread with a controversial topic you have to be prepared to defend your position. As an experienced poster peggy already knows that. Several of the other contributors to this thread happen to have an opinion in opposition to hers. If we were to take people voicing those positions as "ganging up" and then attempted to reduce the quantity of opposition that would be censorship and that's not what we're about.
More interesting to me, and perhaps more telling, is that more people have not stepped up with an energy level similar to peggy's. I agree with her general statement that Mr. Romney should open up his taxes. That is standard protocol and I do not know why there is a problem with that. I'm sure the DNC will continue to press it as an issue, I'm just surprised there isn't a much higher level of coverage considering the perceived media bias in this country. The only reason I can think of regarding why millions of people don't seem to feel peggy's passion on the issue is that they are just tired and ready for a change and Mitt Romney is the only other option (even though he may not really be much of a change in some ways). YMMV.
Yes, i did start this thread, and the 'gang up' is kind of business as usual here. But I can certainly take it...and dish it.
Thanks anyway ANM, you are right. there is partisanship on both sides. And usually the 'ganging up' only happens when the other side doesn't have anything else to bring to the argument. Kind of a 'so's you mother' come back. If they get really stumped, they get huffy, and threaten to block you or take their ball and go home.
My passions aren't any stronger than a lot of folks. I just pose logical questions that stump them cause they really don't have any good answers, so talking about my 'passion' or how 'forceful' I am fills in.
Kind of like my question as to whether they would invest so much into a company without rigorous investigation into the financial history/tract record of that company, and why is anyone willing to toss aside that standard when selecting the man for the most important job in the world? Gregg has answered. He doesn't care, and will vote for Romney anyway. Well, maybe he says he cares, but he's voting for him anyway. No one else has answered.
But, I'm still waiting for the thread on how wonderful Romney is as candidate. I'm waiting for the thread laying out his plans and programs, and how exactly he will lead us to a better place.
There IS talk of it, gregg, lots of talk wondering what he is hiding, just not in the republican echo chamber. There IS a difference between the candidates. For one thing, Romney has said on day one he will give himself a huge tax break, without justifying it. All he has to do is show us his taxes and we can see for ourselves what a burden he lives under.
Romney believes in trickle down economics. He really believes that giving all the corn to the cow will feed the birds. That's a huge difference between the two. Saying there isn't any difference between the candidates is one of those things people say, but isn't really true. There is a difference. Just look at the economy under Clinton, then what happened when we gave the keys to Bush. He totally crashed the economy. His policies, his doing, his insistence in trickle down. One of the first things he did was give the top 1% a huge tax break. Well, we see how that turned out. Record deficit, and lost wages and jobs. So where are the jobs? If trickle down really worked, we would be pooping in tall cotton. It doesn't work. It never worked, and they keep trying to bring it back. There is a difference in the candidates, and if Romney gets in, you will see another economic crash, along with all the meanness that comes with the Ryan budget, which Romney has said he would sign if it crossed his desk tomorrow. He would repeal Obamacare, shift medicare to a voucher system, cut infrastructure spending by 25%, cut food stamps, medicaid, aid to WIC, cuts in education....and a huge tax cut for himself and his buddies!
Whatever you think he was before, he isn't centrist now. He selected Ryan as his running mate, and embraced Ryan's budget plan. That's hard right, nothing center about that. And incredibly mean too. Read Ryan's budget plan. it's all in there. Ryan doesn't keep any secrets, unlike Romney and his taxes.
Gregg has answered. He doesn't care, and will vote for Romney anyway. Well, maybe he says he cares, but he's voting for him anyway.
Don't twist it too much peggy. I do care and even said a couple times that I agree with you that Mitt Romeny should turn over his taxes, but that does not mean it is the most important issue of the election for me. There are other things that will gain or lose my vote before this will, that's all.
The only reason I can think of regarding why millions of people don't seem to feel peggy's passion on the issue is that they are just tired and ready for a change and Mitt Romney is the only other option (even though he may not really be much of a change in some ways).
I will admit to being tired. I voted for Obama quite willingly in 2008. But it's 2011 and Gitmo still is open; health care reform got further than it would have but it's still far behind what it could have been; and I believe the prosecution of Wall Street wrongdoing was -- well, ignored. In fact, I would have been very happy to have Obama turn to Bush 43 and Cheney on Inauguration Day 2009 and tell them they were under arrest to be tried for war crimes. So I'm disappointed.
But I don't believe Romney presents a positive change. I find him socially clueless and I am concerned that he's so desperate to be President that he'll say anything to get the job. He's certainly a more plausible choice than some of his competitors on the GOP primary trail, some of which are just breathtaking in their arrogance and inability to filter whatever pops into their minds. But beyond Romney, every last Republican -- at least publicly -- seems to believe that repeating the same failed policies of the last 30 years will work if we just try them one more time. Reminds me of the old Rocky and Bullwinkle bit where Bullwinkle goes to put a rabbit out of his hat and Rocky asks, "Again? That trick never works!" (And, sure enough, it doesn't.) Call it "trickle down", call it "tax cuts for job providers", .... it hasn't worked in three decades and yet, for some reason, half of this country believes it will work for them and for their families better than it has so far.
