• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mitt Romney, liar.

mhaze said:
I don't have a "benchmark", and Kerry/wife filed individual returns, likely for tax purposes. Ever heard of that? Strategies to minimize taxes? That's what Romney seems to be being criticized for here.

Not saying the situations are directly comparable, but certainly it's worth noting that Romney paid and is paying a HIGHER PERCENTAGE than the Kerrys (net). And that Mrs. Kerry didn't and would not part with more than 1 year of returns.
Click to expand...

How many years has Ann released? How many did Cindy McCain? How many did Laura Bush?

So if you don't have a "benchmark", it appears you are just making ad hoc standards based on your preferred outcome.
 
Romney campaign said:
None of Gov. Romney’s investments are tax shelters—not one of them
Click to expand...
Can someone explain why one would establish a company in the Caymans if not for a tax advantage?
 
varwoche said:
Can someone explain why one would establish a company in the Caymans if not for a tax advantage?
Click to expand...

Speaking of tax shelters, I wonder when the Obama people will start asking about Romney's IRA account which used a max 6k a year contribution to balloon to its current worth of $100M?

Does that qualify as a tax shelter, being, you know, tax free?
 
mhaze said:
I don't have a "benchmark", and Kerry/wife filed individual returns, likely for tax purposes. Ever heard of that? Strategies to minimize taxes? That's what Romney seems to be being criticized for here.

Not saying the situations are directly comparable, but certainly it's worth noting that Romney paid and is paying a HIGHER PERCENTAGE than the Kerrys (net). And that Mrs. Kerry didn't and would not part with more than 1 year of returns. Should she have?
Click to expand...

Well, that tears it. I'm definitely not voting for Kerry now!
 
Unabogie said:
Speaking of tax shelters, I wonder when the Obama people will start asking about Romney's IRA account which used a max 6k a year contribution to balloon to its current worth of $100M?

Does that qualify as a tax shelter, being, you know, tax free?
Click to expand...

Yeah, no kidding. I'd really like to know about this, as my own IRA is worth quite a bit less. Obviously Romney is some kind of super-genius, which is why he's qualified to lead us.
 
Changing the direction a little bit, one thing that could seriously bite Romney in the butt was Bain Capital's involvement with Stericycle which is a company that disposes of medical waste, including (insert scary chord) aborted fetuses. Now of course, Romney claims he wasn't involved with Bain at the time, but SEC documents dispute that.

Now personally, I don't find this to be a big deal at all, since I'm pro-choice, but if certain PACs start slipping notes under winshields come October, then Romney could be in a world of hurt with the ultra-religious part of his base. And if he ever does release his tax returns and we find that he lied about his disassociation with Bain during this time, the bite marks on his butt will be deeper and more numerous.
 
Tricky said:
Changing the direction a little bit, one thing that could seriously bite Romney in the butt was Bain Capital's involvement with Stericycle which is a company that disposes of medical waste, including (insert scary chord) aborted fetuses.
Click to expand...

I think this is exactly the kind of thing that might keep my Pro-life touchstone (my mom) from voting at all this year.

If research with embryonic stem cells (even from "waste" embryos left over from IVF) is something that rallies them, then so will this.

ETA: OTOH, I don't think it will be helpful for the Obama campaign itself to publicize the Stericycle thing (what with him having a pro-choice position and appealing primarily to pro-choice voters). I suppose that'll be the job of a PAC.
 
Last edited:
ON the point I think mhaze is trying to make by discussing Kerry (that the 2 years of returns Romney will have released is conventional) was fact checked here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...al-contenders/2012/07/16/gJQAChunpW_blog.html

FWIW, Kerry's wife did eventually publicize the first 2 pages of her 2003 return.

But I fail to see what that has to do with anything in 2012. Both Obama and Romney filed joint returns with their wives.
 
Dymanic said:
"The Obama campaign people keep on wanting more and more and more, more things for their opposition research to pick through and make a mountain out of."

Romney just openly admitted that those tax returns contain information that could be used against him.
Click to expand...


You're familiar with the phrase "make a mountain out of a molehill", correct? What Romney is actually saying is that there is nothing significant in those tax returns, but that the Obama campaign will take what's in those returns and blow it out of proportion.

I have no idea whether that's the case or whether there is truly something damaging in those returns, but it's ridiculous to try to spin that statement into some sort of admission of guilt. Just because you admit that your opposition will use something against you doesn't mean you believe it has any legitimacy.
 
Indeed. I have trouble understanding the logic behind the excuse "Well, Kerry's wife didn't release enough of her tax returns either!"

Number one, Kerry's wife was not running for public office; it's one thing to expect transparency in our public officials, but Mrs. Kerry was technically a private citizen, and her husband was not running on the platform that his wife's money would help him run the country. In contrast, Romney IS running for public office, and IS running more or less on the idea that his ability to make money will help him run the country. His tax returns are therefore germane to the discussion in a way that Mrs. Kerry's are not. Number two, the vast majority of candidates have followed Romney's own father's example and have released a sufficient amount of their tax returns in order to provide transparency in the last several decades; I am not personally aware of anyone aside from Romney (when considering people running for public office, incidentally, not their spouses) who has categorically refused to do so in the face of overwhelming calls to do so. I see in the article Joe cites another group claiming that Romney gave McCain 23 years worth of tax returns; while I don't know if that number is accurate, it seems fairly clear that Romney has had no problem releasing such things in the past, albeit in circumstances that would keep them out of the public eye. What has changed now? His primary opponent has released, in total, eleven years worth (the seven years released while running for the Presidency and every year in office since), and those tax returns provided an excellent overview of the President's fiscal life leading up to office.

The way Romney keeps dithering on, I can't help but feel that little notion that he's trying to hide something grow more and more strong as time passes.
 
boooeee said:
You're familiar with the phrase "make a mountain out of a molehill", correct? What Romney is actually saying is that there is nothing significant in those tax returns, but that the Obama campaign will take what's in those returns and blow it out of proportion.

I have no idea whether that's the case or whether there is truly something damaging in those returns, but it's ridiculous to try to spin that statement into some sort of admission of guilt. Just because you admit that your opposition will use something against you doesn't mean you believe it has any legitimacy.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. But until we see the return, we don't know what is there, and there might be dragons.
 
boooeee said:
You're familiar with the phrase "make a mountain out of a molehill", correct? What Romney is actually saying is that there is nothing significant in those tax returns, but that the Obama campaign will take what's in those returns and blow it out of proportion.
Click to expand...
I think the electorate deserves an opportunity to decide for themselves whether what Romney considers a "molehill" is a reasonable match with what they consider a "molehill".
 
boooeee said:
You're familiar with the phrase "make a mountain out of a molehill", correct? What Romney is actually saying is that there is nothing significant in those tax returns, but that the Obama campaign will take what's in those returns and blow it out of proportion.

I have no idea whether that's the case or whether there is truly something damaging in those returns, but it's ridiculous to try to spin that statement into some sort of admission of guilt. Just because you admit that your opposition will use something against you doesn't mean you believe it has any legitimacy.
Click to expand...
As George Will points out, there is a cost to not releasing the returns. The decision not to release is obviously based on the assumption that releasing the returns will be worse than not. The molehill argument strikes me as weak sauce. One person's molehill is another person's mountain. Romney is running on his business background. The taxes speak volumes of that background.
 
As I understand it, the Obama campaign is chiefly interested in Romney's tax returns because it has the (likely) potential of giving them ammunition to make the tax rate a bit more fair. If Romney is shown to be taxed at a rate lower than one might think is logical, then they have more ammunition to provide to the American people regarding raising the tax rate on the top earners in the US. I think the (unlikely) potential illegality of Romney's years at Bain are a distant second consideration, if they're a consideration at all; I notice the Obama campaign, after that one statement that Romney COULD have committed a felony if he lied to the SEC about his time at Bain, has said absolutely nothing further on the matter, and they appeared to me to only bring it up as a hypothetical at best and didn't appear to believe it themselves.
 
boooeee said:
You're familiar with the phrase "make a mountain out of a molehill", correct? What Romney is actually saying is that there is nothing significant in those tax returns, but that the Obama campaign will take what's in those returns and blow it out of proportion.
Click to expand...
"Pay no attention to that man behind the screen!"

Right. Even Toto saw through that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom