Just release the returns. Every other major candidate this time has released theirs. Mitt has only released the two years when he was running for President. The issue has spiraled out of control and his tax returns shouldn't have this much weight in deciding, but they do this time.
The controversy ain't going away. The DNC has been given the perfect commercial with "What is Mitt hiding?"
If he doesn't release his returns for the past decade, Mitt loses. Period.
This minor issue overwhelms all others. Obamacare, unemployment, the deficit, are all bigger issues but they won't be discussed as long as this is on the table. The majority of Americans don't discuss complex problems that require work or have complex answers. That are not as educated as the posters here on TulsaNow. They will be swayed by the ads asking Romney to release his tax returns to prove he is not hiding anything.
Release the returns or lose.
I'm more concerned about his advisers....what morons would advise him to keep them hidden....and what will they do while running our executive branch?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 05, 2012, 10:50:19 PM
If he doesn't release his returns for the past decade, Mitt loses. Period.
What I see so far is that people who wouldn't vote for Romney anyway are the ones most vocal about him releasing his returns.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 06, 2012, 06:48:41 AM
What I see so far is that people who wouldn't vote for Romney anyway are the ones most vocal about him releasing his returns.
I've seen some Republicans on Fox (well one, but that's more than enough) say that it might the deal breaker if it's still being talked about next month. And it likely will be unless he does something about it. If someone in your own party is saying that, there are problems.
LOL! I thought the dog on the car was the deal breaker? Or how about the funds from his Bain 401K being in foreign investments? He also spends money on a horse!
There are so many deal breakers. Unfortunately consistent failure is not one of them. I prey that this election will be more about the economy this time than all of the typical petty liberal gripes. I may be wrong, but I'm hopeful we've learned our lesson.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 06, 2012, 07:27:45 AM
LOL! I thought the dog on the car was the deal breaker? Or how about the funds from his Bain 401K being in foreign investments? He also spends money on a horse!
There are so many deal breakers. Unfortunately consistent failure is not one of them. I prey that this election will be more about the economy this time than all of the typical petty liberal gripes. I may be wrong, but I'm hopeful we've learned our lesson.
You left out bullygate.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 06, 2012, 08:56:26 AM
You left out bullygate.
Yeah, and "war on women" and a few others. Eventually something will stick, but for now, his negative campaign is just like his economic leadership. . .a guy in a dark closet feeling around for a light switch.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 06, 2012, 09:22:54 AM
Yeah, and "war on women" and a few others. Eventually something will stick, but for now, his negative campaign is just like his economic leadership. . .a guy in a dark closet feeling around for a light switch.
I'm surprised to see you speak about Romney like that. His negative campaign and sketchy history on economics other than hiding money in the Cayman's or spending federal money on the Olympics, IS a guy in a dark closet fumbling around for the switch. Only, he has decided that darkness is comfy and everyone should embrace it.
Laugh conan and gaspar. While I have shown many reasons why I won't vote for Mitt, this thread isn't about those.
Keep laughing while this single issue costs him the election. If you nor the Romney campaign doesn't see this, you deserve to lose.
People like me and you won't determine the winner in November, it will be the 20% of America who will decide who to vote for sometime after Labor Day. The momentum and buzz after the conventions and debates will help them decide. What do you think the chances are that his refusal to release his tax returns won't be brought up in the debates?
Mitt can't afford to be on the defense on this matter every day till the election. Trust me, he will be until he releases the returns.
Release the returns or lose the election. Period.
Not having time to look at or care about 10 years worth of returns, I'm calling BS on Joe Biden's return. He obviously has his $$ in more than just he and his wife's personal name. Just under $400k for all his income? Doubtful. It was interesting to see my husband and I personally contributed more $$ in charitable donations than he and his wife did on a ENORMOUSLY less amount of income. I guess at least his money is where his mouth is, as is mine, I'd prefer to donate my money to local charities to help meet needs, seems he's content to give his $$ to grow bureacracy which rarely actually meets the needs of the people. At least Obama has some strong charitable giving numbers. That's about the effort I would give to any candidates tax returns, it has no bearing on my vote whatsoever.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 06, 2012, 10:18:57 AM
People like me and you won't determine the winner in November, it will be the 20% of America electoral college.
Sorry, had to toss that in there for my own gratification.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 06, 2012, 10:18:57 AM
Laugh conan and gaspar. While I have shown many reasons why I won't vote for Mitt, this thread isn't about those.
Keep laughing while this single issue costs him the election. If you nor the Romney campaign doesn't see this, you deserve to lose.
People like me and you won't determine the winner in November, it will be the 20% of America who will decide who to vote for sometime after Labor Day. The momentum and buzz after the conventions and debates will help them decide. What do you think the chances are that his refusal to release his tax returns won't be brought up in the debates?
Mitt can't afford to be on the defense on this matter every day till the election. Trust me, he will be until he releases the returns.
Release the returns or lose the election. Period.
If he releases his returns, it's a never-ending cacophony of questions about partnerships, donations, bank accounts, etc. which detracts from any positive message he can get out there. I think it's a brilliant strategy on both sides. The Obama camp will simply say "TAX RETURNS!" every other day, while Romney's refusal will be saying to voters he's not taking his marching orders from the Obama campaign. Obama becomes a single issue candidate: Romney's taxes and the 1%'er bogeyman.
Why doesn't Obama simply ignore the tax issue and run a positive campaign based on his own record of success in the White House?
There's got to be a lengthy list of accomplishments to be proud of after 3 1/2 years, right?
Unemployment isn't 10%. He hasn't run us $10 trillion more in debt. Could always be worse. Wait! There's a great campaign slogan: "Obama 2012, it could always be worse!"
Quote from: tulsa_fan on August 06, 2012, 10:29:16 AM
Not having time to look at or care about 10 years worth of returns, I'm calling BS on Joe Biden's return. He obviously has his $$ in more than just he and his wife's personal name. Just under $400k for all his income? Doubtful. It was interesting to see my husband and I personally contributed more $$ in charitable donations than he and his wife did on a ENORMOUSLY less amount of income. I guess at least his money is where his mouth is, as is mine, I'd prefer to donate my money to local charities to help meet needs, seems he's content to give his $$ to grow bureacracy which rarely actually meets the needs of the people. At least Obama has some strong charitable giving numbers. That's about the effort I would give to any candidates tax returns, it has no bearing on my vote whatsoever.
At least those people released their returns, in spite of possible criticism, so that you could determine their charitable giving. This guy won't give you that opportunity. "just trust me"
Quote from: Conan71 on August 06, 2012, 10:52:35 AM
Why doesn't Obama simply ignore the tax issue and run a positive campaign based on his own record of success in the White House?
Don't be naive. There are and will be many positive ads by Obama touting his success. But there will also be many negative ads, especially from the PACs. Show me any campaign without negative ads.
Mitt has raised millions. Thousands of republicans are donating because they want him to win. Losing because you refuse to release personal tax records would be stupid and an insult to your supporters.
Republicans will step up the call for him to release them. Refusal is not an option.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 06, 2012, 11:36:31 AM
Don't be naive. There are and will be many positive ads by Obama touting his success. But there will also be many negative ads, especially from the PACs. Show me any campaign without negative ads.
Mitt has raised millions. Thousands of republicans are donating because they want him to win. Losing because you refuse to release personal tax records would be stupid and an insult to your supporters.
Republicans will step up the call for him to release them. Refusal is not an option.
It's always an option. Maybe not a winning option, but an option never the less.
Why wasn't anyone upset that McCain only released two years in 2008? By all accounts, he's a wealthy man with various business interests.
QuoteAlthough the U.S. president is one of the most visible people in the country, the president's finances have often been closely guarded. But after Richard Nixon's vice president, Spiro Agnew, pleaded no contest in 1973 to tax evasion, the public became increasingly interested in financial disclosures from the president's office.
Since the 1976 election, presidential candidates have released at least one year of tax returns. After winning that election, Jimmy Carter then set the precedent for all sitting presidents and vice presidents to release their returns each year. Since 1984, the standard for challengers to an incumbent president has been to disclose at least two years of returns, if not significantly more.
Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has said he will meet this two-year standard. But 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain is the only other candidate to release just two years of returns in the last 34 years. Bob Dole, the Republican presidential nominee in 1996, set the tax-release record, disclosing 29 years of returns during his run for the White House.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictures-video/how-many-years-of-tax-returns-have-presidential-candidates-released-in-the-past-pictures-20120719
Quote from: AquaMan on August 06, 2012, 09:38:20 AM
I'm surprised to see you speak about Romney like that. His negative campaign and sketchy history on economics . . .
Thanks! I had to share that one with everyone in the office. ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on August 06, 2012, 11:45:23 AM
Why wasn't anyone upset that McCain only released two years in 2008? By all accounts, he's a wealthy man with various business interests.
Maybe nobody had to bring it up once his VP was chosen.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 06, 2012, 11:50:20 AM
Thanks! I had to share that one with everyone in the office.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-wz8y7tJjUwc/T8-QHj1gSFI/AAAAAAAACEc/-Ad-7FQtxFI/s1600/fosters-home-for-imaginary-friends.jpeg)?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 06, 2012, 11:45:23 AM
It's always an option. Maybe not a winning option, but an option never the less.
Why wasn't anyone upset that McCain only released two years in 2008? By all accounts, he's a wealthy man with various business interests.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/pictures-video/how-many-years-of-tax-returns-have-presidential-candidates-released-in-the-past-pictures-20120719
Because McCain did not run primarily on his record as a job creator, a financial wizard and the architect of health care. His issues were competence, wisdom/experience, foreign affairs and defense. He knew he had the S&L debacle in his background and was smart enough to change the direction of his campaign.
This guy made his issue and he now must live with it. His returns are evidence of his business acumen and could be used to bolster that image. Its more a deficit to allow the conspiracies to continue to circle him.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 06, 2012, 11:50:20 AM
Thanks! I had to share that one with everyone in the office. ;D
Glad to add a little humor to your office. I'm sure your co-workers, office slaves, sycophants and fellow economists needed the lift. ;)
http://www.dscc.org/act4sr?action_KEY=575&track=SEM_GC_TaxReturns-C_MR-Returns_www.nationalmemo.com_27408104732
Quote
http://www.nationalmemo.com/the-missing-evidence-in-romneys-tax-records/
Harry Reid has provoked outrage among liberals as well as conservatives, who seem to believe he has violated propriety by repeating gossip about Mitt Romney's taxes. The Senate leader says someone connected with Romney told him that the Republican candidate paid no income taxes for a period of ten years. Offended by Reid's audacity, commentators on the right have indicted him for "McCarthyism" while others on the left have accused him of inventing the whole story.
Evidently the chief complaint against Reid — aside from aggressiveness unbecoming a Democrat — is that he cited "an extremely credible source" who he has so far declined to name. Some journalists have gone so far as to suggest that Reid must be lying because he won't identify the source.
Despite all this righteous tut-tutting among the great and the good, in newspapers and magazines as well as on television, Reid's critics simply have no way of knowing whether he is telling the truth or not. From the beginning, Reid himself admitted forthrightly that he has no way of being absolutely certain whether what he was told is factual or not, although he believes the person who said it was being truthful.
Many of Reid's critics work for news outlets that rely on unnamed sources every day, of course, publishing assertions that range from the mundane to the outlandish. It is hard to see why an unnamed source quoted by a daily newspaper or a monthly magazine – or hidden behind a screen in a TV studio – is more credible than a person whispering in the ear of a United States Senator.
Indeed, several of the news outlets now barking at Reid have suffered their own episodes of scandalous embarrassment due to the exposure of invented sources and quotes (see Jayson Blair, Stephen Glass, etc. etc. etc.) . Yet they nevertheless continue to publish quotes from such unnamed individuals. After all, where else would Reid have learned that this is acceptable conduct?
Meanwhile Romney's response is to demand that Reid "put up or shut up" – that is, reveal the name of his source. But that would prove nothing. As Reid has pointed out, only the former Bain executive can demonstrate conclusively that suspicions about his tax history are unfounded. Although the irritated Romney retorts that he has "paid a lot of taxes," his denial won't suffice as proof either. He could have paid hefty real estate taxes on his various homes and sales taxes on his purchases of cars, car elevators, powerboats, and other luxury goods, among other levies, while paying little or no federal income tax.
Obviously it would be simple for Romney to disprove Reid's statement, which is unlike McCarthyite accusations that involve someone's personal associations or state of mind. The necessary evidence is not only within Romney's possession, but is material that candidates in his position normally release to the public and that the public expects to see. It is material that he previously surrendered to Senator John McCain's campaign staff in 2008, when they were vetting him for a possible vice presidential nomination. (For now, they are conspicuously silent on the Reid controversy.)
There is a legal doctrine that applies to Romney's current behavior, as Indiana attorney John Sullivan points out – and it doesn't place the burden of proof on Reid:
At law, if a person in control of evidence refuses to produce the evidence, then the jury is instructed that there is a presumption that the evidence would be against the party failing to produce. It is called the "Missing Evidence" instruction.
The missing evidence is in Romney's grasp, yet he insists that he will never produce it. Does anyone need instruction from a judge to make the correct inference?
Quote from: AquaMan on August 06, 2012, 12:11:32 PM
Because McCain did not run primarily on his record as a job creator, a financial wizard and the architect of health care. His issues were competence, wisdom/experience, foreign affairs and defense. He knew he had the S&L debacle in his background and was smart enough to change the direction of his campaign.
This guy made his issue and he now must live with it. His returns are evidence of his business acumen and could be used to bolster that image. Its more a deficit to allow the conspiracies to continue to circle him.
I'm not following. What would be revealed in a personal income tax form which would indicate he's a job creator? Everyone wants ten more years of returns, because George Romney supplied 12 years? Please. That still would reveal nothing about his days at Bain, assuming 1999 was when his active participation there was over.
You won't find anything in tax returns which relate to business acumen, unless you equate high income to revealing that success via his investments over the last 10 years. You can simply look at companies he personally fostered in his years at Bain, and programs he promoted as governor of Massachusetts which helped job growth.
Let me simplify this. Romney: business candidate, will turn economy around because of business experience in making fortune from amassing capital and buying, operating, raiding and shutting down other companies, has tremendous financial abilities that are reflected in his ability to "save" the Olympics, amass a fortune without government help, yes...creates jobs. THAT is what this guy is running on besides promising to destroy whatever Obama has done the last three years. If he is not the "business" candidate, then what is he?
That makes his tax returns germane to any discussion of What Kind of Businessman he is. Is he the kind of businessman who shifts wealth around to other countries so as to avoid taxes? Does he use shell corporations, exploit arcane tax regulations and prefer to fight the IRS over them? Does he fudge dates and ignore reality as he does with Bain? Is he the kind of guy who prides himself on not paying taxes? Is he the kind of guy who donates to as many charities as he says he does?
Quote from: AquaMan on August 06, 2012, 01:27:09 PM
Let me simplify this. Romney: business candidate, will turn economy around because of business experience in making fortune from amassing capital and buying, operating, raiding and shutting down other companies, has tremendous financial abilities that are reflected in his ability to "save" the Olympics, amass a fortune without government help, yes...creates jobs. THAT is what this guy is running on besides promising to destroy whatever Obama has done the last three years. If he is not the "business" candidate, then what is he?
That makes his tax returns germane to any discussion of What Kind of Businessman he is. Is he the kind of businessman who shifts wealth around to other countries so as to avoid taxes? Does he use shell corporations, exploit arcane tax regulations and prefer to fight the IRS over them? Does he fudge dates and ignore reality as he does with Bain? Is he the kind of guy who prides himself on not paying taxes? Is he the kind of guy who donates to as many charities as he says he does?
All of that would have been reported on his SF278 filed with the FEC as a part of his application to be a presidential candidate. They seem to have approved him.
QuoteRomney: business candidate, will turn economy around because of business experience in making fortune from amassing capital and buying, operating, raiding and shutting down other companies, has tremendous financial abilities that are reflected in his ability to "save" the Olympics, amass a fortune without government help, yes...creates jobs. THAT is what this guy is running on besides promising to destroy whatever Obama has done the last three years. If he is not the "business" candidate, then what is he?
In contrast, President Obama: community activist candidate, will turn economy around because of his experience in making speeches, organizing petitions, golf, celebrity dinner parties, and killing terrorists, his pitiful financial abilities are reflected in his ability to generate uncertainty, amass a distrust throughout the private sector and, yes...limit the creation of jobs. THAT is what this guy is running on besides promising to continue what he has done over the last three years. If he is not the "failure" candidate, then what is he?
Dang. Another dead channel. Isn't anyone thinking around here? Is it all pre-formulated, pre-digested baby food?
Seriously, you think his tax returns are not germane to what he touts as his strengths? You think a guy who is running for city bus transportation director should not have to make his DMV records public? Or that they are not an issue? How far do we go with that?
Why would a candidate for Mayor need to provide proof of residence within the state or city they run in? After all its really not germane if they are conservative enough and can create economic stability.
You ever work for Penn State?
Quote from: AquaMan on August 06, 2012, 02:06:38 PM
Dang. Another dead channel. Isn't anyone thinking around here? Is it all pre-formulated, pre-digested baby food?
Seriously, you think his tax returns are not germane to what he touts as his strengths? You think a guy who is running for city bus transportation director should not have to make his DMV records public? Or that they are not an issue? How far do we go with that?
Why would a candidate for Mayor need to provide proof of residence within the state or city they run in? After all its really not germane if they are conservative enough and can create economic stability.
You ever work for Penn State?
Really, I'm quite surprised someone of your wit and intellect bought into the meme that his taxes will somehow reveal one thing about his leadership style. I downloaded the SF-278 and there's probably far more you can glean there than from tax returns and it's pretty devoid of anything other than assets and cash in, cash out. Secondly, he's largely been an investor the last 13 years as far as personal income goes. The tax returns won't speak to his policies as the governor of Mass, nor his chairmanship of the SLC Olympic games.
What do you suppose the personal 1040 forms of Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Meg Whitman, or Warren Buffett reveal about their own leadership or job creation skills? What does President Obama's 1040 reveal about his potential for success or failure if he gets a second term in office?
If anything, he's showing strong leadership tendencies by not responding to a pathetic whisper campaign that he didn't pay taxes for ten years.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 06, 2012, 02:06:38 PM
Dang. Another dead channel. Isn't anyone thinking around here? Is it all pre-formulated, pre-digested baby food?
Seriously, you think his tax returns are not germane to what he touts as his strengths? You think a guy who is running for city bus transportation director should not have to make his DMV records public? Or that they are not an issue? How far do we go with that?
Why would a candidate for Mayor need to provide proof of residence within the state or city they run in? After all its really not germane if they are conservative enough and can create economic stability.
You ever work for Penn State?
If you really believe that public review of tax forms should be a condition of candidacy, you should work to change the constitution. Perhaps you should lobby for the bill making it a law?
It would certainly limit the playing field and change the debate.
In normal times, the public would not demand to see a candidate's tax returns. This ain't normal times and Mitt ain't your normal candidate. His whole campaign is about money and how successful a businessman he has become. That is why people want to see what kind of businessman he was.
The Bush v Kerry campaign of eight years ago was different. War was a big topic and people talked about what kind of military service that Kerry had. He was running as a decorated veteran. His wife was filthy rich, but no one cared about his wealth because it wasn't a central part of his campaign. It is with Mitt.
Personal taxes shouldn't be an issue in this campaign, but they are. Romney has to deal with it and so far, he looks like his refusal is happening because he is hiding something.
I think I have it now. Mitt MUST release more tax returns so that we can properly vet him because his knowledge (or his accountant's knowledge) of how to pay as little taxes as possible is important when it comes to running the country.
HOWEVER, asking for college transcripts, that are also not required to run for public office, is totally out of bounds and something only the lunatic fringe of the republican party would ask for.
Got it.
Quote from: erfalf on August 06, 2012, 02:56:24 PM
I think I have it now. Mitt MUST release more tax returns so that we can properly vet him because his knowledge (or his accountant's knowledge) of how to pay as little taxes as possible is important when it comes to running the country.
HOWEVER, asking for college transcripts, that are also not required to run for public office, is totally out of bounds and something only the lunatic fringe of the republican party would ask for.
Got it.
Great for you.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 06, 2012, 02:21:34 PM
Really, I'm quite surprised someone of your wit and intellect bought into the meme that his taxes will somehow reveal one thing about his leadership style. I downloaded the SF-278 and there's probably far more you can glean there than from tax returns and it's pretty devoid of anything other than assets and cash in, cash out. Secondly, he's largely been an investor the last 13 years as far as personal income goes. The tax returns won't speak to his policies as the governor of Mass, nor his chairmanship of the SLC Olympic games.
What do you suppose the personal 1040 forms of Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Meg Whitman, or Warren Buffett reveal about their own leadership or job creation skills? What does President Obama's 1040 reveal about his potential for success or failure if he gets a second term in office?
If anything, he's showing strong leadership tendencies by not responding to a pathetic whisper campaign that he didn't pay taxes for ten years.
Here's the point Conan. They've run out of things to attack him on. This is it.
When liberals consider leadership, track record, and economic/financial acumen, they simply cannot make the comparison between Mitt Romney and President Obama without enduring waves of nausea for their candidate. Therefore they MUST be granted access to some other hook to exploit.
President Obama's failures are so many and Romney's are so little that it's only "fair" that he release his tax returns. Otherwise the playing field is uneven. They are only asking that Romney do his fair share to even things up a bit.
They need to turn those frowns upside-down and see their candidate's failures as his greatest strengths. He's simply been victimized over the last 3 years. Bring him back to GOD status. That's the old Candidate Obama that the people miss. We have a president who received the Nobel Prize for simply being. What other country has a guy like that? Embrace it. Promote it. Let the fainting begin!
(http://floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/obama-god-1.jpg)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 06, 2012, 02:31:19 PM
In normal times, the public would not demand to see a candidate's tax returns. This ain't normal times and Mitt ain't your normal candidate. His whole campaign is about money and how successful a businessman he has become. That is why people want to see what kind of businessman he was.
The Bush v Kerry campaign of eight years ago was different. War was a big topic and people talked about what kind of military service that Kerry had. He was running as a decorated veteran. His wife was filthy rich, but no one cared about his wealth because it wasn't a central part of his campaign. It is with Mitt.
Personal taxes shouldn't be an issue in this campaign, but they are. Romney has to deal with it and so far, he looks like his refusal is happening because he is hiding something.
Actually, I don't recall Romney making the campaign about money. I believe that started with the whole Occupy charade last year.
Blame the wealthy and how little they pay in taxes for the housing bust, high unemployment, bank failures, etc. ad nauseum. It's nothing more than another opportunity for the opposition to misinform the public about Romney.
So far, we've had a whisper campaign about him being a felon, he's a tax cheat, hasn't paid taxes over a period of ten years, his tax returns were the reason McCain elected not to choose him as a running mate.
It's the 1%'er bogeyman, nothing more, nothing less. The Democrats intend to frame this election as being the wealthy against the poor so that the poor don't think to ask or look closer at what Obama has or hasn't done to help improve their economic or job prospects over the last 3.5 years.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 06, 2012, 03:06:50 PM
The Democrats intend to frame this election as being the wealthy against the poor
Seems both sides are doing that.
Seeing politicians play class warfare is so comical as they are all absurdly rich on our dime often times.
I have always wondered how men and women of relatively modest means could assume federal office and take a great six figure salary yet become wildly rich in that same time period well beyond their salary.
Quote from: erfalf on August 06, 2012, 03:09:26 PM
Seeing politicians play class warfare is so comical as they are all absurdly rich on our dime often times.
I have always wondered how men and women of relatively modest means could assume federal office and take a great six figure salary yet become wildly rich in that same time period well beyond their salary.
Everyone except for Biden. He doesn't seem very good at
reporting his graft ahem, personal finance management as the rest.
Republicans attack welfare, food stamps and unemployment benefits then have the audacity to say the democrats are engaging in class warfare. Got it.
Let me say for the record that I am fine with Mitt losing the election by not releasing his tax returns.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 06, 2012, 03:40:07 PM
Let me say for the record that I am fine with Mitt losing the election by not releasing his tax returns.
I wasn't sure where you stood. I appreciate you clarifying that.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 06, 2012, 03:28:00 PM
Everyone except for Biden. He doesn't seem very good at reporting his graft ahem, personal finance management as the rest.
Actually, Biden's income disclosures portray him as a simple, honest, unambitious man (at least as far as politicians go). Money and finance really don't seem to be of any interest to him. He may have the most modest income of any life-long politician. Now, that could be simply because he's not real good with money, but he doesn't seem to be the wasteful type.
He makes $379,000 a year. He holds his savings account at Winmington Federal Savings according to his tax return from last year and he made $2,700 interest on it. At their current rates, this would indicate that he has $135,000 in savings. I've seen pictures of his house. It's nice, but not extravagant. He's paying about $25,600 in mortgage interest on it every year, seems quite high.
He has no investments or other outside income. Probably drives an old Buick. If $25K is his mortgage interest, he must be paying a helova monthly mortgage on the home. I assume he probably plans to live off of his VP salary for the rest of his life. I'm sure he'll do speaking gigs when he's out of office. Not a bad gig for someone of Biden's caliber.
^^^starting to sound like quite the creeper^^^
Quote from: Townsend on August 06, 2012, 04:02:54 PM
^^^starting to sound like quite the creeper^^^
(http://www.scenicreflections.com/files/The_Creeper_Wallpaper_JxHy.jpg)
Does anyone else think that is is weird of gaspar to study in-depth the tax returns and financial standing of VP Biden and not care at all to see Mitt's returns
He is obsessed with Joe and blase with Mitt when it comes to financial disclosure. I wonder why the difference.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 06, 2012, 05:12:21 PM
Does anyone else think that is is weird of gaspar to study in-depth the tax returns and financial standing of VP Biden and not care at all to see Mitt's returns
He is obsessed with Joe and blase with Mitt when it comes to financial disclosure. I wonder why the difference.
Are you being serious? After how many Romney threads have you started you appallingly accuse someone else about an obsession?
Quote from: Gaspar on August 06, 2012, 03:56:53 PM
Actually, Biden's income disclosures portray him as a simple, honest, unambitious man (at least as far as politicians go). Money and finance really don't seem to be of any interest to him. He may have the most modest income of any life-long politician. Now, that could be simply because he's not real good with money, but he doesn't seem to be the wasteful type.
He makes $379,000 a year. He holds his savings account at Winmington Federal Savings according to his tax return from last year and he made $2,700 interest on it. At their current rates, this would indicate that he has $135,000 in savings. I've seen pictures of his house. It's nice, but not extravagant. He's paying about $25,600 in mortgage interest on it every year, seems quite high.
He has no investments or other outside income. Probably drives an old Buick. If $25K is his mortgage interest, he must be paying a helova monthly mortgage on the home. I assume he probably plans to live off of his VP salary for the rest of his life. I'm sure he'll do speaking gigs when he's out of office. Not a bad gig for someone of Biden's caliber.
I dont know anything about Creeper, but this is creepy. You made several deductions and inferences from Biden's income disclosures which likely came from his tax returns. Yet you see no hypocrisy in supporting refusal of the same information to make the same analyses of Romney?!
This is just crazy. No way you guys would have tolerated a Democrat running on a platform of economic recovery based on a history of business success without perusing their tax returns. Its cowardly for Romney to refuse and its hypocrisy to not see that.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 06, 2012, 03:02:54 PM
Here's the point Conan. They've run out of things to attack him on. This is it.
When liberals consider leadership, track record, and economic/financial acumen, they simply cannot make the comparison between Mitt Romney and President Obama without enduring waves of nausea for their candidate. Therefore they MUST be granted access to some other hook to exploit.
President Obama's failures are so many and Romney's are so little that it's only "fair" that he release his tax returns. Otherwise the playing field is uneven. They are only asking that Romney do his fair share to even things up a bit.
They need to turn those frowns upside-down and see their candidate's failures as his greatest strengths. He's simply been victimized over the last 3 years. Bring him back to GOD status. That's the old Candidate Obama that the people miss. We have a president who received the Nobel Prize for simply being. What other country has a guy like that? Embrace it. Promote it. Let the fainting begin!
(http://floppingaces.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/obama-god-1.jpg)
I will see you....
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/313690_4073650993624_1108165612_n.jpg)
and raise you.
Quote from: guido911 on August 06, 2012, 05:28:36 PM
After how many Romney threads have you started you appallingly accuse someone else about an obsession?
Evidently not enough. There has not been a mass exodus to the Obama camp by TNFers.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 06, 2012, 03:40:07 PM
Let me say for the record that I am fine with Mitt losing the election by not releasing his tax returns.
My impression is that you are fine with Mitt losing the election by any means possible.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 06, 2012, 03:28:00 PM
Everyone except for Biden. He doesn't seem very good at reporting his graft ahem, personal finance management as the rest.
That's why he is only the Vice President.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 06, 2012, 06:06:23 PM
Evidently not enough. There has not been a mass exodus to the Obama camp by TNFers.
No one has moved one way or the other.
I don't think there is much wiggle room for political thought in Okieville. Wouldn't matter much if everyone in Tulsa suddenly saw a vision in the clouds and changed their vote to the "angelic one". We'd fall short of the concentrations of purple south and west of us!
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 06, 2012, 06:06:23 PM
Evidently not enough. There has not been a mass exodus to the Obama camp by TNFers.
The people who will decide this election are the independent voters, not the committed partisans here on TNF. We can argue endlessly about politics, but Oklahoma will remain the reddest of red states. And as Red noted, there's no mass exodus to the Obama camp because like the rest of the state, the demographics here are not unlike the state as a whole.
In the last presidential, Oklahoma voted for McCain and Palin in even greater numbers than they had for Bush and Cheney, showing that Oklahoma voters were far out of the national mainstream. I expect that will be true of this election as well.
For those critical independent voters, the tax return issue brings up several questions. Is Romney believable? Should he be trusted given the doubts raised by this issue? I don't think any of us on the right or the left can answer those questions. We'll continue arguing about it, of course, because that's what we do, and most of us are capable of making those arguments without engaging in rancor or making the attacks personal. Most of us.
I think Mitt Romney's taxes are very important. Not what he paid, which is very likely to be a joke given the statistics we know, but I can be fairly certain it was all legal. Not that legality and propriety are even in the same ball park. No, the more important part about Mitt Romney's taxes is his joke of a tax "plan." I hesitate to call it a plan because it lacks the details necessary for it to be anything but meaningless mumbo jumbo. Nonetheless, given the details that have been released, he's going to do a fantastic job of raising taxes on every single one of us while lowering his own taxes. Go figure.
Deductions don't mean much to him because their dollar amount is limited thanks to his very high income. They mean a lot to all of us because they are much higher as a proportion of our income. Nonetheless, his solution is to lower the rates, helping himself, while eliminating deductions, which screws us.
How do I know this is his ultimate goal? Rather than fixing AMT so it does what it was originally intended to do, which is make sure that the ultra-rich pay at least something, by raising the income amount where AMT takes effect and indexing it to inflation as the normal brackets, standard deduction, and exemption amounts are, he wants to eliminate it entirely, opening up a whole new raft of loopholes for him and his ilk to take advantage of.
I will say this for him: There has never been a candidate in history so open and honest about how he intends to use the office to benefit himself over the vast majority of the country.
Quote from: AquaMan on August 06, 2012, 05:45:37 PM
I dont know anything about Creeper, but this is creepy. You made several deductions and inferences from Biden's income disclosures which likely came from his tax returns. Yet you see no hypocrisy in supporting refusal of the same information to make the same analyses of Romney?!
This is just crazy. No way you guys would have tolerated a Democrat running on a platform of economic recovery based on a history of business success without perusing their tax returns. Its cowardly for Romney to refuse and its hypocrisy to not see that.
There's a full 2010 Romney return for you to peruse and critique, a partial 2011 and when it's done it's all yours. You can even look up his FEC filings for free.
Again, not much there which points to business acumen, since personal 1040's really don't other than what people own and what they earn from them. But there again, I'm replying to someone who suggested that since Mr. Obama reads a lot, he's imminently qualified to lead us out of this economic funk.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 06, 2012, 10:06:28 PM
But there again, I'm replying to someone who suggested that since Mr. Obama reads a lot, he's imminently qualified to lead us out of this economic funk.
