[Merged] Why won't Romney release his tax records?

MattusMaximus · 10th July 2012, 07:43 AM

So if President Obama can release his birth certificate to show whack-a-doodle conspiracy nuts that he's a U.S. citizen, then why can't Romney release his tax returns like his own father did when he set the standard in 1968? Seems like the Republicans are applying quite the double-standard...

Romney on his finances: ‘There’s nothing hidden there’

Quote:

Mitt Romney responded to attacks from President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies who have suggested he's hiding details about his personal finances, calling the accusations nothing more than an attempt to distract voters.

In an interview with Radio Iowa's O. Kay Henderson, the Republican nominee insisted he has little to do with his personal investments because they are managed by a blind trust.

"I don't manage them," Romney said. "I don't even know where they are."

Responding to reports that some of his investments have been overseas, Romney insisted his "trustee follows all U.S. laws." He added: "All the taxes are paid, as appropriate. All of them have been reported to the government. There's nothing hidden there." ...

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

So if President Obama can release his birth certificate to show whack-a-doodle conspiracy nuts that he's a U.S. citizen, then why can't Romney release his tax returns like his own father did when he set the standard in 1968? Seems like the Republicans are applying quite the double-standard...

If Romney is willing to release his birth certificate, then there's absolutely no double standard involved, because birth certificates and tax returns are not the same thing. Whether or not you think withholding them is the right standard, it doesn't constitute a double standard.

But given the time it took for Obama to release his birth certificate (as in, years after the election), I find it curious that you've got your panties in a bunch already. Actually, I lie: I don't find it curious.

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 07:49 AM

What business have we to question the elite, after all.

They are above the law, and above ethics, and they own us, so we better stop asking questions.

(Apologies to Cain, I know this sort of snark is your schtick.)

MattusMaximus · 10th July 2012, 07:51 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

If Romney is willing to release his birth certificate, then there's absolutely no double standard involved, because birth certificates and tax returns are not the same thing. Whether or not you think withholding them is the right standard, it doesn't constitute a double standard.

Ok, you're right.

So why exactly won't Romney release his tax returns, just as President Obama has done? And just as Romney's own father did in 1968?

Quote:

But given the time it took for Obama to release his birth certificate (as in, years after the election), I find it curious that you've got your panties in a bunch already. Actually, I lie: I don't find it curious.

Once again, I admit you are correct on this. So let us move on to the question at hand...

Since Romney's own father released 12 years of tax returns prior to the 1968 election, why won't Mitt do it?

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Ok, you're right.

So why exactly won't Romney release his tax returns, just as President Obama has done? And just as Romney's own father did in 1968?

I don't know that he won't. I only know he hasn't yet. Can you tell the difference?

As for why, I can imagine lots of reasons. He could be playing rope-a-dope, for all I know. Seemed to work reasonably well for Obama and his birth certificate.

MattusMaximus · 10th July 2012, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I don't know that he won't. I only know he hasn't yet. Can you tell the difference?

Yeah, sure. He's "got nothing to hide"... so he's hiding it.

Quote:

As for why, I can imagine lots of reasons. He could be playing rope-a-dope, for all I know. Seemed to work reasonably well for Obama and his birth certificate.

Are you seriously implying that the question of President Obama's citizenship was ever a legitimate question, Zig?

Seriously?

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 08:05 AM

Zig, you're better than that, really.

DavidJames · 10th July 2012, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Are you seriously implying that the question of President Obama's citizenship was ever a legitimate question, Zig?

Seriously?

No complaint against a Republican can go unchallenged. When, as in this case, there is no actual substance to the challenge, you go with what you got, in this case birther crap.

If you're willing to play, what will follow will be a pages of tedious, semantics laden back and forth attempts to ensure the OP never actually gets addressed

Brown · 10th July 2012, 08:07 AM

Hmm, Rmoney telling an Iowa audience that there is nothing improper about income that might be legally sheltered from taxes. Iowans would understand that, right? It's just smart economics, right?

Ask Roxanne Conlin. When she ran for governor of Iowa, it was revealed that she had legally sheltered her income from taxation, such that she paid a hell of a lot less in taxes than many of the State's citizens. And many Iowans found that to be a shady practice, even if legal. She lost the election.

Dumb All Over · 10th July 2012, 08:09 AM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

So why exactly won't Romney release his tax returns, just as President Obama has done?

Maybe for the same reason Mr. Obama won't release his college records? One can only speculate.

Upchurch · 10th July 2012, 08:11 AM

I thought candidates releasing their tax records was a fairly standard thing these days. I don't know if there is a usual time for them to do it (sometime after April, obviously).

Is that not the case?

TragicMonkey · 10th July 2012, 08:12 AM

I suspect he's had business dealings with international organized crime and wishes to conceal it. Got a few African dictator friends, perhaps? Or maybe he launders money for the giant drug rings. Or perhaps he's in bed with the yakuza or Russian mafia? Or selling uranium to Iran and North Korea? Chemical weapons trading?

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Are you seriously implying that the question of President Obama's citizenship was ever a legitimate question, Zig?

Seriously?

I'm not sure how you could get my argument completely backwards, unless you don't know what the phrase rope-a-dope means.

When I said it worked well for Obama, I meant that Obama came out on top. It worked well for him, not his critics. There was nothing to the controversy, it never had legitimacy, but it's precisely because there was no legitimacy that letting it continue helped him. It made his critics look foolish.

And Romney could be playing the same game. Don't release the returns, let his critics get worked up into a good lather about it, then once they're heavily invested in the topic and have expended a lot of their energy on it, release returns which show... nothing controversial. Rope-a-dope.

pgwenthold · 10th July 2012, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I thought candidates releasing their tax records was a fairly standard thing these days. I don't know if there is a usual time for them to do it (sometime after April, obviously).

Is that not the case?

I was going to say the same thing. I find the exercise generally pointless, but it seems pretty much SOP.

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by Brown

Hmm, Rmoney telling an Iowa audience that there is nothing improper about income that might be legally sheltered from taxes. Iowans would understand that, right? It's just smart economics, right?

What, have you never heard of a 401(k) or an IRA? Legally sheltered income. Yeah, I do think a lot of voters understand the concept.

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 08:16 AM

I am only left with the feeling that Romney is hiding something. Something terrible.

pgwenthold · 10th July 2012, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What, have you never heard of a 401(k) or an IRA? Legally sheltered income. Yeah, I do think a lot of voters understand the concept.

And Brown just provided you with a case where, while they may have understood the concept, they weren't happy with it.

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 08:19 AM

Krugman's take on this; http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2012/07...x-returns.html

Quote:

<SNIP>

Put it this way: Has there ever before been a major presidential candidate who had a multimillion-dollar Swiss bank account, plus tens of millions invested in the Cayman Islands, famed as a tax haven? And then there's his Individual Retirement Account. IRAs are supposed to help middle-class savers through annual contributions limited to a few thousand dollars. Somehow Romney has from $20 million to $101 million in his account.

There are legitimate ways that could happen, just as there are potentially legitimate reasons for parking large sums of money in overseas tax havens. But we don't know which, if any, of those legitimate reasons apply in Romney's case because he has refused to release any details.

Unless he reveals the truth about his investments, we can only assume he's hiding something seriously damaging.

Tricky · 10th July 2012, 08:20 AM

Being a natural born citizen is a required qualification for President.

Showing income is not.

However, if Romney doesn't release his tax forms, Obama will hammer him for it, and justifiably so.

That's really all there is to this.

Monketey Ghost · 10th July 2012, 08:20 AM

Red Herringville, here we come

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

Being a natural born citizen is a required qualification for President.

Showing income is not.

However, if Romney doesn't release his tax forms, Obama will hammer him for it, and justifiably so.

That's really all there is to this.

Exactly. Not a matter of law. A matter of trust.

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What, have you never heard of a 401(k) or an IRA? Legally sheltered income. Yeah, I do think a lot of voters understand the concept.

Romney's 401K has between 20 and 101 million in it according to Krugman.

Puppycow · 10th July 2012, 08:22 AM

Quote:

There's nothing hidden there.

Then why is he hiding them?

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 08:23 AM

Here is the question I have; What does Obama know?

There are a lot of ways he could know the content of those returns, and I feel he has a strong clue as to what is there to see, or he would not have pressed for them.

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

And Brown just provided you with a case where, while they may have understood the concept, they weren't happy with it.

Conlin was also a Democrat. I suspect that much of the response was due to a perception of hypocrisy, but given that the Wikipedia entry for her doesn't even mention the issue, so I have to wonder whether it really was that big a deal. And since Republicans are generally in favor of lower taxes to begin with, taking advantage of tax shelters is more in line with their platform to begin with, so it's probably not going to change many people's minds.

Brown · 10th July 2012, 08:25 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What, have you never heard of a 401(k) or an IRA? Legally sheltered income. Yeah, I do think a lot of voters understand the concept.

Sure they do. What people don't care for is that someone who makes twenty times as much money as they do paying less tax due to breaks that only rich people can get. As far as I know, no one has ever begrudged a politician a retirement plan or a home interest deduction. But certain big-money real estate and capital expenditure tax-dodges are beyond the reach of the average person.

In Conlin's case, her supporters said, "Look, she is doing what the law allows. She didn't make the laws, but she is entitled to take advantage of them. In fact, she'd be economically foolish not to. And besides, the fact that she has assets doesn't mean that she has taxable income, and income taxes tax income rather than assets." All of which may have been true, but taxpayers just didn't like the end result of a wealthy person paying no taxes. Conlin had to issue a statement in which she pledged that in the coming years, she WOULD pay taxes (even if legally she didn't have to). But she ended up losing anyway.

Monketey Ghost · 10th July 2012, 08:26 AM

One thing's certain, and that is that Team O will smack Romney for not releasing/refusing to release/hiding stuff.

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Romney's 401K has between 20 and 101 million in it according to Krugman.

Good for Romney. I'd love to have that much money in my 401(k).

Upchurch · 10th July 2012, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I am only left with the feeling that Romney is hiding something. Something terrible.

I don't know why. Heck, maybe he got an extension and is still getting his taxes worked out.

I imagine the guy has a lot of income from a lot of different sources. That can take a while to sort out, let alone put into a format that is easy to distribute to the general public. I have a bit of farm land I inherited from my grandparents. That alone adds something like ten sheets of paper to my returns with various receipts and documentation. Romney's has to be something like a thousand times that.

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 08:32 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I don't know why. Heck, maybe he got an extension and is still getting his taxes worked out.

I imagine the guy has a lot of income from a lot of different sources. That can take a while to sort out, let alone put into a format that is easy to distribute to the general public. I have a bit of farm land I inherited from my grandparents. That alone adds something like ten sheets of paper to my returns with various receipts and documentation. Romney's has to be something like a thousand times that.

A form it can be released to the public? Why, sir, why not the exact form it was sent to the IRS and to the State in?

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by Brown

Sure they do. What people don't care for is that someone who makes twenty times as much money as they do paying less tax due to breaks that only rich people can get.

Only rich people can get the tax break of a 401(k)? You contradict yourself.

There are more tax breaks that the poor can use that the rich cannot than that the rich can use but the poor cannot. The only reason that the rich often do use more (not can use more) is that they have more money period. But, duh. That's what makes them rich.

Quote:

All of which may have been true, but taxpayers just didn't like the end result of a wealthy person paying no taxes.

You didn't say that she paid no taxes. That obviously creates a very different perception than simply a reduced tax burden. And there's no reason to think that Romney paid no taxes, so there's no reason to think this is equivalent.

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 08:35 AM

I have a proposition; We need to change the law such that any person who is on the ballot for president in more than 5 states has his federal tax filings going back a decade automatically released by the IRS.

ANTPogo · 10th July 2012, 08:36 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

But given the time it took for Obama to release his birth certificate (as in, years after the election)

Obama released his birth certificate on June 12, 2008, five months before the election.

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Obama released his birth certificate on June 12, 2008, five months before the election.

Correct me if I am wrong, Zig, but you were not among the nattering nabobs who demanded the "long form", were you?

Monketey Ghost · 10th July 2012, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Obama released his birth certificate on June 12, 2008, five months before the election.

red herring, belly-up in the water

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 08:40 AM

So, speculation time;

What is Romney hiding?

Since he will not tell the truth, we are free to imagine anything at all.

Like;

"He is hiding the fact that he gave huge charitable contributions to Scientology."

Tricky · 10th July 2012, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And since Republicans are generally in favor of lower taxes to begin with, taking advantage of tax shelters is more in line with their platform to begin with, so it's probably not going to change many people's minds.

True, but Republicans, especially Tea Party Republicans, are not particularly in favor of sending money to foreign interests, legally or otherwise. They don't like outsourcing jobs. They don't like outsourcing money. If Obama plays on this, it's going to influence some red-blooded patriots to have second thoughts about Romney.

Brown · 10th July 2012, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Conlin was also a Democrat. I suspect that much of the response was due to a perception of hypocrisy, but given that the Wikipedia entry for her doesn't even mention the issue, so I have to wonder whether it really was that big a deal. And since Republicans are generally in favor of lower taxes to begin with, taking advantage of tax shelters is more in line with their platform to begin with, so it's probably not going to change many people's minds.

Well, there are a couple of things. First, deep party hatred was not as prevalent then. Although Conlin lost to a Republican, the next two Iowa governors were Democrats.

Conlin was a little more hampered by the fact that she was a trial lawyer and a female, of whom many in Iowa were suspicious. Her opponent was a lawyer as well, but he was a man and he was not a trial lawyer. Before going into private practice, Conlin had been a US attorney (she'd passed the bar at age 21) and had received national attention.

And with all respect to Wikipedia, it doesn't say much about the race at all, which was 30 years ago. The tax issue was a big deal. It came up in the gubernatorial debates, and Conlin had to humbly reaffirm before the TV cameras that she WOULD pay taxes. There were political cartoons about it. In a race in which Conlin was widely recognized as being considerably smarter than her opponent, it made her look foolish.

Upchurch · 10th July 2012, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

A form it can be released to the public? Why, sir, why not the exact form it was sent to the IRS and to the State in?

I don't know about you, but for me, that's a big stack of loose papers. My tax preparer sends me a copy that is nicely bound and organized.

I'm not suggesting that he should manipulate the actual data or even not give out copies of the forms sent. I'm just talking about presentation.

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Correct me if I am wrong, Zig, but you were not among the nattering nabobs who demanded the "long form", were you?

I certainly wasn't. But they existed, and Obama played rope-a-dope with them. That's my point.

10th July 2012, 07:43 AM	#1
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Why won't Romney release his tax records? So if President Obama can release his birth certificate to show whack-a-doodle conspiracy nuts that he's a U.S. citizen, then why can't Romney release his tax returns like his own father did when he set the standard in 1968? Seems like the Republicans are applying quite the double-standard... Romney on his finances: ‘There’s nothing hidden there’ Quote: Mitt Romney responded to attacks from President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies who have suggested he's hiding details about his personal finances, calling the accusations nothing more than an attempt to distract voters. In an interview with Radio Iowa's O. Kay Henderson, the Republican nominee insisted he has little to do with his personal investments because they are managed by a blind trust. "I don't manage them," Romney said. "I don't even know where they are." Responding to reports that some of his investments have been overseas, Romney insisted his "trustee follows all U.S. laws." He added: "All the taxes are paid, as appropriate. All of them have been reported to the government. There's nothing hidden there." ...
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

10th July 2012, 07:47 AM	#2
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,187	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus So if President Obama can release his birth certificate to show whack-a-doodle conspiracy nuts that he's a U.S. citizen, then why can't Romney release his tax returns like his own father did when he set the standard in 1968? Seems like the Republicans are applying quite the double-standard... If Romney is willing to release his birth certificate, then there's absolutely no double standard involved, because birth certificates and tax returns are not the same thing. Whether or not you think withholding them is the right standard, it doesn't constitute a double standard. But given the time it took for Obama to release his birth certificate (as in, years after the election), I find it curious that you've got your panties in a bunch already. Actually, I lie: I don't find it curious.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

10th July 2012, 07:49 AM	#3
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,117	What business have we to question the elite, after all. They are above the law, and above ethics, and they own us, so we better stop asking questions. (Apologies to Cain, I know this sort of snark is your schtick.)
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2012, 07:51 AM	#4
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Ziggurat If Romney is willing to release his birth certificate, then there's absolutely no double standard involved, because birth certificates and tax returns are not the same thing. Whether or not you think withholding them is the right standard, it doesn't constitute a double standard. Ok, you're right. So why exactly won't Romney release his tax returns, just as President Obama has done? And just as Romney's own father did in 1968? Quote: But given the time it took for Obama to release his birth certificate (as in, years after the election), I find it curious that you've got your panties in a bunch already. Actually, I lie: I don't find it curious. Once again, I admit you are correct on this. So let us move on to the question at hand... Since Romney's own father released 12 years of tax returns prior to the 1968 election, why won't Mitt do it?
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

10th July 2012, 07:57 AM	#5
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,187	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Ok, you're right. So why exactly won't Romney release his tax returns, just as President Obama has done? And just as Romney's own father did in 1968? I don't know that he won't. I only know he hasn't yet. Can you tell the difference? As for why, I can imagine lots of reasons. He could be playing rope-a-dope, for all I know. Seemed to work reasonably well for Obama and his birth certificate.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

10th July 2012, 08:01 AM	#6
MattusMaximus Intellectual Gladiator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: In the midst of a vast, beautiful & uncaring universe Posts: 14,175	Originally Posted by Ziggurat I don't know that he won't. I only know he hasn't yet. Can you tell the difference? Yeah, sure. He's "got nothing to hide"... so he's hiding it. Quote: As for why, I can imagine lots of reasons. He could be playing rope-a-dope, for all I know. Seemed to work reasonably well for Obama and his birth certificate. Are you seriously implying that the question of President Obama's citizenship was ever a legitimate question, Zig? Seriously?
	__________________ Visit my blog: The Skeptical Teacher The Times They Are A-Changin'

10th July 2012, 08:05 AM	#7
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,117	Zig, you're better than that, really.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2012, 08:06 AM	#8
DavidJames Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Front Range, CO Posts: 7,085	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Are you seriously implying that the question of President Obama's citizenship was ever a legitimate question, Zig? Seriously? No complaint against a Republican can go unchallenged. When, as in this case, there is no actual substance to the challenge, you go with what you got, in this case birther crap. If you're willing to play, what will follow will be a pages of tedious, semantics laden back and forth attempts to ensure the OP never actually gets addressed
	__________________ I will no longer respond to those who choose to have tools of murder as their avatars. Everyone is a skeptic except, of course, for the stuff that they believe Beaver Hateman: Is your argument that human life loses value proportionate to the number of humans available? Malcolm Kirkpatrick: That's part of the argument. Value is determined by supply and demand. Last edited by DavidJames; 10th July 2012 at 08:09 AM.

10th July 2012, 08:07 AM	#9
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,148	Hmm, Rmoney telling an Iowa audience that there is nothing improper about income that might be legally sheltered from taxes. Iowans would understand that, right? It's just smart economics, right? Ask Roxanne Conlin. When she ran for governor of Iowa, it was revealed that she had legally sheltered her income from taxation, such that she paid a hell of a lot less in taxes than many of the State's citizens. And many Iowans found that to be a shady practice, even if legal. She lost the election.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

10th July 2012, 08:09 AM	#10
Dumb All Over A Little Ugly on the Side Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: They call it the Earth (which is a dumb kinda name) Posts: 3,692	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus So why exactly won't Romney release his tax returns, just as President Obama has done? Maybe for the same reason Mr. Obama won't release his college records? One can only speculate.
	__________________ The Three Word Story Pledge of Allegiance-- "I Hereby swear upon Engelbert's grave that I will gallop, not stride run, not walk posting three words on Shemp's honor, honoring: bananas, dwarfs, clarinets, [the 7th naughty word], haggis, Batman, nuns, wombats until such time as I'm sober. Or dead." "Some people have a way with words, other people...Um...Oh...Uh, not have way." --Steve Martin

10th July 2012, 08:11 AM	#11
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	I thought candidates releasing their tax records was a fairly standard thing these days. I don't know if there is a usual time for them to do it (sometime after April, obviously). Is that not the case?

10th July 2012, 08:12 AM	#12
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,069	I suspect he's had business dealings with international organized crime and wishes to conceal it. Got a few African dictator friends, perhaps? Or maybe he launders money for the giant drug rings. Or perhaps he's in bed with the yakuza or Russian mafia? Or selling uranium to Iran and North Korea? Chemical weapons trading?
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

10th July 2012, 08:14 AM	#13
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,187	Originally Posted by MattusMaximus Are you seriously implying that the question of President Obama's citizenship was ever a legitimate question, Zig? Seriously? I'm not sure how you could get my argument completely backwards, unless you don't know what the phrase rope-a-dope means. When I said it worked well for Obama, I meant that Obama came out on top. It worked well for him, not his critics. There was nothing to the controversy, it never had legitimacy, but it's precisely because there was no legitimacy that letting it continue helped him. It made his critics look foolish. And Romney could be playing the same game. Don't release the returns, let his critics get worked up into a good lather about it, then once they're heavily invested in the topic and have expended a lot of their energy on it, release returns which show... nothing controversial. Rope-a-dope.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