Finally, Citizens United put the last nails in the coffin of our republic. When the candidate's exhortation is not around policy or discussions of the important topics before us, but around selling another $3 "raffle ticket" or proclaiming that more and more money is needed to fight the PACs or the opposition will win, ideas are dead and it's simply a matter of who has the biggest purse. I'll vote for Obama to take care of my civic duty, but more and more these days, it strikes me as a hollow exercise.
So, yeah, I'm tired.
gimmethesimplelife
8-14-12, 8:24pm
Here's my take on Romney not being willing to release his tax records - feel free to disagree with me. I don't have a problem with him taking whatever deductions he legally can to lower the percentage he pays - I may not like it, I may not agree with it, but you know, I am thinking of setting up a small business myself and yes, I would claim every deducton I legally could too if I do. So I can't fault him for that. What bothers me is didn't he put a large amount of money in an account in the Cayman Islands to avoid taxation? If I am wrong, feel free to call me on this.....If this is true, and he is elected President, and no one else sees a major problem with this, then I say the US deserves him. This is coming from an Obama supporter who is less than thrilled with his overall performance but still think he's better than the alternative. Rob
loosechickens
8-14-12, 9:23pm
we have an old college friend, deep into Washington (see him somewhat frequently on cable news shows as an analyst), and his private opinion is that the ONLY thing that would be enough of a deal breaker for Romney to continue to stonewall on releasing the taxes, would be that he had Swiss bank accounts where he was criminally hiding money from taxes, and took advantage of the amnesty where the IRS allowed people who had committed tax evasion in that way to come forward, file amended returns, pay the taxes and penalties owed, and in return, the government offered amnesty from criminal charges of felony tax evasion.
This would not have shown up in the returns furnished to the McCain campaign, as they had returns only through 2007. And while those returns may have shown a lot of tax avoidance schemes, and a low rate of taxes paid, it's unlikely that would be any more damaging than the stuff that has already come out about offshore corporations, and tax avoidance schemes. Just more of the same. We already know he makes a lot of money, takes advantage of every sophisticated tax avoidance loophole he can, many of which are in the grey area of possibly o.k., possibly not.
BUT.......if he was hiding money from tax in Swiss accounts, and fessed up and accepted the amnesty THAT would show up, probably on the 2009 return. He couldn't release what he gave to McCain, with a glaring hole of missing 2008 and 2009 returns, but the chances are very likely that those returns are the ones that would sink his ship.
He is getting an incredible amount of grief about the missing tax returns, even from many Republicans. SOMETHING in those returns has to be worse than the damage being inflicted on him by the stonewalling, and our friend's assessment, he says, is shared by a number of tax experts, who feel that the amnesty program is where the smoking gun is.
And, to think, that Romney, himself, could prove all this speculation wrong, just by revealing the tax returns, as every other Presidential candidate has done for the past thirty years or so, including Romney's own father. WHY isn't he doing that? WHAT is he hiding? Is there anyone who can think that it isn't something way worse than what he is suffering from just stonewalling and refusing to release the information?
Where are Wikileaks when you need them? ;-)
LOL, loosechickens. As long as we're speculating, why don't we include the possibility that he gave his entire earnings to charity for some of those years and is simply waiting for all the negative speculation to reach a crescendo just before the elections.
Well now what do we do? LC's logic confirms the only reason Barry won't release his college transcripts is they show he was a foreign exchange student. Who's giving us the full Monty?
Well now what do we do? LC's logic confirms the only reason Barry won't release his college transcripts is they show he was a foreign exchange student. Who's giving us the full Monty?
Ha, ha! As she just said, "You can't have it both ways". :0!
gimmethesimplelife
8-14-12, 9:54pm
Well now what do we do? LC's logic confirms the only reason Barry won't release his college transcripts is they show he was a foreign exchange student. Who's giving us the full Monty?LOL I love the way you put this, who's giving us the full Monty.....ROTFLMAO! Thanks for the laugh.....Rob
ApatheticNoMore
8-14-12, 9:57pm
I was wondering how "he did something illegal" could be squared with the fact that there is a whole agency charged with making sure one doesn't cheat on their taxes. You may have heard of it, it's called the Internal Revenue Service. So I was speculating possible theories that could be advanced: the IRS is corrupt, the IRS is covering for Romney, the IRS doesn't go after the 1% as it has been bought out by them (but that's where the money is). None of which I believed! I mean the government is *plenty* corrupt in general, but I think the IRS (love em or hate em) plays it pretty straight and so for that I'd need proof. So I guess we have a new theory!
And, to think, that Romney, himself, could prove all this speculation wrong, just by revealing the tax returns, as every other Presidential candidate has done for the past thirty years or so, including Romney's own father. WHY isn't he doing that? WHAT is he hiding? Is there anyone who can think that it isn't something way worse than what he is suffering from just stonewalling and refusing to release the information?
Level of wealth inequality in this country is scandalous? Fact that he probably pays a lower percentage than the average middle class working person without deductions is scandalous?
Where are Wikileaks when you need them? ;-)
Wikileaks is great, under denial of service attacks for breaking trapwire at this point I guess. Real news though, more important than Romney's taxes even for which I assume they don't have anything.
iris lily
8-14-12, 10:00pm
...I think Ron Paul is a terrific candidate -- for some other country. I don't think that even the Tea Party is up for his brand of self-reliance...
I don't see the Paul philosophy as being accepted whole hog, instead, it's a big step in the right direction. His theoretical Presidency wouldn't change that much but it sure would get wheels moving.
gimmethesimplelife
8-14-12, 10:06pm
I don't see the Paul philosophy as being accepted whole hog, instead, it's a big step in the right direction. His theoretical Presidency wouldn't change that much but it sure would get wheels moving.Iris, I'm very curious, what parts of Ron Paul's philosophy do you support? Reason I ask is that even though I tend to be a liberal Democrat, there are a few Liberterian stances I agree with - such as end the drug war and government out of the bedroom. Just curious which ones you support? Rob
Again, presidential candidates have traditionally not released college transcripts. What's so special about President Obama? Next you'll want a stool sample.
iris lily
8-15-12, 12:01am
Iris, I'm very curious, what parts of Ron Paul's philosophy do you support? Reason I ask is that even though I tend to be a liberal Democrat, there are a few Liberterian stances I agree with - such as end the drug war and government out of the bedroom. Just curious which ones you support? Rob
Randomly, off the top of my head:
small Federal government
Federal government that supports strong defense (note that means defense on home turf)
goobermnet out of your personal life--you can take that however you like, but I am ok with legalizing most substances with the expectation that there's no gooberment programs to help the addicted in my model; I side with the libertarians who see the rights of a citizen adult as trumping the rights of the citizen fetus (and that issue varies between libertarians)
shrink the Federal government, shrink it right down
support the free market, not businesses
and finally, make the Feds tiny in stature
iris lily
8-15-12, 12:02am
Again, presidential candidates have traditionally not released college transcripts. What's so special about President Obama? Next you'll want a stool sample.
I thought that GW did release his GPA at least or was that only to embarrass John Kerry?
ApatheticNoMore
8-15-12, 12:22am
Iris, I'm very curious, what parts of Ron Paul's philosophy do you support? Reason I ask is that even though I tend to be a liberal Democrat, there are a few Liberterian stances I agree with - such as end the drug war and government out of the bedroom. Just curious which ones you support? Rob
I like him on civil liberties, foreign wars, auditing the Fed (eliminating it hmm well that would be unusual at this point since every country on earth at this point seems to have a central bank - which is not to say I'm either for or against it as such, but hard to see how it would all play out - I mean it raises even more variables than ending imperialism without quite as much moral force). I find the strongest case against the drug war to be what it has done to the rest of the world. It's destroying so many other countries, and that's why decriminialization even with treatment programs would be much better than the drug war - because of all the violence linked to the drug war. But a president alone has no power to do all this? Of course not. What a President could do alone is refrain from murdering people.
we have an old college friend, deep into Washington (see him somewhat frequently on cable news shows as an analyst), and his private opinion is that the ONLY thing that would be enough of a deal breaker for Romney to continue to stonewall on releasing the taxes, would be that he had Swiss bank accounts where he was criminally hiding money from taxes, and took advantage of the amnesty where the IRS allowed people who had committed tax evasion in that way to come forward, file amended returns, pay the taxes and penalties owed, and in return, the government offered amnesty from criminal charges of felony tax evasion.
This would not have shown up in the returns furnished to the McCain campaign, as they had returns only through 2007. And while those returns may have shown a lot of tax avoidance schemes, and a low rate of taxes paid, it's unlikely that would be any more damaging than the stuff that has already come out about offshore corporations, and tax avoidance schemes. Just more of the same. We already know he makes a lot of money, takes advantage of every sophisticated tax avoidance loophole he can, many of which are in the grey area of possibly o.k., possibly not.
BUT.......if he was hiding money from tax in Swiss accounts, and fessed up and accepted the amnesty THAT would show up, probably on the 2009 return. He couldn't release what he gave to McCain, with a glaring hole of missing 2008 and 2009 returns, but the chances are very likely that those returns are the ones that would sink his ship.
He is getting an incredible amount of grief about the missing tax returns, even from many Republicans. SOMETHING in those returns has to be worse than the damage being inflicted on him by the stonewalling, and our friend's assessment, he says, is shared by a number of tax experts, who feel that the amnesty program is where the smoking gun is.
And, to think, that Romney, himself, could prove all this speculation wrong, just by revealing the tax returns, as every other Presidential candidate has done for the past thirty years or so, including Romney's own father. WHY isn't he doing that? WHAT is he hiding? Is there anyone who can think that it isn't something way worse than what he is suffering from just stonewalling and refusing to release the information?
Where are Wikileaks when you need them? ;-)
Well now this makes sense. I'll bet your friend is right. We know it must be something big, huge even!
Frankly, seeing the man in action, do anything, say anything, totally diss his wife, trivializing what's important to her, all to be President, I wouldn't put this past him at all!
Again, presidential candidates have traditionally not released college transcripts. What's so special about President Obama? Next you'll want a stool sample.
++1 :laff::laff:
I thought that GW did release his GPA at least or was that only to embarrass John Kerry?
GW's record was leaked*. I think we can infer that President Obama did OK, grade-wise, since he graduated magna cum laude.
*Factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/clueless-columbo/
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 11:56am
we have an old college friend, deep into Washington (see him somewhat frequently on cable news shows as an analyst), and his private opinion is that the ONLY thing that would be enough of a deal breaker for Romney to continue to stonewall on releasing the taxes, would be that he had Swiss bank accounts where he was criminally hiding money from taxes, and took advantage of the amnesty where the IRS allowed people who had committed tax evasion in that way to come forward, file amended returns, pay the taxes and penalties owed, and in return, the government offered amnesty from criminal charges of felony tax evasion.
This would not have shown up in the returns furnished to the McCain campaign, as they had returns only through 2007. And while those returns may have shown a lot of tax avoidance schemes, and a low rate of taxes paid, it's unlikely that would be any more damaging than the stuff that has already come out about offshore corporations, and tax avoidance schemes. Just more of the same. We already know he makes a lot of money, takes advantage of every sophisticated tax avoidance loophole he can, many of which are in the grey area of possibly o.k., possibly not.
BUT.......if he was hiding money from tax in Swiss accounts, and fessed up and accepted the amnesty THAT would show up, probably on the 2009 return. He couldn't release what he gave to McCain, with a glaring hole of missing 2008 and 2009 returns, but the chances are very likely that those returns are the ones that would sink his ship.
He is getting an incredible amount of grief about the missing tax returns, even from many Republicans. SOMETHING in those returns has to be worse than the damage being inflicted on him by the stonewalling, and our friend's assessment, he says, is shared by a number of tax experts, who feel that the amnesty program is where the smoking gun is.
And, to think, that Romney, himself, could prove all this speculation wrong, just by revealing the tax returns, as every other Presidential candidate has done for the past thirty years or so, including Romney's own father. WHY isn't he doing that? WHAT is he hiding? Is there anyone who can think that it isn't something way worse than what he is suffering from just stonewalling and refusing to release the information?
Where are Wikileaks when you need them? ;-)Gotta admit right off the bat I have no proof of this.....But my gut instinct is that your post is dead on LC.....Is there any other logical reason for him to refuse to release his tax records? I can't think of any, and if it IS true, that would really sink him I think as how many would put up with this given the ugly mood out there these days? He's got to be hiding something, something just isn't smelling right in Pittsburgh.....Rob
presidential candidates have traditionally not released college transcripts.
Pishaw. Tax returns are just about voyerism. I think transcripts are more relevant. Eliminated Rick Perry for me pretty quickly. No one lazier than me should be president.
I had to submit a college transcript to Amazon; it was quite the process for a $10 an hour job I ended up not taking. No one else has ever wanted to see it.
ApatheticNoMore
8-15-12, 9:19pm
Yea even employers don't care, but they are usually dealing with employees by that time with lots of real world and job experience. When we're talking about polticians, it does seem we are often talking about bubble people, who are have advanced very little in life experience or thought since when they were in college (just ocassionally become more corrupt) :).
Is there any other logical reason for him to refuse to release his tax records?
My theory - to avoid having dozens of transactions taken out of context, blow up into major fake issues, and fed into the maw of the progressive propoganda machine.
There's no way he could *ever* have won on this issue.
That's life.
I know if you look at my own returns, which have reported 8 figures of income some years, you can find years where I paid *no* income tax, even though I had significant gross income. No tricks involved. Probably happens to many wealthy people from time-to-time. Probably looks super-bad out-of-context. I know you can also find that I've had money in (gasp) foreign bank accounts! It's still legal to do so, surprise!
I also also know that my wife used to work with a 3-letter Federal agency tracking down people who had money in foreign accounts for nefarious reasons, and it's pretty hard to get away with anything, for any length of time, especially if anyone is looking into your activities. She has the scalps nailed to the wall to prove it. I suspect we won't find Romney was dumb enough to pull one of those tricks, never know though. It's possible he's a space alien too. I also suspect party leaders looked through this stuff themselves before putting Romney up as a real candidate, unless they are total morons. Because if there really was something there, it'd come out sooner or later.
yeah, well, that's the thing isn't it. Later works for Romney. No, this wouldn't come out cause it would be a federal crime to leak his tax records if you were privy to them. That would be a crime, wouldn't it. Literally.
Saying his opponents would go over his records is a straw man argument. As if Romney himself didn't go over HIS opponents tax records with the fine toothed comb. That is a part of the game. Candidates release their records, and unless they are trying to hide something, this is tradition for many decades. No one is demanding he do something out of the ordinary, like, oh I don't know, show his birth certificate!
But, I get it.
Basically what you are saying is, Romney is a coward. I agree. If he hasn't done anything under the table or even slightly scummy, and he is simply afraid of what his opponents will say, what a COWARD! His opponents have gone under the microscope, his microscope actually, but he is sooo afraid of what they might say? And you expect this guy to preform on the world stage? If he can't face the scrutiny of his own countrymen, how can he face the scrutiny of the world?
I think LC is spot on. He has something to hide, and a whole lot of good little foot soldiers to cover for him.
Now, not only do i think him a totally empty suit with the arrogance of the entitled, I'm beginning to think he is dishonest as well. I think LC is right. He tried to evade taxes and took the amnesty. And until he proves otherwise, this makes the most sense.
but,
he holds no convictions about anything,
he is a coward, but possibly a criminal coward,
he holds his own wife and her feelings in contempt,
he will say anything, do anything to be president,
holds his own constituents in contempt (how dare you demand proof of his competence!)
but, you'll vote for him anyway. It's all good...
Peggy,
http://www.gasstationgrafix.com/reagan/tshirtpic.jpg
gimmethesimplelife
8-15-12, 10:22pm
yeah, well, that's the thing isn't it. Later works for Romney. No, this wouldn't come out cause it would be a federal crime to leak his tax records if you were privy to them. That would be a crime, wouldn't it. Literally.
Saying his opponents would go over his records is a straw man argument. As if Romney himself didn't go over HIS opponents tax records with the fine toothed comb. That is a part of the game. Candidates release their records, and unless they are trying to hide something, this is tradition for many decades. No one is demanding he do something out of the ordinary, like, oh I don't know, show his birth certificate!
But, I get it.
Basically what you are saying is, Romney is a coward. I agree. If he hasn't done anything under the table or even slightly scummy, and he is simply afraid of what his opponents will say, what a COWARD! His opponents have gone under the microscope, his microscope actually, but he is sooo afraid of what they might say? And you expect this guy to preform on the world stage? If he can't face the scrutiny of his own countrymen, how can he face the scrutiny of the world?
I think LC is spot on. He has something to hide, and a whole lot of good little foot soldiers to cover for him.
Now, not only do i think him a totally empty suit with the arrogance of the entitled, I'm beginning to think he is dishonest as well. I think LC is right. He tried to evade taxes and took the amnesty. And until he proves otherwise, this makes the most sense.
but,
he holds no convictions about anything,
he is a coward, but possibly a criminal coward,
he holds his own wife and her feelings in contempt,
he will say anything, do anything to be president,
holds his own constituents in contempt (how dare you demand proof of his competence!)
but, you'll vote for him anyway. It's all good...I'm not voting for him Peggy.....I'm not getting on board that train. Rob
Oh I wasn't actually talking specifically to you Rob. Believe me, I never thought you would vote for him!:~)
Mostly when I say 'you' in a post, I am talking about the collective YOU. I guess I should say 'you all'. Or maybe even that doesn't translate well. I don't even mean people here on this forum necessarily, although the description may fit some, but really the right-wing 'you all'. ;)
Peggy,
http://www.gasstationgrafix.com/reagan/tshirtpic.jpg
:laff::laff::laff:
Sorry if i happen to think it's kind of important if the candidate for President maybe was a tax cheat. Especially when this guy wants to be in charge of fiddling with our taxes. Why cheat when you can make it legal to not pay anything!:0!
I also suspect party leaders looked through this stuff themselves before putting Romney up as a real candidate, unless they are total morons. Because if there really was something there, it'd come out sooner or later.
I mean seriously, does anyone really believe the GOP leadership is so politically inexperienced that they would just miss actual crimes or even potentially criminal activity associated with the one horse they have in the big race? Betcha' every candidate went through at least that level of scrutiny before they even entered the fray, much less won it.
I'm sure if only Romney would release his taxes it would give him a chance at Peggy's vote. And I will be voting for him as I am sure he did not break any laws or the IRS would be all over him. Obama's man is in charge of the IRS and while they may not leak the info, they don't seem to have any trouble leaking national security thou, they will do anything to stay in power.
...I suspect we won't find Romney was dumb enough to pull one of those tricks, never know though. It's possible he's a space alien too. ...
See--I think so, too! He reminds me of stories of Men In Black where they show up at your house in shiny brand-new '52 sedans and try to drink your Jell-o! http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/big_standart/cool.gif
...
but,
he holds no convictions about anything,
he is a coward, but possibly a criminal coward,
he holds his own wife and her feelings in contempt,
he will say anything, do anything to be president,
holds his own constituents in contempt (how dare you demand proof of his competence!)
but, you'll vote for him anyway. It's all good...
Not to mention he's still laughing--years later--about subjecting his poor dog to hours of abuse.
Not to mention he's still laughing--years later--about subjecting his poor dog to hours of abuse.
If there hasn't yet been a cartoon of Romney driving the White House the with the US public strapped to the roof, there should be.
Not to mention he's still laughing--years later--about subjecting his poor dog to hours of abuse.
A terrible lapse in judgement to be sure. Still, I think poor Seamus probably came out better than the dog President Obama ate (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-obama-when-i-ate-dog_649962.html).
...when he was a little kid in a foreign country where dogs are food. I'm pretty sure he didn't make a lifelong habit of it, but perhaps that's where the stool sample comes in.
...perhaps that's where the stool sample comes in.
I'm sure we'll get there soon enough Jane.
iris lily
8-16-12, 11:33am
:)
If there hasn't yet been a cartoon of Romney driving the White House the with the US public strapped to the roof, there should be.
That's pretty funny, actually.:)
iris lily
8-16-12, 11:35am
A terrible lapse in judgement to be sure. Still, I think poor Seamus probably came out better than the dog President Obama ate (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/video-obama-when-i-ate-dog_649962.html).
oh nooooooo! That's beneath you.
Let's beat up on Michael Vick who REALLY deserves it.
oh nooooooo! That's beneath you.
Let's beat up on Michael Vick who REALLY deserves it.
I can't argue with that sentiment. But I say we strap Romney to the top of a big rig for a lengthy guest shot on Ice Road Truckers as well...
I can't argue with that sentiment. But I say we strap Romney to the top of a big rig for a lengthy guest shot on Ice Road Truckers as well...
If we're going for an eye for an eye I say we let Mr. Obama become unemployed for a while.
If we're going for an eye for an eye I say we let Mr. Obama become unemployed for a while.
I'm not getting the drift. If President Obama's American Jobs Act had made it past Senate obstructionists with a filibuster-proof 60 votes (how the hell did we come to this? Whatever happened to a simple majority? New Senate rules, please.), we'd have better employment numbers, but as others have pointed out, we're in a worldwide recession, and with the Job Exporters doing what they can to outsource everything but their profits (and even those, if you count offshore deposits), I don't see unemployment improving markedly no matter who's in charge. Not to mention Ryan's stated goal is to gut the federal government, so all those people will be out in the street, and Romney's record shows he's more committed to firing people than getting them hired. Leopards, spots.
ApatheticNoMore
8-16-12, 12:12pm
If we're going for an eye for an eye I say we let Mr. Obama become unemployed for a while.
Short of complete revolution, it could never happen, that threat is not real to the elite and can't conceivably be. If he lost the election, he could pull in even more money giving speaches etc.. That's pretty much what they all do, Carter is notable as he choose not to go the ever more and further self-enrichment route.
ApatheticNoMore
8-16-12, 12:17pm
we're in a worldwide recession, and with the Job Exporters doing what they can to outsource everything but their profits, I don't see unemployment improving markedly no matter who's in charge.
yes, how does anyone know what employment should be? We have no good baselines. We have the data points of this recession and maybe that's the new normal. We have the data points of two unsustainable booms that are pretty much agreed by all to have been unsustainable (the Dot Com and the Housing), one almost immediately following the other. And to go back further to a normal non-boom, non-recession economy your talking what, early Clinton years? Your probably talking BEFORE NAFTA and GATT even not to mention all the dozens of trade agreements since then. That's your baseline, and some might wonder how appicable it is in a post trade agreement world.
My favorite article on the election yet:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/14/oligarchs-at-the-gate/
"The election of the next puppet president of the “world’s only superpower” is about two and one-half months off, and what are the campaign issues? There aren’t any worthy of the name." (though Ryan may have handed Obama some)
Carter is notable as he choose not to go the ever more and further self-enrichment route.
Carter is one of my personal heroes for the way in which he has devoted himself to public service.
... but perhaps that's where the stool sample comes in.
Actually, publishing all the details of a complete physical for the candidates might be a good idea, I'd like to know what the odds are of the VP having to step in. Raise your hand if you want to see Biden as the next President.... /shudder
If there hasn't yet been a cartoon of Romney driving the White House the with the US public strapped to the roof, there should be.
:laff::laff::laff::laff: :laff: :laff:
Oh I like that!
I mean seriously, does anyone really believe the GOP leadership is so politically inexperienced that they would just miss actual crimes or even potentially criminal activity associated with the one horse they have in the big race? Betcha' every candidate went through at least that level of scrutiny before they even entered the fray, much less won it.
Nice try Gregg, but 'the leadership' doesn't get to decide if YOU want to run! And then they pretty much have to go along with whoever wins the primaries. You can't tell me Romney is 'the leaderships' choice! That's actually laughable! :laff: :laff:
Although considering who ran against him, Perry, Bachmann, Santorum....maybe he IS the best they could do! But, again, THEY don't decide who runs. Romney has plenty of money (ill-gotten gains?) to buy the Presidency, but he can't buy love, and no one on the republican side loves, or even likes Romney. Probably BECAUSE he is an empty, do anything, say anything, gonna buy the Presidency cause he is entitled to it guy.
And, when 'the leadership' does get somewhat of a say, they don't exactly do a bang up job! ((cough-Palin-cough))
The longer Romney drags this out, the more convinced I am that he did in fact take the amnesty. He is SO hiding something.
If there hasn't yet been a cartoon of Romney driving the White House the with the US public strapped to the roof, there should be.
There should also be a cartoon of him and Paul Ryan holding down the American public and cutting their hair (which happens to be SS, medicare, education, etc...) while laughing.
Nice try Gregg, but 'the leadership' doesn't get to decide if YOU want to run! And then they pretty much have to go along with whoever wins the primaries.
No peggy, I don't think they do. Anyone can sign up, that's true, but whoever is on the ballot in the primaries gets narrowed down to a very short list way before anyone casts a vote. If you have enough money to fund your own campaign you can probably stay in the race until you're broke even if you are a canibalistic zombie. Aside from that you have to rely on funds from your party and the leadership of either party is in control of the purse strings. They simply won't fund someone who they think is going to be a liability.
The longer Romney drags this out, the more convinced I am that he did in fact take the amnesty. He is SO hiding something.
No idea if he is or not, but I would agree that the speculation will only increase until his taxes are released. Do you think there is even a chance that he is just holding back a perfectly legit, ethical and legal return until after he officially becomes the nominee? It is causing the Dems to use a great deal of energy on this one issue. If there is, in fact, nothing there it would deflate a really big balloon held by the opposition. Pretty good campaign strategy if that was the case. And other politicians do have a history of holding back innocuous documents so they can later tell us, "see, I told you there was nothing to this...". Do you think that is even a possibility peggy?
It's interesting all the outrage some have for speculative offenses and theories caused by Romney not releasing taxes versus actual crimes/indiscretions committed by the current President and those appointed by him. For instance:
Geitner filed a false return. Depending on the severity could rise to a criminal issue, but probably a civil matter. This should have disqualified him from the position.
Obama has admitted to using cocaine. There are some serious felonies that could have been broken if he possessed enough of the drug. Fairly old news that probably doesn't disqualify him in my mind, but given the felony issues involved interesting how it was glossed over.
Selective outrage at it's best.
No peggy, I don't think they do. Anyone can sign up, that's true, but whoever is on the ballot in the primaries gets narrowed down to a very short list way before anyone casts a vote. If you have enough money to fund your own campaign you can probably stay in the race until you're broke even if you are a canibalistic zombie. Aside from that you have to rely on funds from your party and the leadership of either party is in control of the purse strings. They simply won't fund someone who they think is going to be a liability.
No idea if he is or not, but I would agree that the speculation will only increase until his taxes are released. Do you think there is even a chance that he is just holding back a perfectly legit, ethical and legal return until after he officially becomes the nominee? It is causing the Dems to use a great deal of energy on this one issue. If there is, in fact, nothing there it would deflate a really big balloon held by the opposition. Pretty good campaign strategy if that was the case. And other politicians do have a history of holding back innocuous documents so they can later tell us, "see, I told you there was nothing to this...". Do you think that is even a possibility peggy?
Ha ha ha! Now THAT is laughable!:laff::laff: Not on your life is he holding back perfectly legit, legal and ethical returns. If they were he would release them in a heart beat! The time the democrats are spending on this isn't wasted, it is an important issue. Certainly more important than Obama's college transcripts, or his birth certificate, or his church and faith, which they went on and on and on about, and still do! (I'm waiting for the faith discussion with Romney, I really am! Do you think Fox news is gonna have a 3 day expose on Romney's faith? Do you think they are gonna discuss, for 3+years, who his spiritual leaders are and what they say and believe?)
No one is expecting to find something illegal in his returns, that isn't the question.(or maybe it is!) If he took the amnesty, that WOULD be legal, now wouldn't it. But it would also show a pattern of deception. The man has a tract record of lying, about a whole lot of things but specifically about his taxes. He has lied in the past about his taxes, (2002) what makes you think he isn't lying now? There hasn't been a single thing, or instance, in his known record, that would lead me to believe he is above reproach, or wouldn't lie. This isn't going away, and it will only make him look worse the longer he drags this out.
You know, if only he wasn't pounding out the 'poor wealthy' line and how desperately they need a tax break, then signing on a VP who wants to reduce the capitol gains tax to zero, this wouldn't be as much of an issue, except of course if he were democratic, then of course every penny he spent on bubble gum would be turned into a scandal!
No Gregg, the 'leadership' doesn't pick who runs. They hope some will run and maybe support some who run, but ultimately they back whoever wins the primary, and that was bought by Romney.(his money and his super pac money, who are wealthy donors who want a piece of the action) Plus, considering the most ridiculous and ignorant field of contenders presented by the republicans in our lifetimes, he really was the only one who could walk and chew gum at the same time, (but he had to hire someone to chew the gum cause, well, he doesn't do that sort of thing!)
Again, nice try, but the 'leadership' of the republican party isn't powerful enough, or coordinated enough, to decide who will be the nominee before any ballots are cast. They don't have the power to simply tell contenders, drop out cause we want that guy. It doesn't work that way, cause, you know, Bachmann, Perry, that pizza guy....Gingrich! Besides, I wonder if you could even name 3 republican leaders who could wield such power. Your leaders are Rush Limbaugh, Fox news, and Grover Norquist! None elected, and not a single one with the countries best interest at heart.
Now there is a special case! Gingrich hates Romney, but is backpedaling as fast as he can on most everything he said about Romney. But you just wait, if Romney loses, Gingrich will come out swinging with 'I told you so' and 'you should have listened to me'! He's not one to keep quiet for very long.
But, since this is a thread about Mitt's taxes, one little detail has emerged from the very limited portion of the taxes he has released. it's his IRA which apparently has between 50 and 100 million!
Now how can that be, you ask, since the IRA was set up as a vehicle for the average person to hopefully save a bit for the future, tax free for now. Plus, the yearly limits on donation to it are limited, very limited actually.
Gee, I wonder how OLD Romney is? Or perhaps he did a little, shall we say, creative accounting, to achieve this. Check it out. Hummm.....makes one wonder what other 'creativity' Romney has employed to avoid taxes. Only one way to know.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/08/11/mitt_romneys_ira_is_unlikely_centerpiece_of_wealth _and_tax_avoidance/
The IRA is a good question. Allen you are an accounting type person maybe you have an answer.
Sigh, where to even start...?
Ha ha ha! Now THAT is laughable!:laff::laff: Not on your life is he holding back perfectly legit, legal and ethical returns.
How shocking...not. Leonard Cohen said, "reality is one of the possibilities I cannot afford to ignore". Do so at your own peril I guess.
If they were he would release them in a heart beat!
Why?
The time the democrats are spending on this isn't wasted
Well, I said, "It is causing the Dems to use a great deal of energy on this one issue." I never said they were wasting time, did I?
No Gregg, the 'leadership' doesn't pick who runs.
I think they do. How many people with criminal records or some similar blemish in their past have been major political candidates for either party? A lot of people sign up to run for all kinds of offices, but by the time you get to national level politics there is just too much money and power at stake to risk putting a ponzi schemer or child molester or whatever in the race. True for BOTH parties IMO, but we can just agree to disagree if you think it works differently.
I wonder if you could even name 3 republican leaders who could wield such power. Your leaders are Rush Limbaugh, Fox news, and Grover Norquist!
A few names of people who were actually elected do come to mind, you may have heard of them. Names like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell. Eric Cantor is good, Jim DeMint has a lot of pull farther right, Frank Lucas has the support of almost every farmer in the country and Chuck Grassley (you know, the guy from Iowa that investigated all the rich doctors who didn't think that income from big pharma really counted). A few other names you might not know as well...yet: Kevin McCarthy, Greg Walden, Pete Sessions & Tim Scott. So yea, I guess I can name a few.
the IRA was set up as a vehicle for the average person to hopefully save a bit for the future, tax free for now. Plus, the yearly limits on donation to it are limited, very limited actually.
Ah, it was actually set up to be available to ANY American, but it does work better in the whole class warfare thing if you say "average". Other than Mitt, we're all average, right? And just for the record, I'm not a Wall Street insider or corporate titan, but my own IRA is worth a fair amount more than the total of my contributions. That's kind of the idea.
ApatheticNoMore
8-17-12, 1:56pm
Obama has admitted to using cocaine. There are some serious felonies that could have been broken if he possessed enough of the drug. Fairly old news that probably doesn't disqualify him in my mind, but given the felony issues involved interesting how it was glossed over.
yea and W probably did also, but never admitted it, but he refused to deny it either. By the way if the best someone can do for an "actual crime" is some victimless crime like taking an illegal drug (and no evidence of driving on it, or posing any threat to other people on it - which you know actually would be serious). Well to some extent so what?
Ha and this coming from someone (me) who would love to use the term criminal to describe this administration and the last but it would not be for committing some prole crime of the sort that joe schmoe might commit and get in trouble for.
Selective outrage at it's best.
indeed
ApatheticNoMore
8-17-12, 2:13pm
the IRA was set up as a vehicle for the average person to hopefully save a bit for the future, tax free for now. Plus, the yearly limits on donation to it are limited, very limited actually.
Ah, it was actually set up to be available to ANY American, but it does work better in the whole class warfare thing if you say "average". Other than Mitt, we're all average, right? And just for the record, I'm not a Wall Street insider or corporate titan, but my own IRA is worth a fair amount more than the total of my contributions. That's kind of the idea.
Actually no .... it's not set up for *everyone*, it's not even set up for much of the middle class. If your are talking about a standard IRA, I am beyond the income limit nearly EVERY SINGLE year!!! (this in part because I work for companies that provide 401ks even though they usually provide no or very little matching! what kind of a messed up reason is that for me to be over the income limit for regular IRAs - but the tax codes HATES ME, what can I say? :)). So if I am beyond the income limits how in heck is Mitt not?
Now if you are talking about the *Roth* IRA I think that has income limits too but they are higher, but the contributions are severely limited currently at $5000 a year per person unless you are over 50 then they are $6000 (and they are increased every few years so in prior years they were even less!). So I haven't done it right here and now but seriously it's just math, how much would you have to earn on that put in yearly to have 50-100 million in accounts. Far more than "just happens", far more than even really good traders can get. Insider trading strikes me as one way to get there.
So I haven't done it right here and now but seriously it's just math, how much would you have to earn on that put in yearly to have 50-100 million in accounts. Far more than "just happens", far more than even really good traders can get. Insider trading strikes me as one way to get there.
You sometimes see really big IRA balances due to rollovers from other "qualified" plans that don't have the same income or contribution limits.
...if the best someone can do for an "actual crime" is some victimless crime
Unfortunately there is no such thing. Someone always pays in the end. Maybe that's where the disconnect is in our society. Hmmmm?
Unfortunately there is no such thing. Someone always pays in the end. Maybe that's where the disconnect is in our society. Hmmmm?
Yeah, kind of like Romney kinda sorta fudging on his taxes...we all pay in the end.;)
Yeah, kind of like Romney kinda sorta fudging on his taxes...we all pay in the end.;)
If its ever proven that he did, then yea, kind of like that. Of course we do still have that annoying little habit of presuming someone is innocent until they are proven guilty. Maybe that's one area where your guy actually could change something.
ApatheticNoMore
8-18-12, 11:03am
Of course we do still have that annoying little habit of presuming someone is innocent until they are proven guilty. Maybe that's one area where your guy actually could change something.
They both will. Obama's civil liberties record is something Mitt really could go after, it's atrocious. But what's that I hear, crickets, hello darkness my old friend ....
Yep.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.