It only counts if he read that stuff in a Holiday Inn Express.
Love the way Republicans on here counter and block with this issue. And it is an issue if you have Republican crooners on Fox News saying it will be if Willard doesn't resolve it by September.
If he's using his experience in business to say he's the better candidate, then do what your father said all candidates should do and pony up the returns. Why is it really even a debate at this point? People who don't think he should are going to continue to think that in hopes that he will shuffle his feet through it. People who do think he should do it will continue to hammer away at him until he does. It's really a lose-lose for him now.
If Obama used his grades in college to tell us he'd make the country better, then I'd ask him for his transcript. But did he?
Quote from: Conan71 on August 06, 2012, 10:06:28 PM
There's a full 2010 Romney return for you to peruse and critique, a partial 2011 and when it's done it's all yours. You can even look up his FEC filings for free.
This is a ridiculous counter. One or two years prepared after you know you have to be on your best behavior because you're running for President isn't illustrative of anything at all. It's loosely analogous to the non-apology apology. He's done something meaningless so as to create the appearance of having done something. You seem to think that the tax returns are of no value whatsoever, so why even bother with pointing out what is there?
More important than his past tax returns is a straight answer on how he came to have $100 million in his 401(k) and how he managed to give a $100 million gift to his kids tax free. Whether or not you think this should be allowed, a plain reading of the law appears to make these things impossible. I doubt he did anything illegal, so why not let us all in on the secret so it can be discussed as it deserves to be? His past tax returns would shed light on these and other oddities shown by the financial information that has been released.
I understand his desire for privacy in these matters, but I don't care about the why, which is actually private, only the how, which is not really. There's no point in him releasing anything if he refuses to discuss the legitimate issues raised by those releases.
Quote from: nathanm on August 06, 2012, 11:11:08 PM
This is a ridiculous counter. One or two years prepared after you know you have to be on your best behavior because you're running for President isn't illustrative of anything at all. It's loosely analogous to the non-apology apology. He's done something meaningless so as to create the appearance of having done something. You seem to think that the tax returns are of no value whatsoever, so why even bother with pointing out what is there?
More important than his past tax returns is a straight answer on how he came to have $100 million in his 401(k) and how he managed to give a $100 million gift to his kids tax free. Whether or not you think this should be allowed, a plain reading of the law appears to make these things impossible. I doubt he did anything illegal, so why not let us all in on the secret so it can be discussed as it deserves to be? His past tax returns would shed light on these and other oddities shown by the financial information that has been released.
I understand his desire for privacy in these matters, but I don't care about the why, which is actually private, only the how, which is not really. There's no point in him releasing anything if he refuses to discuss the legitimate issues raised by those releases.
I'm surprised with your level of intelligence you fell for the "Romney needs to release his returns" meme. You even said yourself you think he acted within the law.
I guess since Seamusgate, Bullygate, and Copgate didn't stick the Obamites are getting more desperate to keep their candidate from taking about his own record.
Quote from: Hoss on August 06, 2012, 10:42:07 PM
Love the way Republicans on here counter and block with this issue. And it is an issue if you have Republican crooners on Fox News saying it will be if Willard doesn't resolve it by September.
If he's using his experience in business to say he's the better candidate, then do what your father said all candidates should do and pony up the returns. Why is it really even a debate at this point? People who don't think he should are going to continue to think that in hopes that he will shuffle his feet through it. People who do think he should do it will continue to hammer away at him until he does. It's really a lose-lose for him now.
If Obama used his grades in college to tell us he'd make the country better, then I'd ask him for his transcript. But did he?
Most of the Republican crooners are complete morons. Non-issue. I don't do everything my father did. Do you? George Romney was never even a serious candidate- total outlier.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 12:06:04 AM
Most of the Republican crooners are complete morons. Non-issue. I don't do everything my father did. Do you? George Romney was never even a serious candidate- total outlier.
But it's something that's going to haunt him, though. If you are denying that, then deny away. It doesn't make it GO away, however. This is going to haunt him until he puts it to rest.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 12:04:51 AM
I'm surprised with your level of intelligence you fell for the "Romney needs to release his returns" meme. You even said yourself you think he acted within the law.
It's not about scoring political points, bucko, it's about not passing up a historic opportunity to see how it is our tax code is being used/abused by the very wealthy. I'm happy that individual tax information is normally kept completely confidential, it prevents much political abuse. However, that secrecy comes at a cost. It's perfectly reasonable to request financial disclosures from candidates, and if the Democrats can browbeat Romney into releasing past returns, I think that may shed some light on both Romney and how our tax system actually operates where it arguably matters most.
As I have said before, legal behavior and ethical behavior are not necessarily the same thing, which is as it should be. Romney should not be legally penalized for "hiding" money offshore if it is indeed legal. That does not mean I or anyone else has to approve of the practice. Many distasteful things are legal.
As far as George being an outlier (in the sense that he is far from the mean and median), that is true. Mitt is also an outlier in that sense, however.
(http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/07/RepTaxReturns1.png)
(http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/07/DemTaxReturns.png)
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 01:08:43 AM
It's not about scoring political points, bucko, it's about not passing up a historic opportunity to see how it is our tax code is being used/abused by the very wealthy. I'm happy that individual tax information is normally kept completely confidential, it prevents much political abuse. However, that secrecy comes at a cost. It's perfectly reasonable to request financial disclosures from candidates, and if the Democrats can browbeat Romney into releasing past returns, I think that may shed some light on both Romney and how our tax system actually operates where it arguably matters most.
As I have said before, legal behavior and ethical behavior are not necessarily the same thing, which is as it should be. Romney should not be legally penalized for "hiding" money offshore if it is indeed legal. That does not mean I or anyone else has to approve of the practice. Many distasteful things are legal.
As far as George being an outlier (in the sense that he is far from the mean and median), that is true. Mitt is also an outlier in that sense, however.
(http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/07/RepTaxReturns1.png)
(http://factcheck.org/UploadedFiles/2012/07/DemTaxReturns.png)
Oh, but your source there is factcheck.org. Don't you know they have a notorious lib'rul slant?
::)
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 06, 2012, 05:12:21 PM
Does anyone else think that is is weird of gaspar to study in-depth the tax returns and financial standing of VP Biden and not care at all to see Mitt's returns
He is obsessed with Joe and blase with Mitt when it comes to financial disclosure. I wonder why the difference.
Actually I did go through Romney's tax return. If you remember, back when you were weaving one of your typical threads around Romney's Olympic experience, and you made an implication that he paid NO taxes by using his wife's horse as a deduction. I posted his 2010 return to show that you were full of it as usual. He paid $4.6 million in taxes that year and the deduction from his wife's horse only amounted to $46 out of the $77,682 loss he incurred.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=19173.msg242908#msg242908
You then posted:
QuoteThat is your defense?
Fine. His company posted a "loss" of $77,000 on his wife's hobby.
You are right, gaspar. That is much clearer.
Then you attempted to attack him for setting up his wife's horse in a LLC. Why, I don't know, because it doesn't make a lick of sense, but for some reason I guess you think than anyone who sets up a company is somehow trying to game the system. If you have a muliti-million dollar investment like that horse, its care, facilities, training and do not set it up as an LLC you are a moron.
Your goal was to make his sacrifice of $77,682 a year supporting his wife's dream sound like some evil conspiritory way to avoid taxation, ignoring his return, ignoring the taxes he actually paid, ignoring the fact $77,682 was essentially a total loss, and basically just ignoring.
I admire you RM, and I'm sorry to be so pointed in this post. My style is usually not to attack the poster, but when facts are presented and they refute your posts, you conveniently duck away and allow the lesser minds to create a garbled tapestry of one liners and playground retorts to cover your escape. You then emerge on a new thread only to repeat the process. We are all guilty of this to some extent, but lately you seem to have made the practice into an art form.
. . .here come the booger-flingers.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 07, 2012, 07:37:57 AM
Actually I did go through Romney's tax return. If you remember, back when you were weaving one of your typical threads around Romney's Olympic experience, and you made an implication that he paid NO taxes by using his wife's horse as a deduction. I posted his 2010 return to show that you were full of it as usual. He paid $4.6 million in taxes that year and the deduction from his wife's horse only amounted to $46 out of the $77,682 loss he incurred.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/index.php?topic=19173.msg242908#msg242908
You then posted:
Then you attempted to attack him for setting up his wife's horse in a LLC. Why, I don't know, because it doesn't make a lick of sense, but for some reason I guess you think than anyone who sets up a company is somehow trying to game the system. If you have a muliti-million dollar investment like that horse, its care, facilities, training and do not set it up as an LLC you are a moron.
Your goal was to make his sacrifice of $77,682 a year supporting his wife's dream sound like some evil conspiritory way to avoid taxation, ignoring his return, ignoring the taxes he actually paid, ignoring the fact $77,682 was essentially a total loss, and basically just ignoring.
I admire you RM, and I'm sorry to be so pointed in this post. My style is usually not to attack the poster, but when facts are presented and they refute your posts, you conveniently duck away and allow the lesser minds to create a garbled tapestry of one liners and playground retorts to cover your escape. You then emerge on a new thread only to repeat the process. We are all guilty of this to some extent, but lately you seem to have made the practice into an art form.
. . .here come the booger-flingers.
First booger.
You guys can spin this any way you want to, this just won't go away for Mittens until he squashes it. It was an issue for fellow Republicans during primary season, but now that the Dems have called him out on it, it's no longer an issue?
My grandfather once told me 'where there's smoke, there's fire'.
Quote from: Gaspar on August 07, 2012, 07:37:57 AM
Your goal was to make his sacrifice of $77,682 a year supporting his wife's dream sound like some evil conspiritory way to avoid taxation, ignoring his return, ignoring the taxes he actually paid, ignoring the fact $77,682 was essentially a total loss, and basically just ignoring.
That was not my goal. I wanted to point out that Romney is not like most Americans. Few of us anually spend $77,000 on a hobby and expect to write it off as a business expense.
It is horse dancing for Christ's sake. In life, there are work horses and show horses. Romney is clearly a show horse.
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 01:08:43 AM
it's about not passing up a historic opportunity to see how it is our tax code is being used/abused by the very wealthy.
No, it's about obfuscating the few accomplishments Obama can run on. This is nothing more than a shameless whisper campaign full of innuendo, half truths, and outright falsehoods. Obama can't run on accomplishments so he's got to go right to character.
"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!!!!"
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-X4G2y9wEOLo/TzWpUlGwWSI/AAAAAAAAD_s/_aopAFK_WrY/s1600/obama-behind-curtain-final.jpg)
Quote from: AquaMan on August 06, 2012, 11:13:40 AM
At least those people released their returns, in spite of possible criticism, so that you could determine their charitable giving. This guy won't give you that opportunity. "just trust me"
Actually, in another 2 minutes of looking, I found Romney's 2010 tax return and found that he had donated about $2.9M to charities. The point being his returns are there too, maybe not 10 years, but I didn't find 10 years of Obama or Biden either with the same amount of effort (not saying they aren't there, just not easily found)
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 08:58:36 AM
Obama can't run on accomplishments so he's got to go right to character.
I am tired of this lame argument.
You have yet to write a single argument for Romney. All you do is attack Obama.
Kettle, meet pot.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 07, 2012, 09:22:08 AM
I am tired of this lame argument.
You have yet to write a single argument for Romney. All you do is attack Obama.
Kettle, meet pot.
It is a difficult argument. We continually site Romney's business experience, financial track record, and leadership over decades in both the private sector and government, but we also understand that you don't consider those types of things as positive credentials for governance, economic management or decision making.
So, as long as we continue to present Romney's history and track record, you will find nothing that appeals to you. He simply does not offer the same magic as President Obama. He never became a community organizer, or president of the Harvard Law review (without writing a single law review), or a lawyer, or a college professor. He never won the Nobel prize for simply being himself. He doesn't play much golf. He hasn't written any books about himself.
Apparently, you are correct. There is no liberal argument for Romney.
Oh, community organizer again. You act as if that is the only job he ever had before politics. That was his job while going to law school.
Obama was a private practice attorney and taught constitutional law for eight years.
Romney was a church missionary in France for 2 and a half years.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 07, 2012, 09:22:08 AM
I am tired of this lame argument.
You have yet to write a single argument for Romney. All you do is attack Obama.
Kettle, meet pot.
Actually I have:
-Competent business leader with a long track record of success (though you wouldn't know it from Obama's ads)
-By all accounts a very devoted family man
-Proven bi-partisan leadership as governor of Massachusetts
-Turned a losing proposition with the Olympics into a winner
Three of those four items all point to strong leadership skills, something which is necessary to lead the country.
Ever notice that the Obama campaign has not zeroed in on Romney's years as governor or the head of the SLC Olympics? Now why would that be?
They make it sound like GST Steel is the only investment Bain was ever involved in.
Obama is either a hypocrite or following his own words since he has no new ideas or a record to run on:
"If you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone people should run from."
QuoteObama is living up to his words. He can't run on his record, so he has to deflect attenion away from that and make it about Romney. Saul Alinsky at work. (D)eflect attention away from one's self. (I)solate the target. (P)olarize the target in the eyes of others, then (P)ersonally attack the target. Let's hear Barack Obama in his own words about what people who do not have any fresh idea will do. This was as Matt mentioned back in 2008 at the Democratic National Convention.
http://wakeupblackamerica.blogspot.com/2012/07/obama-was-against-personal-attack.html
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 09:52:20 AM
-By all accounts a very devoted family man
I will give you that one. He even gave his sons a hundred million dollars without paying any gift tax.
Wait. How is that possible? If only we had his tax returns.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 07, 2012, 09:45:31 AM
Oh, community organizer again. You act as if that is the only job he ever had before politics. That was his job while going to law school.
Obama was a private practice attorney and taught constitutional law for eight years.
Romney was a church missionary in France for 2 and a half years.
Fair enough. I have changed it.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 07, 2012, 09:57:13 AM
I will give you that one. He even gave his sons a hundred million dollars without paying any gift tax.
Wait. How is that possible? If only we had his tax returns.
Romney didn't write the tax code and apparently, he's acted perfectly legally. He engages in the exact same tax avoidance schemes as Obama's biggest donors and bundlers.
That said, I'm still trying to get adopted by the Romney family, but he's not returning my calls and letters. I just keep getting visits from LDS missionaries.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 10:05:15 AM
I just keep getting visits from LDS missionaries.
Let them in. They're trying to fix you.
It's getting nastier:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/07/politics/reid-romney-taxes/index.html?on.cnn=1 (http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/07/politics/reid-romney-taxes/index.html?on.cnn=1)
Reid puts Romney in a bind over taxes
I don't think it is an issue of him not wanting to release for political reasons... I think he doesn't want to for religious reasons. He probably didn't "tithe" what he should have and exposing that would damage his clout with the Mormon church. I really don't care either way. But the Right sure wanted Obama to release his birth certificate and beat that dead horse for 3 years.... and continue to even after the fact. because they know as long as you cast that doubt, some of those swing voters will vote the other direction.
As usual, it is a political p*ssing match.
Romney should release more tax returns the day after Obama releases his college records. ;-)
Quote from: Gaspar on August 07, 2012, 07:37:57 AM
He paid $4.6 million in taxes that year and the deduction from his wife's horse only amounted to $46 out of the $77,682 loss he incurred.
It doesn't matter if it was $46 or $76,000, most of us don't get to deduct our hobby expenses.
Conan, once again you're peddling bullshit. There has been plenty of hay made on Romney's policy proposals, at least insofar as that is possible with the incomplete and inconsistent proposals he has made. Just like with Obama's speech, however, you choose to hear what you want to hear. You ignored most of Obama's speech, and you ignore most of the criticism leveled against Romney. Maybe you know he's a smile candidate, so you're doing everything you can to justify voting for him to yourself?
As far as the gift tax thing goes, don't you think it's important for us all to know how that happened so that it can be discussed openly and fixed or not as the body politic sees fit? This secrecy is only damaging to us and his campaign.
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 02:39:55 PM
It doesn't matter if it was $46 or $76,000, most of us don't get to deduct our hobby expenses.
Conan, once again you're peddling bullshit. There has been plenty of hay made on Romney's policy proposals, at least insofar as that is possible with the incomplete and inconsistent proposals he has made. Just like with Obama's speech, however, you choose to hear what you want to hear. You ignored most of Obama's speech, and you ignore most of the criticism leveled against Romney. Maybe you know he's a smile candidate, so you're doing everything you can to justify voting for him to yourself?
As far as the gift tax thing goes, don't you think it's important for us all to know how that happened so that it can be discussed openly and fixed or not as the body politic sees fit? This secrecy is only damaging to us and his campaign.
I could care less about Obama's speech. It's his pathetic economic record which keeps resonating with me.
But keep on peddling that bullshit, Nate.
Quote from: Oil Capital on August 07, 2012, 01:56:07 PM
Romney should release more tax returns the day after Obama releases his college records. ;-)
Right after Bush releases his military records...
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 02:57:12 PM
I could care less about Obama's speech. It's his pathetic economic record which keeps resonating with me.
If you consider turning -4% yearly real GDP "growth" into +2.5% yearly real GDP growth in the face of an instransigent House that refuses to do anything that might improve the economy pathetic, I don't know what to tell you. And for someone who doesn't care about Obama's speech, you sure do seem to fight really hard to pretend most of it didn't happen.
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 03:15:11 PM
If you consider turning -4% yearly real GDP "growth" into +2.5% yearly real GDP growth in the face of an instransigent House that refuses to do anything that might improve the economy pathetic, I don't know what to tell you. And for someone who doesn't care about Obama's speech, you sure do seem to fight really hard to pretend most of it didn't happen.
I think the Obama camp needs to shift the message again:
"Obama 2012: It could always be worse!"
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 03:23:22 PM
I think the Obama camp needs to shift the message again:
"Obama 2012: It could always be worse!"
I think the GOP is already doing that.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 03:23:22 PM
I think the Obama camp needs to shift the message again:
"Obama 2012: It could always be worse!"
They already tried that one, but finally settled on "My second term couldn't possibly be as bad as my first. Forward!"
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 03:23:22 PM
"Obama 2012: It could always be worse!"
If you redefine accomplishment as failure, there's nothing Obama can do to please you.
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 03:43:44 PM
If you redefine accomplishment as failure, there's nothing Obama can do to please you.
Thanks that's a good one. I've got tears rolling down my cheeks. I even had to share that one around the office!
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 03:45:11 PM
Thanks that's a good one. I've got tears rolling down my cheeks. I even had to share that one around the office!
Crap! Beat me too it. I'll just roll my eyes. ::)
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 03:45:11 PM
Thanks that's a good one. I've got tears rolling down my cheeks. I even had to share that one around the office!
You're the one who chose the metric. If you're more careful next time, you might actually be able to cite something that's a failure rather than merely not
exceptionally successful.
"Romney 2012: Money is everything"
"Romney 2012: Leveraged takeover of America"
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 02:57:12 PM
I could care less about Obama's speech. It's his pathetic economic record which keeps resonating with me.
But keep on peddling that bullshit, Nate.
Well, it will no longer be the Dumbya economy the day after the election in November. Until then, it's still the fallout from pi$$ing away 3 trillion on war and tax breaks for the wealthy. The financial collapse was witnessed by Bush and Paulson et al....it was not unfolding under Obama's watch. Although, Obama did add enough confidence to insure against a total collapse after Bush said he was passing him the baton way before leaving for Texass.
OK?
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 07, 2012, 04:18:35 PM
"Romney 2012: Money is everything"
"Romney 2012: Leveraged takeover of America"
"Obama 2012: Jobs are meaningless"
"Obama 2012: Don't get on my secret kill list!"
"Obama 2012: Vaporizing terrorists and fighting overcrowding at GITMO!
. . .at least most of them were terrorists."
Happy Terror Tuesday. I Wonder Who's Number Was Up Today?
Gaddds Gassie....that's bad ju ju. Don't get any on you.
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 03:15:11 PM
If you consider turning -4% yearly real GDP "growth" into +2.5% yearly real GDP growth in the face of an instransigent House that refuses to do anything that might improve the economy pathetic, I don't know what to tell you. And for someone who doesn't care about Obama's speech, you sure do seem to fight really hard to pretend most of it didn't happen.
(Many years ago now) one of my uncles was hired to turn around a money losing manufacturing facility. In a couple (2 or 3) of years it was making profit. Corporate told him he needed to make 15% profit the next year. My uncle said he could give them 12% profit. He was fired, 12% wasn't good enough. We should do the same for President Obama.
Quote from: Townsend on August 07, 2012, 03:24:44 PM
"Obama 2012: It could always be worse!"
I think the GOP is already doing that.
More like:
"Obama 2012: It will be worse (with Obama)"
Quote from: RecycleMichael on August 07, 2012, 03:08:31 PM
Romney should release more tax returns the day after Obama releases his college records.
Right after Bush releases his military records...
Bush is history and not running for President in 2012. I won't ask for Obama's college records in 2016.
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 02:39:55 PM
It doesn't matter if it was $46 or $76,000, most of us don't get to deduct our hobby expenses.
Because we are too lazy to set it up as a business. You can have losses for a couple of years but eventually occasionally have to have a profit or it reverts to an actual hobby.
QuoteAs far as the gift tax thing goes, don't you think it's important for us all to know how that happened so that it can be discussed openly and fixed or not as the body politic sees fit?
You have to do a bit more convincing for me to believe that is your actual goal.
Love the deflection going on here. Don't like people asking a relevant question as it pertains to a candidate, who by running on a platform of his business acumen, to release 10 more years of his tax return, then just deflect it by asking for the college transcript of the sitting President.
That's like asking for the divorce papers from a previous marriage of a fiancee you have now, but in angry response, she asks for your vaccination records to make sure you won't give her the chicken pox.
Quote from: Hoss on August 07, 2012, 08:39:59 PM
Love the deflection going on here. Don't like people asking a relevant question as it pertains to a candidate, who by running on a platform of his business acumen, to release 10 more years of his tax return, then just deflect it by asking for the college transcript of the sitting President.
That's like asking for the divorce papers from a previous marriage of a fiancee you have now, but in angry response, she asks for your vaccination records to make sure you won't give her the chicken pox.
You are deflecting that Obama claims his academic credentials as part of his qualifications.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 07, 2012, 08:38:49 PM
Because we are too lazy to set it up as a business. You can have losses for a couple of years but eventually occasionally have to have a profit or it reverts to an actual hobby.
Incorporation is irrelevant to whether or not you can deduct business expenses. Sole proprietorship is still a legally recognized way to operate a business. Ill advised, perhaps, but still not only legal, but very common.
Quote
You have to do a bit more convincing for me to believe that is your actual goal.
I don't really care what you believe. However, I'll still say that as far as I'm concerned, they're both smile heels. I simply think Obama is the less radical candidate. Romney wants to reshape the income tax to distribute income upward. Obama does not. Romney proposes to drastically increase the military budget over its already bloated levels. Obama does not. He proposes to let some temporary tax cuts expire. Neither candidate is going to do what is necessary to get us out of this economic funk because they're both too blinded by partisan politics and the legalized bribery that is campaign finance to do anything to actually fix the fundamental problems holding us back.
Although Romney is the conservative in the language of politics, in the English language he is nothing of the sort.
As long as we focus on the horse race, the real issues remain obscured, just as the men behind the curtain would like them to be. If against openness as to what current and recent past tax policy actually is and how it actually affects the wealthy, by all means keep saying Romney's tax returns aren't important. If he is actually a serious tax cheat, do you really want him in office? You seem not to care one way or the other. That's OK, I don't either, but for a very different reason.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 07, 2012, 08:49:12 PM
You are deflecting that Obama claims his academic credentials as part of his qualifications.
I'm not saying one way or the other. Did he? Do his academic credentials make as much difference as a man who says a businessman is good for the country and won't release his tax forms? Especially if his fellow Republicans asked him to do so as well?
Do I care if he releases them? No. But if he doesn't when our sitting President has released 12 years, then what is one to think? Oh, unless one is a registered (R).
We saw what happened last time we picked a businessman, right? The same businessman who refused to release his military record.
Once again, my point proven.
Quote from: Hoss on August 07, 2012, 08:52:39 PM
We saw what happened last time we picked a businessman, right?
To be fair, the only business success he ever had involved soaking north Texas taxpayers for hundreds of millions of dollars, some of which found its way into his pocket, and then successfully evading half the tax that was due on the income. So no business success at all, really, just a major success at the graft racket.
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 08:57:56 PM
To be fair, the only business success he ever had involved soaking north Texas taxpayers for hundreds of millions of dollars, some of which found its way into his pocket, and then successfully evading half the tax that was due on the income. So no business success at all, really, just a major success at the graft racket.
Never said he was a 'successful' businessman Nate, just saying he was one. ;D
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 08:49:34 PM
I don't really care what you believe.
Well, we have something in common as I don't really care what you believe either. We just both derive some entertainment from each other's posts.
QuoteI simply think Obama is the less radical candidate.
Oops, back to disagreeing.
QuoteAlthough Romney is the conservative in the language of politics, in the English language he is nothing of the sort.
More conservative than Obama will have to do.
QuoteIf against openness as to what current and recent past tax policy actually is and how it actually affects the wealthy, by all means keep saying Romney's tax returns aren't important.
This sounds more like an obsession than a question of qualifications.
QuoteIf he is actually a serious tax cheat, do you really want him in office? You seem not to care one way or the other.
I believe the probability of Romney being a tax cheat is so close to zero as to not be a concern. Please do not assume that I don't care if someone is a tax cheat, it's insulting.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 07, 2012, 09:26:22 PM
This sounds more like an obsession than a question of qualifications.
It speaks to a legitimate and ongoing national discussion. Political campaigns are about qualifications, record, and issues.
Quote
I believe the probability of Romney being a tax cheat is so close to zero as to not be a concern. Please do not assume that I don't care if someone is a tax cheat, it's insulting.
Sorry if you got that from my post, but if he's not a tax cheat, it shouldn't matter to you one way or the other whether Romney releases his returns. I'm sure you wouldn't mind not hearing about them again, though. I'm sure the harping gets tiresome.
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 09:54:29 PM
It speaks to a legitimate and ongoing national discussion. Political campaigns are about qualifications, record, and issues.
The legitimacy of the national discussion is questioned by many.
QuoteSorry if you got that from my post, but if he's not a tax cheat, it shouldn't matter to you one way or the other whether Romney releases his returns.
You finally got it. I don't care if he does or he doesn't release MORE returns.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 07, 2012, 10:03:56 PM
The legitimacy of the national discussion is questioned by many.
Tax policy is not a legitimate national discussion?
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 10:17:45 PM
Tax policy is not a legitimate national discussion?
You are spinning almost as fast as a Pitts Special rolls.
Releasing tax returns to the public is not the law, it has been customary. Trying to make it sound as if it were the law to release 10 years of tax returns to the public is not legitimate. Would it satisfy a curiosity? Of course it would.
Tax policy is a matter of discussing existing laws and whether or not they should be changed. One man's returns are not a discussion of tax policy, it is a witch hunt.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 07, 2012, 10:42:33 PM
One man's returns are not a discussion of tax policy, it is a witch hunt.
You just said you don't think he's done anything wrong. Why would it be a witch hunt? Hell, if he only wants to release the returns filed more than 3 years ago so he can ensure that even if he did do something illegal he can't be prosecuted, that would serve the public good just as much. The problem with discussing the tax code in the abstract is that we do not know much about how it is used and abused by those who have the money to hire excellent tax attorneys and accountants, thanks to the (proven very necessary by Nixon) tax secrecy laws.
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 10:52:01 PM
You just said you don't think he's done anything wrong. Why would it be a witch hunt? Hell, if he only wants to release the returns filed more than 3 years ago so he can ensure that even if he did do something illegal he can't be prosecuted, that would serve the public good just as much. The problem with discussing the tax code in the abstract is that we do not know much about how it is used and abused by those who have the money to hire excellent tax attorneys and accountants, thanks to the (proven very necessary by Nixon) tax secrecy laws.
AND, the fact that he, so far, is the only known US Presidential candidate (I believe I heard this on the news so I can't directly cite it) to have offshore bank accounts to give the appearance of sheltering it from taxes.
Again, like many, I don't care if he did or didn't shelter it. What's the harm in releasing the tax returns if you've done nothing illegal?
It's kind of like a child...holding his breath.
Quote from: nathanm on August 07, 2012, 10:52:01 PM
You just said you don't think he's done anything wrong. Why would it be a witch hunt?
Even though you won't find anything you just have to try anyway. You appear to think there is a deep dark secret there. I'm not so sure you don't believe he is a cheat. There is no other reason to be so adamant about releasing the returns. Tax law is there for all to see.
Quote from: Hoss on August 07, 2012, 10:54:00 PM
What's the harm in releasing the tax returns if you've done nothing illegal?
The harm is in the distraction from real issues by having to defend every line of every tax return for however many years he would release. I would say it's pretty clever of the Obama regime but it is really pretty straight forward diversion.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 07, 2012, 11:01:32 PM
The harm is in the distraction from real issues by having to defend every line of every tax return for however many years he would release. I would say it's pretty clever of the Obama regime but it is really pretty straight forward diversion.
If some of your own party during the primaries asked the same question, how do you respond to that? Was it a diversion? Because party-mates did it that somehow makes it OK?
This issue will dog Romney until he takes care of it. One way or the other.
The issue here is getting a candidate who appears out of touch with mainstream (read "middle class") America with some of his financial dealings. How can you proclaim to be an advocate of the common man when you go around on debates asking a fellow debater to bet him $10,000 on a point he thinks he's in the right on?
Quote from: Hoss on August 07, 2012, 08:52:39 PM
I'm not saying one way or the other. Did he? Do his academic credentials make as much difference as a man who says a businessman is good for the country and won't release his tax forms? Especially if his fellow Republicans asked him to do so as well?
Do I care if he releases them? No. But if he doesn't when our sitting President has released 12 years, then what is one to think? Oh, unless one is a registered (R).
We saw what happened last time we picked a businessman, right? The same businessman who refused to release his military record.
Once again, my point proven.
The other ten years you want to see are nothing more than a dart board for his opponents to say "He's too rich! He's too rich!"
Nothing more, nothing less. His returns will look the same for the additional ten years as the 2010 and 2011, he's a retired investor.
But, hey, it's something shiny to keep voters eyes and minds off the real issues. Four years later, it's still the economy. I'll take the businessman from Boston over the chump changer from Chicago.
Quote from: Hoss on August 07, 2012, 08:52:39 PM
I'm not saying one way or the other. Did he? Do his academic credentials make as much difference as a man who says a businessman is good for the country and won't release his tax forms? Especially if his fellow Republicans asked him to do so as well?
Do I care if he releases them? No. But if he doesn't when our sitting President has released 12 years, then what is one to think? Oh, unless one is a registered (R).
We saw what happened last time we picked a businessman, right? The same businessman who refused to release his military record.
Once again, my point proven.
The other ten years you want to see are nothing more than a dart board for his opponents to say "He's too rich! He's too rich!"
Nothing more, nothing less. His returns will look the same for the additional ten years as the 2010 and 2011, he's a retired investor.
But, hey, it's something shiny to keep voters eyes and minds off the real issues. Four years later, the real issue is still the economy, only Obama doesn't want people to think about that- just be complacent with the lump of coal you've been dealt. I'll take the businessman from Boston over the chump changer from Chicago.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 11:06:09 PM
The other ten years you want to see are nothing more than a dart board for his opponents to say "He's too rich! He's too rich!"
Nothing more, nothing less. His returns will look the same for the additional ten years as the 2010 and 2011, he's a retired investor.
But, hey, it's something shiny to keep voters eyes and minds off the real issues. Four years later, it's still the economy. I'll take the businessman from Boston over the chump changer from Chicago.
And that's your prerogative do to so. But Willard seems to be holding his breath here on this issue. You'd have to concede that it's a point that is not going away. As much as the Republicans would like it to.
Sucks when the Dems do this, eh?
How about all that stuff in 08 about Rev. Wright? Ayres? Birtherism?
I've been saying now for 13 years or more the Dems have needed to grow a pair when it comes to Presidential campaigning. Now that they have the Republicans wail like girls with skinned knees on the playground.
Sorry, but that's politics now.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 07, 2012, 10:59:21 PM
Even though you won't find anything you just have to try anyway. You appear to think there is a deep dark secret there. I'm not so sure you don't believe he is a cheat. There is no other reason to be so adamant about releasing the returns. Tax law is there for all to see.
Tax law is. The interpretations used by tax lawyers are not. The returns would be illustrative of the latter. There is a deep dark secret, but it's not necessarily illegal. The deep dark secret is how the tax code operates for the very rich. Loopholes aren't written into the text of the tax code as such, they are subtle gaps in its operation, so your suggestion that it's there for all to see is either disingenuous or ignorant. If you'd like to stick your head in the sand, be my guest. As I said before, I don't really care what Romney did, I just want to know so that we can get some sense of the problem that is the tax code. And as I said before, if he doesn't want to release anything filed after 8/7/2009, that would be quite fine by me.
Conan, the real issue is governance. It is awful, partly because of hidden areas of the law like this. The economy is being hobbled by our shitty governance and will continue to be until we get the stick out of our donkey and stop letting people bribe politicians. It would be nice to know exactly what we're dealing with so that it can be dealt with. As it is all we have to go on is partisan sniping, innuendo, and marginally useful tax statistics.
If Romney wants to build support for his tax plan, such as it is, he needs to show how it would affect him. We can look at our own returns and see how it would affect us. This is important to know because his plan seems to be to eliminate deductions and lower rates. We need to know how much revenue loss we're actually talking about. An example would be very handy to that end. It would be awesome if Romney would come out and challenge other people in his income cohort to release their returns so that we could have this important discussion about the tax code. It's not as if taxation isn't an issue in the campaign. Both candidates propose to change the existing system. Obama by permanently reducing the income tax rates for upper-middle to lower income people, and Romney by radically changing the tax code. The onus is on him to show how it would affect us all, but he hasn't.
Quote from: nathanm on August 08, 2012, 12:06:44 AM
so your suggestion that it's there for all to see is either disingenuous or ignorant.
I guess you needed to say that. We obviously disagree.
Quote from: Hoss on August 07, 2012, 11:03:27 PM
If some of your own party during the primaries asked the same question, how do you respond to that? Was it a diversion? Because party-mates did it that somehow makes it OK?
I am surprised you hold some of those primary candidates in such high regard.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 08, 2012, 07:53:11 AM
I am surprised you hold some of those primary candidates in such high regard.
This is what I love about the Republicans. Spin the message away from the topic. Did I ever say I held them in high regard? No. Is it telling that members of his own party were asking the same of him during primary season? I think it is. I'm sure others do also.
Maybe even some Republicans. ;D
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: Hoss on August 07, 2012, 11:10:15 PM
And that's your prerogative do to so. But Willard seems to be holding his breath here on this issue. You'd have to concede that it's a point that is not going away. As much as the Republicans would like it to.
Sucks when the Dems do this, eh?
How about all that stuff in 08 about Rev. Wright? Ayres? Birtherism?
I've been saying now for 13 years or more the Dems have needed to grow a pair when it comes to Presidential campaigning. Now that they have, the Republicans wail like girls with skinned knees on the playground.
Sorry, but that's politics now.
Yes, Hoss, how quickly our local conservatives forget that when those false issues arose, along with the ones I mentioned (Willie Horton, Swiftboating), they screamed that this was just politics, that Dems needed to grow a pair, and that if our candidates couldn't handle this how could they run a country etc., etc. Nixon would be so proud of them.
Now the Dems fight back using successfully using the tactics that pounded them and the wailing begins on the right. Lots of reaping what was sown going on and those of us old enough to have seen the downward spiral Newt began in the nineties can only look on in horror.
Candidates are just symptoms. Our real problems in this country stem from our lobbying system. A common enemy of left and right yet untouchable because we are all so personally invested in their success. Yet their success is our demise. (Pogo: We have seen the enemy....and he is us!!)
That is what bothers me so much about Romney failing to disclose through tax returns that "yes, I am rich and you made me this way. If you don't like it, lets face up to our sins and clean up the tax code by eliminating tax loopholes that allow guys like me and Obama to be filthy rich and pay less taxes than a fireman. A tax code that allows a concentration of wealth at the top of our population and 40% of our population to pay no tax at all because they don't make enough money to do so."
This is his opportunity to be a real leader, an innovator in politics and he can't do it. His cowardice is strange to me because he has nothing to lose. His wealth is protected and intact. His own party distrusts him. His opponents suspect his class. For damn sakes man, make note of your time in history!
I want to know how he got so much money into his IRA. It doesn't seem legally possible. More than that, if it was legal, I want to know how he did so I can do the same.
Quote from: Conan71 on August 07, 2012, 11:06:09 PM
The other ten years you want to see are nothing more than a dart board for his opponents to say "He's too rich! He's too rich!"
Nothing more, nothing less. His returns will look the same for the additional ten years as the 2010 and 2011, he's a retired investor.
We don't know what the returns will show. I am surprised that you assume the tax returns don't show anything. You trust politicians only if they are republicans?
Regardless of who wins the election, let me play out the next few terms...
2012- Party X wins-- Makes tons of promises during campaign and can't follow through because he needs congress to get them to his desk and congress can't do anything because you have a small sect of members who are blocking anything that comes through. Mid term election comes and the minority party is now the majorrity party and they oppose the president on everything. Term is considered a failure by opposite side and a success by the other. One party points to the previous administrations policies that have put us in this position and the other party says it is your [subject] now.
2016- Party X wins-- Makes tons of promises during campaign and can't follow through. Mid term election comes and the majority party is now the minority party and they oppose the president on everything. Term is considered a failure on one side and a success on another side. One party points to the previous administrations policies that have put us in this position and the other party says it is your [subject] now.
2020-- rinse and repeat.
yay for post 200!
Quote from: Hoss on August 08, 2012, 08:01:56 AM
This is what I love about the Republicans. Spin the message away from the topic. Did I ever say I held them in high regard?
You must hold them in high regard to value their opinion about Romney releasing his tax returns so much as to bring them up as a prime example of why Romney should release his tax returns to the public.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 08, 2012, 07:51:35 AM
I guess you needed to say that. We obviously disagree.
The shoe fits. You haven't even bothered to dispute my statement. Do you not think that the nonpublic interpretations of the tax code are important to understanding how it operates? Or should I just go scrape together a few million dollars and give it to a raft of tax attorneys so they can tell me how it works (and make me sign an NDA in the process so I can't tell you)? I find it hard to believe that you don't think that some transparency here would be a good thing. It seems like you're more worried about your candidate than your country.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/07/17/530121/15-prominent-republicans-who-want-romney-to-release-more-tax-returns-right-now/
Quote from: nathanm on August 08, 2012, 03:34:26 PM
You haven't even bothered to dispute my statement.
We are so far apart that discussion is useless. We are each just repeating ourselves.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 08, 2012, 11:54:59 AM
You must hold them in high regard to value their opinion about Romney releasing his tax returns so much as to bring them up as a prime example of why Romney should release his tax returns to the public.
I use them as an example of, let's say, tigers eating their young. Pretty harsh comparison, but hey?
Yet you won't mention anything about your opinion on whether or not this will be an issue if he lets it continue into the early fall. Which means you secretly may. If not, my apologies and I defer to Gas for clairvoyant assistance.
Quote from: Hoss on August 08, 2012, 06:06:10 PM
I use them as an example of, let's say, tigers eating their young. Pretty harsh comparison, but hey?
Hey, whatever.
QuoteYet you won't mention anything about your opinion on whether or not this will be an issue if he lets it continue into the early fall.
It will remain an issue to voters like you, RM, and Nathan, who has lowered himself to posting personal insults against me. Time will tell if it remains a significant issue to the greater voting public. I have already stated that I don't care if Romney does or does not release his tax returns to the public.
Edit:
I just remembered someone saying on July 29,
QuoteBelieve it or not RA, people are not indemnified to answer you if they don't want to.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 08, 2012, 08:18:09 PM
Hey, whatever.
It will remain an issue to voters like you, RM, and Nathan, who has lowered himself to posting personal insults against me. Time will tell if it remains a significant issue to the greater voting public. I have already stated that I don't care if Romney does or does not release his tax returns to the public.
Edit:
I just remembered someone saying on July 29,
And that's fine as well. But you continue to defend his inaction regarding his tax returns. I will continue to say it will be his undoing. I'm not the one who keeps answering in defense of him.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 08, 2012, 08:18:09 PM
who has lowered himself to posting personal insults against me
"Ignorant" isn't an insult. It merely means you do not know something. I prefer to believe that than to think you're being deliberately disingenuous. I didn't call you an idiot, since that's clearly not the case. It simply is ignorant to state that reading the tax code can enlighten one as to how it is twisted and reinterpreted by people with expensive lawyers.
I agree that the tax code is far too complex. It is riddled with provisions that apply to only a few people that were slipped in there in secrecy and never debated. That needs to be fixed. The deductions and loopholes we all know about aren't really the problem. It's the stuff we don't know about that would have light shed on it by Romney's past returns. Once again, I'd be perfectly content with him releasing only the ones too old for the IRS to do anything about. I'm not after punishment, I'm after a solution. We can't possibly have a solution without first knowing where we stand.
Quote from: nathanm on August 08, 2012, 10:21:44 PM
"Ignorant" isn't an insult. It merely means you do not know something. I prefer to believe that than to think you're being deliberately disingenuous.
I consider both to be an insult. Ignorant has negative connotations beyond being uninformed. Just because I don't fall in lockstep to your opinions doesn't mean I am ignorant. You have read enough of my posts to know when I am being a smarta$$ and when I am not. If you want to play the disingenuous game, I'm not buying your attempts to legitimize the call for Romney's tax returns other than you think he is a tax cheat.
Quote from: Hoss on August 08, 2012, 09:47:55 PM
And that's fine as well. But you continue to defend his inaction regarding his tax returns. I will continue to say it will be his undoing. I'm not the one who keeps answering in defense of him.
You too are beginning to sound like a broken record...broken record...broken record...broken record...broken record...broken record...broken record...broken record...
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 08, 2012, 10:46:18 PM
I consider both to be an insult. Ignorant has negative connotations beyond being uninformed. Just because I don't fall in lockstep to your opinions doesn't mean I am ignorant. You have read enough of my posts to know when I am being a smarta$$ and when I am not. If you want to play the disingenuous game, I'm not buying your attempts to legitimize the call for Romney's tax returns other than you think he is a tax cheat.
I keep saying where there is smoke.....
;)
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 08, 2012, 10:51:00 PMYou too are beginning to sound like a broken record...broken record...broken record...broken record...broken record...broken record...broken record...broken record...
And you don't?
Defend
Defend
Defend
Defend
Defend.
See a pattern emerging?
It's like putting your fingers over your ears and screaming 'lalalalalala' until it can't be heard anymore
This just isn't going away until Willard puts it to rest. He has the power.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: Hoss on August 08, 2012, 10:56:40 PM
See a pattern emerging?
Yep, you can't come up with
anything new.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 08, 2012, 10:59:24 PMYep, you can't come up with anything new.
And you are? This is a single issue without ambiguity.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 08, 2012, 10:46:18 PM
I consider both to be an insult.
Sorry, I guess this is just yet another thing we don't agree on.
Quote
If you want to play the disingenuous game, I'm not buying your attempts to legitimize the call for Romney's tax returns other than you think he is a tax cheat.
I don't really appreciate being (essentially) called a liar. You might go back and look at some of my posts from earlier this year about taxation. I was harping on it long before Romney's returns were made an issue. Am I being opportunistic? Definitely. I see a rare opportunity to shed light on how our tax system actually works for those at the top. I don't really care if he cheated on his taxes. I'm not going to vote for the guy anyway. It would be
possible to change my mind on that, but Romney refusing to come out with concrete proposals on tax policy certainly isn't helping. Nor are his calls to increase defense spending when we're already bleeding red ink something I'm terribly interested in. If he'd be somewhat less Republican about it and at least call for an increase in NASA's budget or something else where we don't already outspend the rest of the world combined, I might be more interested.
I'd also like for him to stop saying he'll repeal Obamacare if he doesn't have a plan to replace it with something. I don't think there's a single person in this country who actually thinks our health care system works for most people, yet he proposes nothing but more of the same.
(http://awesomecave.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/typing.gif?w=150&h=107)
Quote from: Gaspar on August 09, 2012, 07:19:17 AM
(http://awesomecave.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/typing.gif?w=150&h=107)
As usual, something of substance from the clairvoyant.
Take a deep breath group.
I seldom see ignorant people posting here, but I often read posts that are based on mistrust of motives, poor factual basis and lack of proper credible sources. I know that sometimes applies to myself when I get rolling. To call someone ignorant is dismissive and pejorative. It may be accurate in English but not respectful in conversation.
Politics is a stupid game, managed by people with agendas that aren't always visible. Talking politics is like standing near your wife during natural childbirth. She's going to call you names, slap you if she can and blame you for her pain. Then its all over and you resume normal level confrontation.
Quote from: nathanm on August 08, 2012, 11:12:59 PM
I don't really appreciate being (essentially) called a liar.
Yea, I know how you feel. That disingenuous term can do that.
I don't recall questioning your motives. I'll go back and reread.
Quote from: nathanm on August 09, 2012, 05:34:33 PM
I don't recall questioning your motives. I'll go back and reread.
From the dictionary I used in college:
disingenuous - not ingenuous; lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; insincere.
I was being straightforward in my posts. No hidden agenda. No alternate agenda. For you to claim otherwise is to call me a liar.
Quote from: Red Arrow on August 09, 2012, 06:10:24 PM
I was being straightforward in my posts. No hidden agenda. No alternate agenda. For you to claim otherwise is to call me a liar.
Yes, it would be calling you a liar after you've specifically stated there is no hidden motivation. My intention was not to call you a liar, and I'm sorry that I ended up communicating that rather than what I intended.
Mitt Romney Says He Never Paid Less Than 13 Percent In Taxeshttp://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/mitt-romney-says-he-never-paid-less-than-13-percent-in-taxes/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/08/mitt-romney-says-he-never-paid-less-than-13-percent-in-taxes/)
QuoteGREER – Mitt Romney said today he has not paid less than a 13 percent taxes during the past ten years. The candidate had told ABC News' David Muir last month that he'd be "happy to go back and look" at his returns.
The tax issue has been a touchy one for Romney and he made clear that he feels there are more important issues on which to concentrate.
"I just have to say given the challenges that America faces 23 million people out of work, Iran about to become nuclear, one out of six Americans in poverty, the fascination with taxes I paid I find to be very small minded compared to the broad issues we face," he said. "But I did go back and look at my taxes and over the past 10 years I never paid less than 13 percent. I think the most recent year is 13.6 or something like that," said Romney today during a press conference on a tarmac in South Carolina, where the candidate came to attend a fundraiser.
During the interview with Muir in Jerusalem last month, Romney was asked whether he had ever paid a tax rate lower than the 13.9 percent effective rate he paid in 2010.
"I haven't calculated that," Romney responded at the time. "I'm happy to go back and look, but my view is I have paid all of the taxes required by law."
At the time, Romney's inability to answer the question led to criticism from Democrats who want Romney to publicly release tax returns. Romney has released his tax returns for 2010 and a preliminary filing for 2011.
One top Democrat, Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, had accused Reid of not paying taxes in some years. Reid said he had gotten a tip from someone who had worked with Romney at Bain. But there is no evidence to suggest there was any validity to Reid's charge.
With the comment in South Carolina on Thursday, Romney sought to put at least some of the questions to rest.
"So I've paid taxes every single year. Harry Reid's charge is totally false," Romney said. "I'm sure waiting for Harry to put up who it was that told him what he says they told him. I don't believe it for a minute by the way. But every year I've paid at least 13 percent and if you add in addition the amount that goes to charity, well the number gets well above 20 percent."
Democrats, predictably, said they won't believe Romney until he actually releases the tax returns.
"Since there is substantial reason to doubt his claims, we have a simple message for him: prove it,"said Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith in a statement. "Even though he's invested millions in foreign tax havens, offshore shell corporations, and a Swiss bank account, he's still asking the American people to trust him. However, given Mitt Romney's secrecy about his returns, coupled with the revelations in just the one return we have seen to date and the inconsistencies between this one return and his other financial disclosures, he has forfeited the right to have us take him just at his word."
Interesting that he says he "paid taxes" every year. Note what he did not say, that he "paid income taxes" every year.
Uh oh....
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/03/13636468-romney-bain-under-investigation-for-tax-avoidance
And before you righties get your panties in a bunch, I'm not saying Romney has evaded, but they are investigating his old corporation. It goes to the culture of how things are, so to speak.
In old news, he still hasn't released more of them.
RMoney is a real contrast to our way of life....his issues are taxing me.
ROMNEY CAMPAIGN ASKED FOR 10 YEARS OF TAX RETURNS FROM VP SHORT LIST | The Romney campaign required each of the candidates on its vice presidential short list to hand over 10 years of tax returns, the Daily Beast reported Thursday. That's eight more years of returns than Romney himself has revealed to the American public — a move for which he's been ridiculed from Republicans and Democrats alike. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) previously indicated that he had been required to turn over a "bunch" of returns during the vetting process, but did not give a specific number.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/13/841631/romney-returns-vp-shortlist/
Wow. I'm thinking he's an Obama beard.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 13, 2012, 04:37:33 PM
RMoney is a real contrast to our way of life....his issues are taxing me.
ROMNEY CAMPAIGN ASKED FOR 10 YEARS OF TAX RETURNS FROM VP SHORT LIST | The Romney campaign required each of the candidates on its vice presidential short list to hand over 10 years of tax returns, the Daily Beast reported Thursday. That's eight more years of returns than Romney himself has revealed to the American public — a move for which he's been ridiculed from Republicans and Democrats alike. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) previously indicated that he had been required to turn over a "bunch" of returns during the vetting process, but did not give a specific number.
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/09/13/841631/romney-returns-vp-shortlist/
Wow. I'm thinking he's an Obama beard.
Erfalf on spin duty in 3....2.....1
Daily Beast???
I suspect their sources are the same ones who told Harry Reid that Romney paid no taxes.
White rabbits.
Quote from: Hoss on September 13, 2012, 05:18:48 PM
Erfalf on spin duty in 3....2.....1
Would logic really matter?
Not that it will matter:
http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/09/note-trustee-brad-malt
Quote from: erfalf on September 21, 2012, 02:43:12 PM
Not that it will matter:
http://www.mittromney.com/blogs/mitts-view/2012/09/note-trustee-brad-malt
From your link:
Quotehttp://In 2011, the Romneys paid $1,935,708 in taxes on $13,696,951 in mostly investment income.
The Romneys' effective tax rate for 2011 was 14.1%.
The Romneys donated $4,020,772 to charity in 2011, amounting to nearly 30% of their income.
The Romneys claimed a deduction for $2.25 million of those charitable contributions.
The Romneys' generous charitable donations in 2011 would have significantly reduced their tax obligation for the year. The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13% in income taxes in each of the last 10 year
[
Emphasis added].
Will that result in people shutting the F up? Nope.
From a drudge link:
QuoteMitt Romney's presidential campaign is releasing a brief summary of 20 years of tax returns on Friday, and his accountant says it will show he gave 13.45 percent of his adjusted gross income to charities.
That's nearly twice the rate of President Obama, who according to his tax returns from 2000 through 2011 donated just less than 7 percent of his adjusted gross income to charities
Read more: Romney doubles Obama's charitable giving - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/sep/21/romney-doubles-obamas-charitable-giving/#ixzz278ka2lqY
[
Emphasis].
Just as I imagined.
Just shows how wealthy and out of touch Romney is.
Obama is far more in touch because he hangs out with movie stars, rappers, and billionaires.
Well, he does live in public housing so maybe that's the connection.
Quote from: guido911 on September 21, 2012, 03:55:47 PM
Will that result in people shutting the F up? Nope.
I guess I was wrong. Hearing a whole lot of this in here now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg
Quote from: guido911 on September 21, 2012, 04:48:12 PM
I guess I was wrong. Hearing a whole lot of this in here now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg
Today was not a good day for the administration/campaign.
Still have huge problems overseas, they are contradicting themselves with as well.
Univision was rough on old Obama yesterday.
Romney released more tax info and it was exactly what everyone expected, plus the tiny jab in the eye of paying extra this year. (I understand that was political but still funny nonetheless).
No. I won't shut up.
I don't care about his tax returns for the years he was running for President. It is the years when he wasn't running that show the real Mitt financial tax burden. Are you so dense you can't understand that?
Having a friend summarize his returns ain't good enough. The American people will need to see some of those years before they trust Mitt. Period.
He is getting killed on this issue and must realize that what is on his returns those pre-campaign years would hurt him worse.
Just as I have said all along...RMONEY gave more to his church than America.
Wrong priorities to be POTUS.
Avalanche....
Wow, watching this train wreck of Romney's campaign is kinda sad, kinda amusing.
Can you imagine what would have happened if he'd have chosen Caribou? Wow!
;D
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 21, 2012, 05:33:07 PM
No. I won't shut up.
I don't care about his tax returns for the years he was running for President. It is the years when he wasn't running that show the real Mitt financial tax burden. Are you so dense you can't understand that?
Having a friend summarize his returns ain't good enough. The American people will need to see some of those years before they trust Mitt. Period.
He is getting killed on this issue and must realize that what is on his returns those pre-campaign years would hurt him worse.
Only the people who wouldn't vote for anyone other than Obama in the first place are having trouble with this. If you could pore over every last return, you still would have an excuse as to why his income and his taxes are a problem to you. But it is amusing how people choose to look at non-starters like this rather than facing the truth about the shrinking middle class, $4.00 gas, alarming increases in health insurance rates the last four years, 23 million who are still unemployed and underemployed, and the Middle East heating up. If Obama had been a Republican, that's all we would be hearing about right now, not the Democrat candidate's tax returns. This is some of the pettiest electioneering I've ever heard.
To top it off, the White House can't seem to coordinate their message on the Middle East problems and Obama even continues to lie about the origins of Fast And Furious blaming it on a program the Bush administration had 86'd well before Obama took office.
I have never seen someone so vigorously claim credit for other's successes and blame others for his failures as this president.
And TTC- As someone who understands investing, you should also be aware that his partnerships have likely paid quite a bit in various taxes already.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 21, 2012, 06:15:14 PM
Only the people who wouldn't vote for anyone other than Obama in the first place are having trouble with this. If you could pore over every last return, you still would have an excuse as to why his income and his taxes are a problem.
As well, anyone who understands how business and investing works understands the partnerships from which his gains came from pay their own taxes as well.
Then why doesn't he release them? Smoke...fire....?
Quote from: Hoss on September 21, 2012, 06:23:24 PM
Then why doesn't he release them? Smoke...fire....?
If it keeps your attention distracted from the real problems this country faces...
Quote from: Conan71 on September 21, 2012, 06:24:39 PM
If it keeps your attention distracted from the real problems this country faces...
The question still stands though. Alot of Republicans thought this issue would blow over. It won't. If he's asking his Veep nom for 10 years, doesn't that seem a little strange?
Does anyone but me see the resemblance between the returns and the birth certificate?
The similarities:
Neither will/did likely produce anything the opposition didn't already know (or want to admit).
They were both WAY over hyped with all reason thrown out the window.
Both released something that still didn't make the other side happy.
And the opposition still won't vote for the other candidate.
I think this firmly puts to bed the fact the Republican's do not have exclusivity on lunatics.
This is so freaking hilarious.
Quote from: Hoss on September 21, 2012, 06:25:56 PM
The question still stands though.
Only among people who wouldn't vote for Romney anyway
QuoteA lot of Republicans thought this issue would blow over. It won't. If he's asking his Veep nom for 10 years, doesn't that seem a little strange?
Not really. I can understand the difference between public information, private information, and information that is irrelevant.
Quote from: erfalf on September 21, 2012, 06:26:29 PM
Does anyone but me see the resemblance between the returns and the birth certificate?
The similarities:
Neither will/did likely produce anything the opposition didn't already know (or want to admit).
They were both WAY over hyped with all reason thrown out the window.
Both released something that still didn't make the other side happy.
And the opposition still won't vote for the other candidate.
I think this firmly puts to bed the fact the Republican's do not have exclusivity on lunatics.
This is so freaking hilarious.
Apples and oranges.
No one here is questioning Romney's origin or whether or not he's a citizen. Simply questioning the veracity of his claim to be for the 'middle class' by doing what other candidates have done in the past and release several years of their tax returns. Especially if he's claiming to be a better leader because of his business practices. Why is he hiding it?
That birther crap should have never seen the light of day. The original birth certificate was good enough for other entities, yet not good enough for the Tea Party...oh, wait..what?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 21, 2012, 06:15:14 PM
...facing the truth about the shrinking middle class, $4.00 gas, alarming increases in health insurance rates the last four years, 23 million who are still unemployed and underemployed, and the Middle East heating up.
Those issues have been around a long time...but go ahead and blame Obama for the Middle East heating up (been fighting since 1350 AD), the shrinking middle class (read Time magazine story about this from 2001), increases in health insurance (this was a major issue in the 1920s and led to the creation of Blue Cross Blue Shield and again in the 1950s that led to the creation of Medicare), There was higher gas prices under Bush during the summer of 2008.
But you must think Obama invented all of these issues.
You are the one who keeps changing the topic away from Romney. Yet you claim we are the ones who are changing the topic.
Quote from: Hoss on September 21, 2012, 06:32:35 PM
Apples and oranges.
No one here is questioning Romney's origin or whether or not he's a citizen. Simply questioning the veracity of his claim to be for the 'middle class' by doing what other candidates have done in the past and release several years of their tax returns. Especially if he's claiming to be a better leader because of his business practices. Why is he hiding it?
That birther crap should have never seen the light of day. The original birth certificate was good enough for other entities, yet not good enough for the Tea Party...oh, wait..what?
How can you fail to see the similarity between the birth certificate being good enough for "other entities" and Romney's tax returns being good enough for the election commission? His personal tax returns are not as relevant to his business success as the profit/tax returns of the businesses he ran.
You claim to be neither pro-Obama or anti-Obama but your posts sure don't indicate that supposed position.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 21, 2012, 06:37:16 PM
But you must think Obama invented all of these issues.
No, he just keeps blaming them on Bush. "We" elected Obama to fix the problems. He has had some minor successes but largely he has not done what he was elected to do. I equate Obama to the brakes on my mid 60s car.... good for 1/2 of a panic stop from 70 mph. If there is no wall in front of you, you are OK.
Quote from: Hoss on September 21, 2012, 06:32:35 PM
Apples and oranges.
No one here is questioning Romney's origin or whether or not he's a citizen. Simply questioning the veracity of his claim to be for the 'middle class' by doing what other candidates have done in the past and release several years of their tax returns. Especially if he's claiming to be a better leader because of his business practices. Why is he hiding it?
That birther crap should have never seen the light of day. The original birth certificate was good enough for other entities, yet not good enough for the Tea Party...oh, wait..what?
What?
You discount my claim and then support my claim all in one post.
Quote from: erfalf on September 21, 2012, 06:58:23 PM
What?
You discount my claim and then support my claim all in one post.
Whatever dude.
You're right. You'd fit right in within the Beltway. You've truly missed your calling.
Sent from my GNex with fat fingers
Quote from: Hoss on September 21, 2012, 07:01:40 PM
Whatever dude.
You're right. You'd fit right in within the Beltway. You've truly missed your calling.
Sent from my GNex with fat fingers
Only those with open eyes could see it. ;)
I think the wheels are falling of of Hope and Change.
Quote from: erfalf on September 21, 2012, 07:02:25 PM
Only those with open eyes could see it. ;)
I think the wheels are falling of of Hope and Change.
Wow. Maybe you should be a politician AND a comedian. Funniest thing I've heard all day. Thanks for the laugh.
Sent from my GNex with fat fingers
Quote from: Hoss on September 21, 2012, 07:04:13 PM
Wow. Maybe you should be a politician AND a comedian. Funniest thing I've heard all day. Thanks for the laugh.
Sent from my GNex with fat fingers
Last retort for Hoss, and I'm done for the day.
Just come out of the closet already and admit you are an Obama homer. Because there is no way you couldn't be when nothing Obama does is wrong and everything Romney does is wrong.
Hoss, I thought the birtherism crap was started by Hillary, not the tea party....
QuoteThe answer lies in Democratic, not Republican politics, and in the bitter, exhausting spring of 2008. At the time, the Democratic presidential primary was slipping away from Hillary Clinton and some of her most passionate supporters grasped for something, anything that would deal a final reversal to Barack Obama.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53563.html#ixzz279WAWiJP
And RM, this is a thread about Romney and his tax returns. He apparently produced last year's return which shows, wait for it, NOTHING. Except of course that he gave millions to charity and paid more than a mil in taxes.
Quote from: erfalf on September 21, 2012, 07:08:56 PM
Last retort for Hoss, and I'm done for the day.
Just come out of the closet already and admit you are an Obama homer. Because there is no way you couldn't be when nothing Obama does is wrong and everything Romney does is wrong.
You and Gas must have started a clairvoyancy business together.
Last I checked, this thread was about Romney and his train wreck of a campaign. I'm not voting for either guy as of this moment. But thanks for reading my mind and telling me what you think is in there.
I will say this. Mittens knows how to stick to his guns. Even when he's being cannibalized by some in his own party. Don't see that yet from the other side. And watching Willard's wife lash out at those in the GOP must be painful for the Romney faithful to hear.
Hope the business works out for ya, sonny.
Sent from my GNex with fat fingers
Quote from: Conan71 on September 21, 2012, 06:15:14 PM
Only the people who wouldn't vote for anyone other than Obama in the first place are having trouble with this.
I have never seen someone so vigorously claim credit for other's successes and blame others for his failures as this president.
Thanks for parroting the Fox News viewpoint again... disgusting.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/20/jon-stewart-fox-news-romney-47-percent-video_n_1899787.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
Quote from: guido911 on September 21, 2012, 07:10:52 PM
Hoss, I thought the birtherism crap was started by Hillary, not the tea party....
And RM, this is a thread about Romney and his tax returns. He apparently produced last year's return which shows, wait for it, NOTHING. Except of course that he gave millions to charity and paid more than a mil in taxes.
Yeah, that's a whopping 14 or 15 percent.
I paid more than that in taxes this year and I filed HoH and 2!
Conan, partnerships do not
pay taxes on income as it flows through to the individual . Is it no wonder you don't "get it?"
Quote from: Hoss on September 21, 2012, 07:17:01 PM
I'm not voting for either guy as of this moment.
What a woose. You cannot even make a choice between the lesser of two not so good candidates. By not making a choice, you will relinquish your right to complain for four years.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 21, 2012, 07:46:57 PM
Thanks for parroting the Fox News viewpoint again... disgusting.
Thanks for parroting the left dogma again....disgusting.
Quote from: Hoss on September 21, 2012, 07:50:48 PM
Yeah, that's a whopping 14 or 15 percent. I paid more than that in taxes this year and I filed HoH and 2!
You may have paid a higher percentage but I sincerely doubt you contributed any where near as many dollars to the economy or the tax coffers. I would rather have 13% of $10,000,000 than 50% of $100,000.
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-unique-position-tax-rate-campaign-says-212409425--abc-news-politics.html
Mitt Romney paid extra taxes because he was in the "unique position" of having publicly claimed a 13 percent rate, the Romney campaign said Friday. Romney and his wife, Ann, paid more taxes than they had to in 2011, choosing not to claim deductions for $1.8 million in charitable donations. The Romneys donated just over $4 million to charity in 2011 but claimed deductions on only $2.25 million. In August, Romney said he has paid at least a 13 percent effective rate in past years, and claiming full deductions would have lowered his rate below that mark. The donations would have brought Romney down to a 10.38 percent effective rate, according to CPA Steve Frushtick.
"The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13 percent in income taxes in each of the last 10 years," Romney's blind trustee, Brad Malt, explained in a blog post Friday morning. "I did go back and look at my taxes, and over the past 10 years, I never paid less than 13 percent," Romney said in August, following up on a question asked weeks earlier by ABC's David Muir. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had claimed that Romney paid no taxes in at least one year, according to a source Reid would not name.
Romney aide Michele Davis, a former Treasury official hired by the campaign in August, elaborated Friday on why Romney chose to pay more than he owed. "He has been clear that no American need pay more than he or she owes under the law. At the same time, he was in the unique position of having made a commitment to the public that his tax rate would be above 13 percent," Davis said, in response ABC's email request for more information about Romney's decision. "He directed his preparers to ensure that he is consistent with that statement."
Davis responded in light of another Romney statement. In July, Romney told Muir that if he paid more taxes than necessary, he wouldn't be qualified to be president. "I don't pay more than are legally due, and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president," Romney told Muir. "I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires."
He admits to manipulating his taxes to match his campaign statements.
That is exactly why we need to see the taxes from the years when he was not running for President.
Quote from: Teatownclown on September 21, 2012, 08:58:03 PM
Conan, partnerships do not
pay taxes on income as it flows through to the individual .
Please enlighten us. Exactly how are taxes paid on partnerships.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 21, 2012, 09:37:51 PM
He admits to manipulating his taxes to match his campaign statements.
That is exactly why we need to see the taxes from the years when he was not running for President.
Yes, we need to bust down his doors to see when else he paid "extra" taxes. Seriously. I'll get the pitchfork.
Quote from: RecycleMichael on September 21, 2012, 09:36:40 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/romney-unique-position-tax-rate-campaign-says-212409425--abc-news-politics.html
Mitt Romney paid extra taxes because he was in the "unique position" of having publicly claimed a 13 percent rate, the Romney campaign said Friday. Romney and his wife, Ann, paid more taxes than they had to in 2011, choosing not to claim deductions for $1.8 million in charitable donations. The Romneys donated just over $4 million to charity in 2011 but claimed deductions on only $2.25 million. In August, Romney said he has paid at least a 13 percent effective rate in past years, and claiming full deductions would have lowered his rate below that mark. The donations would have brought Romney down to a 10.38 percent effective rate, according to CPA Steve Frushtick.
"The Romneys thus limited their deduction of charitable contributions to conform to the Governor's statement in August, based upon the January estimate of income, that he paid at least 13 percent in income taxes in each of the last 10 years," Romney's blind trustee, Brad Malt, explained in a blog post Friday morning. "I did go back and look at my taxes, and over the past 10 years, I never paid less than 13 percent," Romney said in August, following up on a question asked weeks earlier by ABC's David Muir. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had claimed that Romney paid no taxes in at least one year, according to a source Reid would not name.
Romney aide Michele Davis, a former Treasury official hired by the campaign in August, elaborated Friday on why Romney chose to pay more than he owed. "He has been clear that no American need pay more than he or she owes under the law. At the same time, he was in the unique position of having made a commitment to the public that his tax rate would be above 13 percent," Davis said, in response ABC's email request for more information about Romney's decision. "He directed his preparers to ensure that he is consistent with that statement."
Davis responded in light of another Romney statement. In July, Romney told Muir that if he paid more taxes than necessary, he wouldn't be qualified to be president. "I don't pay more than are legally due, and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president," Romney told Muir. "I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires."
First you complain that he doesn't pay enough taxes. Then you complain that he paid more than required (unlike Warren Buffet).
YAWN
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 21, 2012, 09:38:46 PM
Please enlighten us. Exactly how are taxes paid on partnerships.
Yes, he's right on this one. Partnerships are required to file a Form 1065, but it is more or less an informational return with NO possibility of a tax liability to the actual partnership. The return will include K1's for each partner, and that is reported on that person/entity's tax return.
Most private equity funds are formed as partnerships. The "fund" never pays taxes, which seems weird, but the fund IS the partners.
On that note, the critics of Romney keep pointing out how his income came from overseas accounts. Pretty much anyone with a IRA/401K will have some "foreign income" and a tax professional will always put "various countries" because it is generally immaterial where it came from. Or in my case it is pointless to break out pennies at a time that came from Australia/China/Wherever.
Quote from: erfalf on September 21, 2012, 09:49:14 PM
Yes, he's right on this one. Partnerships are required to file a Form 1065, but it is more or less an informational return with NO possibility of a tax liability to the actual partnership. The return will include K1's for each partner, and that is reported on that person/entity's tax return.
Most private equity funds are formed as partnerships. The "fund" never pays taxes, which seems weird, but the fund IS the partners.
On that note, the critics of Romney keep pointing out how his income came from overseas accounts. Pretty much anyone with a IRA/401K will have some "foreign income" and a tax professional will always put "various countries" because it is generally immaterial where it came from. Or in my case it is pointless to break out pennies at a time that came from Australia/China/Wherever.
I didn't say he was wrong, I just asked him to enlighten us. I take the standard deduction and exemptions. My taxes are fairly easy, especially with Turbo Tax.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 21, 2012, 09:15:09 PM
Thanks for parroting the left dogma again....disgusting.
Umm. No.
Thanks for trying to create another false political dichotemy... ::)
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 21, 2012, 09:54:14 PM
Umm. No.
Thanks for trying to create another false political dichotemy... ::)
Um, thanks for being your predictable leftist self.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 21, 2012, 09:54:14 PM
Umm. No.
Thanks for trying to create another false political dichotemy... ::)
Umm. No. All the big words you can use doesn't disguise it.
Funny how thinking the same thing at any point that happens to be uttered on Fox or whatever means you are a stooge, but somehow the inverse doesn't seem to have this same characteristic.
Quote from: erfalf on September 21, 2012, 10:01:44 PM
Umm. No. All the big words you can use doesn't disguise it.
You have to forgive him. He is a lawyer. (No offense intended Guido, Cannon Fodder and a few others. Ruff just fits the stereotype so well it's difficult to resist calling a duck a duck.)
QuoteFunny how thinking the same thing at any point that happens to be uttered on Fox or whatever means you are a stooge, but somehow the inverse doesn't seem to have this same characteristic.
OK, he's a leftist lawyer. Probably a product of public education and liberal colleges.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 21, 2012, 09:59:53 PM
Um, thanks for being your predictable leftist self.
Not a leftist. Or a lawyer.
Just not one of the right wing nutjobs you enjoy defending...
I'm from Illinois. I lived in Chicago for the better part of 15 years. I voted for Obama. I want him to be re-elected.
Thanks for being your predictable douchbag self. Now go die in a fire. :P
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 21, 2012, 10:24:19 PM
Not a leftist.
Just not one of the right wing nutjobs you enjoy defending...
I'm from Illinois. I lived in Chicago for the better part of 15 years. I voted for Obama. I want him to be re-elected.
Thanks for being your predictable douchbag self. Now go die in a fire. :P
This is America and you are entitled to your opinion. You are certainly not a right wing nutjob, but you are a leftwing #$#%^^.
I don't consider Illinois or Chicago as a positive credential. Why do you live in Oklahoma?
How predictable of you to call me a douchbag. Fortunately for me, I don't respect anything you say. I expect you do not respect me either.
:P
Edit:
You (or anyone else) resorting to calling anyone a douchbag is a definite sign of a lack of ability to communicate.
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 21, 2012, 10:36:15 PM
Your tactic of creating a false dichotemy is what I am questioning.
And yes. You are a stooge. ;D
Which are you? Moe, Curley, Larry, or Shemp?
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 21, 2012, 10:29:48 PM
This is America and you are entitled to your opinion. You are certainly not a right wing nutjob, but you are a leftwing #$#%^^.
I don't consider Illinois or Chicago as a positive credential. Why do you live in Oklahoma?
How predictable of you to call me a douchbag. Fortunately for me, I don't respect anything you say. I expect you do not respect me either.
:P
I'm going to call you a douchbag... because you're being a douchbag.
I like Chicago, I like Oklahoma... and occasionally I like to post on TulsaNow, despite your insulting replies to posts NEVER ADDRESSED TO YOU.
If you don't respect anything I say.... then why bother responding?
There's an ignore option, isn't there? Or are you just
that obsessed with me... :P
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 21, 2012, 10:45:32 PM
I'm going to call you a douchbag... because you're being a douchbag.
I like Chicago, I like Oklahoma... and occasionally I like to post on TulsaNow, despite your insulting replies to posts NEVER ADDRESSED TO YOU.
If you don't respect anything I say.... then why bother responding?
There's an ignore option, isn't there? Or are you just that obsessed with me... :P
Not obsessed, just annoyed. Again, you are entitled to your opinion. AND, I FEEL OBLIGATED TO RESPOND TO IGNORANCE.
No. I'm thinking you're obsessed... I dare you to NOT respond to this post... we'll see if you have any self control. 8)
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 21, 2012, 10:45:32 PM
I'm going to call you a douchbag... because you're being a douchbag.
I like Chicago, I like Oklahoma... and occasionally I like to post on TulsaNow, despite your insulting replies to posts NEVER ADDRESSED TO YOU.
If you don't respect anything I say.... then why bother responding?
There's an ignore option, isn't there? Or are you just that obsessed with me... :P
Countdown until the soccerbaby goes full Chernobyl: 3...2...1
Okay, I actually felt bad for Howard Dean in having to defend this tax return STUPIDITY that I thought was now put to rest. Listen to the analysts absolutely flay Dean in taking up the incoherent argument countering Romney's paying nearly $2M in taxes and giving $4M to charity.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/22/howard-dean-yeah-harry-reid-has-some-credibility-issues-now-huh/
Quote from: guido911 on September 22, 2012, 02:03:51 AM
Countdown until the soccerbaby goes full Chernobyl: 3...2...1
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNZfhzp70FWi8xWHrcKBS6_mWlxlZHRkAKcKmPG3StOViWLip-Qw)
You'll always be king of the douchebags in my book, Gweed.
Just wanted to clarify so you don't get jealous of RA. ::)
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 23, 2012, 07:41:08 PM
You'll always be king of the douchebags in my book, Gweed.
Just wanted to clarify so you don't get jealous of RA. ::)
Wow! I feel slighted and neglected. I don't know if I can take being 2nd place. ;D
Quote from: TulsaRufnex on September 23, 2012, 07:41:08 PM
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTNZfhzp70FWi8xWHrcKBS6_mWlxlZHRkAKcKmPG3StOViWLip-Qw)
You'll always be king of the douchebags in my book, Gweed.
Just wanted to clarify so you don't get jealous of RA. ::)
Well we all douch daily don't we?
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/noname_zps192e319d.jpg)
Now for some really crazy stuff regarding the tax returns. This is from an Accounting Web article (it was linked from an OSCPA newsletter):
http://www.accountingweb.com/article/secret-out-romney-tax-returns-released/219902
QuoteWhat does the law say about forcing the release of tax returns?
After Harry Reid's assertion that the Romneys paid no taxes for ten years (per his anonymous source), the Huffington Post reported: "According to Title 26 of US Code Section 6103, the treasury secretary can disclose any personal tax return to the president 'or to such employee or employees of the White House Office as the President may designate.'"
In addition, the law permits that certain members of Congress who submit written requests to Geithner can also access Romeny's earlier returns. Specifically, the Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee, and the Joint Committee on Taxation are among those who can access individual tax returns, said the Huffington Post. "A request by anyone except a tax-writing committee has to be accompanied by a Senate or House resolution," Rebecca Wilkins, senior tax counsel at Citizens for Tax Justice.
In other words, tax returns may be personal and confidential, but with enough political leverage, nothing is sacred.
Now, I know for certain that the Pres wouldn't get his feet dirty with this one either way, but someone could know if they wanted to know.
This IS exactly like the birth certificate issue. Barking at the Moon.
Quote from: erfalf on September 27, 2012, 08:41:34 AM
Now for some really crazy stuff regarding the tax returns. This is from an Accounting Web article (it was linked from an OSCPA newsletter):
http://www.accountingweb.com/article/secret-out-romney-tax-returns-released/219902
Now, I know for certain that the Pres wouldn't get his feet dirty with this one either way, but someone could know if they wanted to know.
This IS exactly like the birth certificate issue. Barking at the Moon.
Similar to what I've been saying all along. If he cheated on his taxes, someone would have noticed a long time ago. Don't think for a minute Geithner himself hasn't personally reviewed Romney's returns prior to the 2012 election.
So what do we call these folks with RDS? Taxers?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 27, 2012, 08:45:01 AM
If he cheated on his taxes, someone would have noticed a long time ago.
Funny you say that.
The taxers just filed with the DOJ:
QuoteNew Legal Analysis Finds Strong Possibility of Romney Criminal Liability for Misrepresentation He Made in Federal Financial Disclosure Filings in 2011
He might need to show proof against this multiple times and still a crazy-assed sherriff in the Southwest will claim it's true for years.
Quote from: Townsend on September 27, 2012, 09:32:58 AM
Funny you say that.
The taxers just filed with the DOJ:
He might need to show proof against this multiple times and still a crazy-assed sherriff in the Southwest will claim it's true for years.
Nice, where did you dig that up?
Quote from: Townsend on September 27, 2012, 09:32:58 AM
Funny you say that.
The taxers just filed with the DOJ:
He might need to show proof against this multiple times and still a crazy-assed sherriff in the Southwest will claim it's true for years.
Or a tingly legged journalist on the east coast. ;D
Quote from: Conan71 on September 27, 2012, 11:17:23 AM
Nice, where did you dig that up?
Popped up on my feed.
http://front.moveon.org/legal-analysis-outlines-potential-crime-in-mitt-romneys-financial-disclosures/ (http://front.moveon.org/legal-analysis-outlines-potential-crime-in-mitt-romneys-financial-disclosures/)
Quote from: Conan71 on September 27, 2012, 08:45:01 AM
If he cheated on his taxes, someone would have noticed a long time ago.
Who said they didn't? The IRS catches people using abusive tax shelters every year. They pay the back taxes (without penalty thanks to their magic opinion letters) and move on. Being secret, and most political appointees having the good sense to not look like Nixon reincarnate, nobody outside the IRS even knows.
Besides, his newly released 2011 return proves him unfit to hold office by his own standard. He said that if he paid more than legally owed, he wasn't qualified to be President. He did pay more than he owed. Because he didn't like the optics of paying the less than 13% he would have paid had he deducted all his charitable contributions. Of course, when he loses he can go ahead and file an amended return and get that cool quarter million back from the government.
Quote from: nathanm on September 27, 2012, 01:16:26 PM
Who said they didn't? The IRS catches people using abusive tax shelters every year. They pay the back taxes (without penalty thanks to their magic opinion letters) and move on. Being secret, and most political appointees having the good sense to not look like Nixon reincarnate, nobody outside the IRS even knows.
As I think everyone would agree, tax laws are extremely complicated. Even for tax professionals. It is not black and white many times. Tax "evasion" is a crime, punishable by prison based on the severaty. Mistakenly not paying the correct amount of taxes is not a crime, and if Romney was guilty of this I would lump him in with millions of others that suffer the same fate. Reason to simplify the tax code right there.
Quote from: nathanm on September 27, 2012, 01:16:26 PM
Besides, his newly released 2011 return proves him unfit to hold office by his own standard. He said that if he paid more than legally owed, he wasn't qualified to be President. He did pay more than he owed. Because he didn't like the optics of paying the less than 13% he would have paid had he deducted all his charitable contributions. Of course, when he loses he can go ahead and file an amended return and get that cool quarter million back from the government.
Fortunately for you Romney's standard only affects one vote, his. Unless he was a democrat candidate, then he could vote a couple of times. ;)
Quote from: erfalf on September 27, 2012, 01:30:42 PM
As I think everyone would agree, tax laws are extremely complicated. Even for tax professionals. It is not black and white many times. Tax "evasion" is a crime, punishable by prison based on the severaty. Mistakenly not paying the correct amount of taxes is not a crime, and if Romney was guilty of this I would lump him in with millions of others that suffer the same fate. Reason to simplify the tax code right there.
I'm not sure what that has to do with certain people being allowed to not pay penalties for underpayment. The penalty is not for tax evasion, it is for underpayment. As you correctly state, tax evasion is a crime that must be prosecuted in a court of law, but that's got nothing to do with what I said.
Quote from: nathanm on September 27, 2012, 01:49:05 PM
I'm not sure what that has to do with certain people being allowed to not pay penalties for underpayment. The penalty is not for tax evasion, it is for underpayment. As you correctly state, tax evasion is a crime that must be prosecuted in a court of law, but that's got nothing to do with what I said.
All I was saying is that intent is the key in regards to tax issues. Not that you were wrong or anything.
Quote from: erfalf on September 27, 2012, 01:50:31 PM
All I was saying is that intent is the key in regards to tax issues.
Yes, with regard to a charge of evasion.
About a week before the election I bet you will start to see adds telling us that Romney's dad started the tradition of releasing returns. That Romney himself required ten years of returns when he was interviewing VP candidates. But he doesn't think enough on the public to do the same himself.
Quote from: swake on September 27, 2012, 05:49:20 PM
About a week before the election I bet you will start to see adds telling us that Romney's dad started the tradition of releasing returns. That Romney himself required ten years of returns when he was interviewing VP candidates. But he doesn't think enough on the public to do the same himself.
A taxer wet dream
Quote from: Conan71 on September 27, 2012, 06:35:49 PM
A taxer wet dream
Here's why that's an idiotic comparison: Obama released his birth certificate.
Quote from: nathanm on September 27, 2012, 10:00:58 PM
Here's why that's an idiotic comparison: Obama released his birth certificate.
He only released an acceptable document after he was elected.
If you want to see Romney's taxes, you will have to elect him to be President first.
Quote from: nathanm on September 27, 2012, 10:00:58 PM
Here's why that's an idiotic comparison: Obama released his birth certificate.
And the funny thing is, he put it out there initially (the document that nearly every Hawaiian citizen has as a birth certificate).
Also, there's the people who say it's forged. Haven't seen a taxer version of Orly Taintz yet...ugh!
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQoiMxZIzoCed46ZHl0N11ssxceQOPRdEzmwrF-MN58frBJrXkfwA)
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 27, 2012, 10:46:55 PM
He only released an acceptable document after he was elected.
Acceptable to whom? He released this in June 2008:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/BarackObamaCertificationOfLiveBirthHawaii.jpg/280px-BarackObamaCertificationOfLiveBirthHawaii.jpg)
That looks a lot like the one that got me a driver's license. (I didn't have the original at the time) I'm sure everyone who would like to see more tax returns would be happy with the IRS transcripts.
Quote from: nathanm on September 27, 2012, 10:52:12 PM
Acceptable to whom? He released this in June 2008:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/BarackObamaCertificationOfLiveBirthHawaii.jpg/280px-BarackObamaCertificationOfLiveBirthHawaii.jpg)
That looks a lot like the one that got me a driver's license. (I didn't have the original at the time) I'm sure everyone who would like to see more tax returns would be happy with the IRS transcripts.
Yeah, last I checked, mine also said 'Certificate of Live Birth' on it. My original was pretty ragged so I had to have a replacement...oh hell, that means I was born in Kenya!
Quote from: nathanm on September 27, 2012, 10:52:12 PM
Acceptable to whom? He released this in June 2008:
To most of the folks who thought it was an issue. Obama's citizenship was never an issue for me personally.
Well, contrast that with what Romney has released regarding his pre-2010 returns:
(http://www.nwacg.net/gallery3/var/resizes/random-stuff/romney%20taxes.jpg?m=1348854967)
See the difference?
Quote from: nathanm on September 27, 2012, 10:00:58 PM
Here's why that's an idiotic comparison: Obama released his birth certificate.
Here's why it's similar: It's a pathetic obsession which has nothing to do with the performance of his duties as president if elected.
Secondly, FERC seems more than satisfied with Romney's returns and even if he supplied 20 years worth, he's still going to have Moveon.org filing spurious claims that he cheated on his taxes and that he's a felon.
It becomes the all distracting issue from Obama's poor job performance in all the metrics by which previous administrations have been judged whether Romney releases them or not. It's nothing more than voyeurism in class warfare so Democratic operatives can keep trying to hammer away at the idea of "Romney is nothing like you, he's uber wealthy, a 1%'er and his success has come on the back of your failure." Or it becomes more of an issue with those obsessed with Mormon bashing because a large portion of his charitable giving is via the LDS Church.
It's lose/lose whether he releases them or not and the only people who are worried about it are people who won't vote for him in the first place, much like the birthers would never cast a vote for Obama.
There's plenty of similarities. It's all nothing more than shiny things to get people's minds off the real issues.
The pretty big difference that you ignore being that Obama showed his, despite having proven to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Secretaries of State that he was indeed qualified to be on the ballot. He's got nothing to worry about with releasing pre-2009 returns. They're done, the IRS can't come after him even if it was proven that he evaded a billion dollars in tax. (Assuming he filed) So I'm not sure what exactly you think moveon.org would be filing (or what they have to do with anything beyond being a go-to boogeyman for you).
Quote from: nathanm on September 28, 2012, 12:00:45 PM
The pretty big difference that you ignore being that Obama showed his, despite having proven to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Secretaries of State that he was indeed qualified to be on the ballot. He's got nothing to worry about with releasing pre-2009 returns. They're done, the IRS can't come after him even if it was proven that he evaded a billion dollars in tax. (Assuming he filed) So I'm not sure what exactly you think moveon.org would be filing (or what they have to do with anything beyond being a go-to boogeyman for you).
Uh, in case you missed it, moveon was Tweeting again about Romney being a felon in regards to when he gave up any control on the day to day operations at Bain. Don't think they and other groups running interference for the Obama campaign won't try it.
QuoteMove On points out that "substantial evidence contradicts Romney's claim that he was not "active" in Bain Capital in "any" way after 1999." They add, "Substantial evidence that Mitt Romney may have committed a felony by lying on his financial disclosure forms justifies a criminal investigation—that's the conclusion of a legal analysis released today by MoveOn.org Political Action."
http://www.politicususa.com/moveon-files-complaint-doj-romney-retroactive-retirement-claims.html
And not entirely accurate on the three year statute, there is a six year SOL on certain offenses. Read section 6531, title 26, Clavin.
Hmm, you're right. Six years it is, if he under reported by 25% or more, presuming he's not continuing to under report income, in which case the SoL hasn't started to run yet. Consider me corrected.
And moveon tweeted. Wow. Such a thorn in Romney's side, those tweets. ::)
Quote from: nathanm on September 28, 2012, 12:16:22 PM
Hmm, you're right. Six years it is, if he under reported by 25% or more, presuming he's not continuing to under report income, in which case the SoL hasn't started to run yet. Consider me corrected.
And moveon tweeted. Wow. Such a thorn in Romney's side, those tweets. ::)
It is a big deal. It's a baseless whisper campaign like Harry Reid telling a blatant lie about Romney not paying taxes for ten years. It's gutter Chicago politics at it's worst. The Obama camp can't talk about the real issues because he's failed at them, so there is an orchestrated whisper campaign calling Romney a felon. They know filing spurious claims with the DOJ will get a headline and many voters don't read or listen to anything after the salacious claim that makes it into the headline.
We don't know that's a blatant lie or not. The Romney campaign has worded their statements very carefully to say that he "owed" tax, not "paid" tax, and refused to clarify when journalists asked about it. For example, it's possible that in 2009 he owed 14% or whatever on his income (what a taker, getting paid for doing nothing!) but paid zero because of offsetting losses. I don't really care, TBH, but I do find the double standard among those who accused Obama of being born in Kenya pretty funny.
Moveon is not just tweeting, they are pleading with the justice department to investigate.
http://front.moveon.org/legal-analysis-outlines-potential-crime-in-mitt-romneys-financial-disclosures/
It is just like the looney in Arizona going after Obama.
It does have nothing to do with the election.
You guys are so quick to point out insanity on the right, but couldn't see it for the light of day on the left.
If they are in fact talking to the Justice Department about it, shame on them. (Unless they have nonpublic evidence)
Quote from: erfalf on September 28, 2012, 12:30:17 PM
Moveon is not just tweeting, they are pleading with the justice department to investigate.
http://front.moveon.org/legal-analysis-outlines-potential-crime-in-mitt-romneys-financial-disclosures/
It is just like the looney in Arizona going after Obama.
It does have nothing to do with the election.
You guys are so quick to point out insanity on the right, but couldn't see it for the light of day on the left.
That may be because the insanity on the right has a far higher ratio than on the left. Drowned our in the noise, as it were.
Sent from my GNex with fat fingers
Quote from: nathanm on September 28, 2012, 11:45:40 AM
Well, contrast that with what Romney has released regarding his pre-2010 returns:
(http://imgur.com/EePrq.jpg)
See the difference?
First off, your image is blocked here at work.
Secondly, I don't care what the image is. The difference is that the birthers are/were obsessed with Obama's birth certificate. You, and others, are obsessed with Romney's tax returns. It's really that simple. There are a lot of attempts at justification on both sides of what I consider non-issues.
Obsessed? No. I don't really give a smile if he releases them or not, it's not going to change my mind one way or the other. However, I think it's completely unreasonable to compare people who want to see his tax returns to birthers.
(Sorry your work doesn't like imgur..try again in a sec)
Quote from: Hoss on September 28, 2012, 12:33:55 PM
That may be because the insanity on the right has a far higher ratio than on the left. Drowned our in the noise, as it were.
The intensity and "quality" of the insanity on the left requires at least two or three loons on the right for each one on the left to achieve balance.
Quote from: nathanm on September 28, 2012, 12:56:54 PM
Obsessed? No. I don't really give a smile if he releases them or not,
You sure seem to make a big deal out of it then.
Quoteit's not going to change my mind one way or the other.
I expected as much.
QuoteHowever, I think it's completely unreasonable to compare people who want to see his tax returns to birthers.
We will just have to disagree. This whole tax deal is and the birther deal was pretty much partisan. There were a few crossovers but mostly it's along party lines.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 28, 2012, 01:03:12 PM
You sure seem to make a big deal out of it then.
I make a big deal out of some people being allowed to pay tax at a rate half of what other people with lower incomes do, yes.
The taxers and birthers are looking for the silver bullet that will eliminate the competition. Obama is extremely good at this. Outside of '08 , he used the same protocol in each of his prior elections.
Quote from: erfalf on September 28, 2012, 01:49:05 PM
The taxers and birthers are looking for the silver bullet that will eliminate the competition. Obama is extremely good at this. Outside of '08 , he used the same protocol in each of his prior elections.
I think Mitt is the silver bullet this election. At least his mouth is....
Quote from: Hoss on September 28, 2012, 01:50:38 PM
I think Mitt is the silver bullet this election. At least his mouth is....
Arguably, yes!
Is it me, or is this the Obama strategy. Say as little as humanly possible and hope the opposition looses it.
Quote from: erfalf on September 28, 2012, 01:52:18 PM
Arguably, yes!
Is it me, or is this the Obama strategy. Say as little as humanly possible and hope the opposition looses it.
Challenge a liberal to come up with any specific policies which have been enacted in the last four years that have resulted in an uptick in employment, a definitive energy policy to help control oil prices, and any number of social issues and I have yet to hear a direct answer. It's always deflected back to Bush, Romney's tax returns, Bain Capital, the GOP majority in Congress, or he got Obamacare passed (note original promise was a $2500 per year savings to American families, instead they pay $3000 more per year) and killed Bin Laden.
I do hear, however, that now all the sudden the president has a five point plan to create jobs. WTH was this plan almost four years ago? Oh yeah, I forgot the "healthcare overhaul" was far more impotent.
If Obama is re-elected in November who is he going to blame now for the sorry state of things he's inherited? The GOP Congress?
It's also shocking the volume of enablers and apologists he's got in the media.
Whiner.
Quote from: nathanm on September 28, 2012, 01:05:47 PM
I make a big deal out of some people being allowed to pay tax at a rate half of what other people with lower incomes do, yes.
I would like to make a gross income of what Romney paid in taxes.
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 28, 2012, 09:16:46 PM
I would like to make a gross income of what Romney paid in taxes.
So would I. I'd even be happy to pay tax on it as if it were earned income.
Quote from: nathanm on September 28, 2012, 10:11:12 PM
So would I. I'd even be happy to pay tax on it as if it were earned income.
Some people are able to contribute to society with their labor. Some are more able to contribute with other assets. Please look again at the overall income tax contribution of a median income tax payer. I expect you will come back with a bunch of issues about property tax, payroll tax that
benefits costs lower income tax payers far more than upper income tax payers (even though they will benefit far more as a percentage of their payments than upper income payers.......
Quote from: Red Arrow on September 28, 2012, 10:21:25 PM
Some people are able to contribute to society with their labor. Some are more able to contribute with other assets.
Why do people who don't work for their income deserve to contribute less? Doesn't that make them takers in Romney's parlance?
Quote from: nathanm on September 28, 2012, 10:28:46 PM
Why do people who don't work for their income deserve to contribute less? Doesn't that make them takers in Romney's parlance?
What was your effective tax rate for the last 10 years based on your AGI? You conveniently neglect things like standard deduction and personal exemption(s) that have a greater effect on most of us than the upper 1%.
Then consider things like a 401K and possibly a mortgage deduction. If you have a 5 or low 6 figure (left of the decimal point) income, these are far more significant to you than a lower tax rate for the really weathy.
I'll say it was a higher rate than Romney, not counting payroll tax.
Regarding Romney's 47% commentary:
(http://www.offthechartsblog.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10-18-12tax1.jpg)
Next time, Mitt, only discount the experience of 7% of the country. It doesn't sound nearly as bad as 47%. And isn't as stupid, either.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/romney-avoids-taxes-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html
Just sayin'....
What ever happened to Gloria Allred's October surprise? Or did she conjure Hurricane Sandy?
Quote from: Conan71 on November 06, 2012, 09:12:34 AM
What ever happened to Gloria Allred's October surprise? Or did she conjure Hurricane Sandy?
It turned out to be nearly as dumb as Trump's. Romney testified to the value of Staples shares in a divorce proceeding and possibly lowballed it, leading the Staples founder's ex-wife to sell most of her shares before the IPO for $20 less than the IPO price. She apparently regularly goes back to court to try to get more money out of her ex-husband, this just being the latest instance of trying to shake him down.
Quote from: nathanm on November 06, 2012, 01:28:14 PM
It turned out to be nearly as dumb as Trump's. Romney testified to the value of Staples shares in a divorce proceeding and possibly lowballed it, leading the Staples founder's ex-wife to sell most of her shares before the IPO for $20 less than the IPO price. She apparently regularly goes back to court to try to get more money out of her ex-husband, this just being the latest instance of trying to shake him down.
Pre-IPO it would be dang near impossible to say what the value should have been. If it were possible, we wouldn't have investment banks. And generally speaking, private equity firms are extremely conservative when valuing non-pubilc assets. The regulators are actualling pressuring more and more to write UP investment values to a "fair" value. Prior to this, PE firms usally used cost or most recent financing round valuation as long as it was confirmed by a new investor in the syndicate.
Quote from: nathanm on November 06, 2012, 01:28:14 PM
It turned out to be nearly as dumb as Trump's. Romney testified to the value of Staples shares in a divorce proceeding and possibly lowballed it, leading the Staples founder's ex-wife to sell most of her shares before the IPO for $20 less than the IPO price. She apparently regularly goes back to court to try to get more money out of her ex-husband, this just being the latest instance of trying to shake him down.
Wow, that's lame. I'm sure Gloria was appalled at the lack of attention she got from the media.
I was expecting to hear that Rmoney was in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969.
Quote from: Conan71 on November 06, 2012, 02:56:06 PM
I was expecting to hear that Rmoney was in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969.
That would have explained a lot about that Senate race they ran against each other...
Quote from: Conan71 on November 06, 2012, 02:56:06 PM
Wow, that's lame. I'm sure Gloria was appalled at the lack of attention she got from the media.
I was expecting to hear that Rmoney was in the back seat of Ted Kennedy's Oldsmobile on Chappaquiddick Island in 1969.
I expected another woman. Maybe she was right in thinking that this time around it would have been pretty hard to believe.