10th July 2012, 08:16 AM	#14
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,068	Originally Posted by Upchurch I thought candidates releasing their tax records was a fairly standard thing these days. I don't know if there is a usual time for them to do it (sometime after April, obviously). Is that not the case? I was going to say the same thing. I find the exercise generally pointless, but it seems pretty much SOP.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

10th July 2012, 08:16 AM	#15
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,187	Originally Posted by Brown Hmm, Rmoney telling an Iowa audience that there is nothing improper about income that might be legally sheltered from taxes. Iowans would understand that, right? It's just smart economics, right? What, have you never heard of a 401(k) or an IRA? Legally sheltered income. Yeah, I do think a lot of voters understand the concept.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

10th July 2012, 08:17 AM	#17
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,068	Originally Posted by Ziggurat What, have you never heard of a 401(k) or an IRA? Legally sheltered income. Yeah, I do think a lot of voters understand the concept. And Brown just provided you with a case where, while they may have understood the concept, they weren't happy with it.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

10th July 2012, 08:19 AM	#18
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,117	Krugman's take on this; http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2012/07...x-returns.html Quote: <SNIP> Put it this way: Has there ever before been a major presidential candidate who had a multimillion-dollar Swiss bank account, plus tens of millions invested in the Cayman Islands, famed as a tax haven? And then there's his Individual Retirement Account. IRAs are supposed to help middle-class savers through annual contributions limited to a few thousand dollars. Somehow Romney has from $20 million to $101 million in his account. There are legitimate ways that could happen, just as there are potentially legitimate reasons for parking large sums of money in overseas tax havens. But we don't know which, if any, of those legitimate reasons apply in Romney's case because he has refused to release any details. Unless he reveals the truth about his investments, we can only assume he's hiding something seriously damaging.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2012, 08:20 AM	#19
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,359	Being a natural born citizen is a required qualification for President. Showing income is not. However, if Romney doesn't release his tax forms, Obama will hammer him for it, and justifiably so. That's really all there is to this.

10th July 2012, 08:20 AM	#20
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,808	Red Herringville, here we come
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

10th July 2012, 08:20 AM	#21
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,117	Originally Posted by Tricky Being a natural born citizen is a required qualification for President. Showing income is not. However, if Romney doesn't release his tax forms, Obama will hammer him for it, and justifiably so. That's really all there is to this. Exactly. Not a matter of law. A matter of trust.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2012, 08:21 AM	#22
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,117	Originally Posted by Ziggurat What, have you never heard of a 401(k) or an IRA? Legally sheltered income. Yeah, I do think a lot of voters understand the concept. Romney's 401K has between 20 and 101 million in it according to Krugman.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2012, 08:22 AM	#23
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,741	Quote: There's nothing hidden there. Then why is he hiding them?
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

10th July 2012, 08:23 AM	#24
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,117	Here is the question I have; What does Obama know? There are a lot of ways he could know the content of those returns, and I feel he has a strong clue as to what is there to see, or he would not have pressed for them.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2012, 08:25 AM	#25
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,187	Originally Posted by pgwenthold And Brown just provided you with a case where, while they may have understood the concept, they weren't happy with it. Conlin was also a Democrat. I suspect that much of the response was due to a perception of hypocrisy, but given that the Wikipedia entry for her doesn't even mention the issue, so I have to wonder whether it really was that big a deal. And since Republicans are generally in favor of lower taxes to begin with, taking advantage of tax shelters is more in line with their platform to begin with, so it's probably not going to change many people's minds.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

10th July 2012, 08:26 AM	#27
Monketey Ghost Body of Work Join Date: May 2003 Location: I'm on your screen! Posts: 14,808	One thing's certain, and that is that Team O will smack Romney for not releasing/refusing to release/hiding stuff.
	__________________ _{The membership of this forum is henceforth to refer to me as potato-headed Bobby} _{SSKCAS, member in long standing}

10th July 2012, 08:27 AM	#28
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,187	Originally Posted by BenBurch Romney's 401K has between 20 and 101 million in it according to Krugman. Good for Romney. I'd love to have that much money in my 401(k).
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

10th July 2012, 08:29 AM	#29
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,424	Originally Posted by BenBurch I am only left with the feeling that Romney is hiding something. Something terrible. I don't know why. Heck, maybe he got an extension and is still getting his taxes worked out. I imagine the guy has a lot of income from a lot of different sources. That can take a while to sort out, let alone put into a format that is easy to distribute to the general public. I have a bit of farm land I inherited from my grandparents. That alone adds something like ten sheets of paper to my returns with various receipts and documentation. Romney's has to be something like a thousand times that.

10th July 2012, 08:32 AM	#30
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,117	Originally Posted by Upchurch I don't know why. Heck, maybe he got an extension and is still getting his taxes worked out. I imagine the guy has a lot of income from a lot of different sources. That can take a while to sort out, let alone put into a format that is easy to distribute to the general public. I have a bit of farm land I inherited from my grandparents. That alone adds something like ten sheets of paper to my returns with various receipts and documentation. Romney's has to be something like a thousand times that. A form it can be released to the public? Why, sir, why not the exact form it was sent to the IRS and to the State in?
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2012, 08:33 AM	#31
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,187	Originally Posted by Brown Sure they do. What people don't care for is that someone who makes twenty times as much money as they do paying less tax due to breaks that only rich people can get. Only rich people can get the tax break of a 401(k)? You contradict yourself. There are more tax breaks that the poor can use that the rich cannot than that the rich can use but the poor cannot. The only reason that the rich often do use more (not can use more) is that they have more money period. But, duh. That's what makes them rich. Quote: All of which may have been true, but taxpayers just didn't like the end result of a wealthy person paying no taxes. You didn't say that she paid no taxes. That obviously creates a very different perception than simply a reduced tax burden. And there's no reason to think that Romney paid no taxes, so there's no reason to think this is equivalent.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

10th July 2012, 08:35 AM	#32
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,117	I have a proposition; We need to change the law such that any person who is on the ballot for president in more than 5 states has his federal tax filings going back a decade automatically released by the IRS.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2012, 08:36 AM	#33
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,338	Originally Posted by Ziggurat But given the time it took for Obama to release his birth certificate (as in, years after the election) Obama released his birth certificate on June 12, 2008, five months before the election.
	__________________ "A nation can survive with kufr, but not with zulm." - ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib "No more hurting people" - Martin William Richard Currently Reading: Righteous Victims, by Benny Morris

10th July 2012, 08:38 AM	#34
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,117	Originally Posted by ANTPogo Obama released his birth certificate on June 12, 2008, five months before the election. Correct me if I am wrong, Zig, but you were not among the nattering nabobs who demanded the "long form", were you?
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2012, 08:40 AM	#36
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,117	So, speculation time; What is Romney hiding? Since he will not tell the truth, we are free to imagine anything at all. Like; "He is hiding the fact that he gave huge charitable contributions to Scientology."
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2012, 08:42 AM	#37
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,359	Originally Posted by Ziggurat And since Republicans are generally in favor of lower taxes to begin with, taking advantage of tax shelters is more in line with their platform to begin with, so it's probably not going to change many people's minds. True, but Republicans, especially Tea Party Republicans, are not particularly in favor of sending money to foreign interests, legally or otherwise. They don't like outsourcing jobs. They don't like outsourcing money. If Obama plays on this, it's going to influence some red-blooded patriots to have second thoughts about Romney.

10th July 2012, 08:43 AM	#38
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,148	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Conlin was also a Democrat. I suspect that much of the response was due to a perception of hypocrisy, but given that the Wikipedia entry for her doesn't even mention the issue, so I have to wonder whether it really was that big a deal. And since Republicans are generally in favor of lower taxes to begin with, taking advantage of tax shelters is more in line with their platform to begin with, so it's probably not going to change many people's minds. Well, there are a couple of things. First, deep party hatred was not as prevalent then. Although Conlin lost to a Republican, the next two Iowa governors were Democrats. Conlin was a little more hampered by the fact that she was a trial lawyer and a female, of whom many in Iowa were suspicious. Her opponent was a lawyer as well, but he was a man and he was not a trial lawyer. Before going into private practice, Conlin had been a US attorney (she'd passed the bar at age 21) and had received national attention. And with all respect to Wikipedia, it doesn't say much about the race at all, which was 30 years ago. The tax issue was a big deal. It came up in the gubernatorial debates, and Conlin had to humbly reaffirm before the TV cameras that she WOULD pay taxes. There were political cartoons about it. In a race in which Conlin was widely recognized as being considerably smarter than her opponent, it made her look foolish.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice