FREE TAPATALK APP

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

So do you think it would sell politically for him to advocate for tax cuts on the wealthy so they can put large sums of money into a blind trust (which Romney claims to know nothing about--such as whether or not that money is in foreign investments)?

What on earth are you talking about? Romney didn't put that money in a blind trust in order to maximize his wealth. He put it in a blind trust to insulate himself against charges of conflicts of interest because of his potential political position. That's not only obvious, it's also proper. I also find it peculiar that you say "Romney claims to know nothing about" what the money is invested in. If the money is in a blind trust, then that's not a claim: that's the truth. If he knows, it's not a blind trust. It's illegal for the trustees of a blind trust to inform him. As for the money within the trust, it is subject to the same tax laws as money not invested in such a trust, so there are no tax consequences of using a blind trust, and no effect on its use of either a tax cut or a tax increase.

And the rich in general aren't going to be using blind trusts because they have absolutely no reason to. There is no financial advantage to a blind trust. Tax cuts on the wealthy will obviously have no affect on whether or not they put money into blind trusts, because they won't put their money in one either way.

In short, there is absolutely no connection between blind trusts and tax rates.

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 11:50 AM

Originally Posted by Robrob

He delayed it so long intentionally just to make the wingnuts look like fools. It worked too.

Yes, that is precisely my point.

JoeTheJuggler · 10th July 2012, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yes, that is precisely my point.

But that, of course, isn't what Romney is doing.

Also back to my claim that the 2010 return argues against his tax proposal: his 2010 form disclosed the existence of an account or accounts in Switzerland. Do you think that's fits with his tax proposals? Cut taxes on the job creators so they can put money in Swiss bank accounts!

JoeTheJuggler · 10th July 2012, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

In short, there is absolutely no connection between blind trusts and tax rates.

Sure there is. Lower tax rates means more discretionary income. What does a wealthy person do with that discretionary income (and extra discretionary income if you're arguing for a tax cut)? Does he not create American jobs with it? No, he puts it in a blind trust in his wife's name and pleads ignorance of whether or not he's creating jobs in China rather than in the U.S. with it.

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 12:12 PM

I don't think we have ever had a President with this much money, or one with assets like this in hidden accounts.

Romney could make it all good, though.

Close it all down and donate it to the treasury.

Might even win him the election.

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

But that, of course, isn't what Romney is doing.

You don't know that.

Quote:

Also back to my claim that the 2010 return argues against his tax proposal: his 2010 form disclosed the existence of an account or accounts in Switzerland. Do you think that's fits with his tax proposals? Cut taxes on the job creators so they can put money in Swiss bank accounts!

Again, you have it backwards, just as with his charitable giving. The Swiss account lowers his taxes. Decrease the tax rate here, and you decrease the incentive to try to avoid taxation. High tax rates, not low tax rates, are what provide incentives to avoid taxes.

JoeTheJuggler · 10th July 2012, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I also find it peculiar that you say "Romney claims to know nothing about" what the money is invested in. If the money is in a blind trust, then that's not a claim: that's the truth.

I agree, if the money is in a blind trust, it's true.

What's peculiar is that the Romney campaign has admitted it's not.

Originally Posted by abc news

"We remind you that Gov. Romney does not choose anything; these are BLIND TRUSTS," a campaign official wrote in an email.
<snip>
Said one prominent campaign lawyer who has advised past Republican presidential candidates on these matters: "I don't see how this would provide the required trustee independence under the executive branch blind trust requirements."

<snip>
In an email to ABC News, Romney's campaign acknowledged the arrangement does not live up to the strict standards for blind trusts established by the federal Office of Government Ethics.

On a tangent: Romney himself used to consider the blind trust to be "an age-old ruse" back when he ran against Kennedy in '94.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mitt-r...ry?id=15188063

Cain · 10th July 2012, 12:25 PM

While the pile-on has been amusing, I should say the reason Romney refuses to release his records is because they would make him look bad. This is precisely why people should (and will) keep on his case until not releasing his finances makes him look worse.

From a political calculation angle, I'd think the sooner he releases them the better (the danger is that it gives his opponents time to define and pigeon-hole him). Still, he should dump that crap on a Friday at 5:00, maybe when people are distracted by the Olympics.

JoeTheJuggler · 10th July 2012, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You don't know that.

Fair enough. If that's what he thinks he's doing (and I don't believe for a second it is), it's backfiring miserably on him.

Quote:

Decrease the tax rate here, and you decrease the incentive to try to avoid taxation. High tax rates, not low tax rates, are what provide incentives to avoid taxes.

Right. Disposable income is total personal income minus taxes. Discretionary income is income minus taxes minus expenses for maintaining some standard of living (paying the bills).

Putting money into Swiss bank accounts is something you can only do with discretionary income, and I've shown the mathematical relationship between taxes and discretionary income.

Lowering taxes not only has the effect of increasing discretionary income it also, as you point out, can have a multiplier effect by allowing them to put a greater percentage of their income into tax shelters. (Same as with charitable contribution. People with little to no discretionary income--most of us-- simply can't give large sums of money to the LDS church or open Swiss bank accounts.)

Romney's tax proposal depends on the premise that if you cut taxes on the wealthy they will spend it on job creation. His own tax return shows that they are likely to do other things with their increased discretionary income.

JoeTheJuggler · 10th July 2012, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Cain

While the pile-on has been amusing, I should say the reason Romney refuses to release his records is because they would make him look bad. This is precisely why people should (and will) keep on his case until not releasing his finances makes him look worse.

Yep.

Quote:

From a political calculation angle, I'd think the sooner he releases them the better

Unless, as has been pointed out, he has reason to believe the political damage for releasing them is substantially worse than the political damage of never releasing them.

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Sure there is. Lower tax rates means more discretionary income. What does a wealthy person do with that discretionary income (and extra discretionary income if you're arguing for a tax cut)? Does he not create American jobs with it? No, he puts it in a blind trust in his wife's name and pleads ignorance of whether or not he's creating jobs in China rather than in the U.S. with it.

What complete nonsense. The trust doesn't need to be blind in order for it to be in his wife's name, and putting it in his wife's name wouldn't make it any more blind than putting it in his own name. So what the hell was that part even about? As for China, if he's not running for office (and very few rich people are), then nobody will know what he's doing with that money anyways. There's no reason to plead ignorance because there's no pleading that needs to be done. If you're rich and want to get richer, then you most definitely don't want to put that money in a blind trust, because you lose control of it. And if you don't care about getting richer but you do care about appearances then you could just invest it all in the US and then brag about it. And if you're rich but don't want to be AND you don't care about appearances, then you can blow it on on whiskey and hookers.

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Fair enough. If that's what he thinks he's doing (and I don't believe for a second it is), it's backfiring miserably on him.

Evidence?

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Evidence?

That we are discussing it here? That it is in the news?

Success would mean we never noticed.

Polaris · 10th July 2012, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

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

"Ok, I'll release my tax records. Right after I release....the kraken!!"

JoeTheJuggler · 10th July 2012, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What complete nonsense. The trust doesn't need to be blind in order for it to be in his wife's name, and putting it in his wife's name wouldn't make it any more blind than putting it in his own name. So what the hell was that part even about?

I'm sure you're asking the wrong person. Why don't you ask Mitt why he did that?

Quote:

There's no reason to plead ignorance because there's no pleading that needs to be done.

I agree, but again his campaign has both pled ignorance and admitted that it is not actually a blind trust (that is, that he is not strictly speaking ignorant).

From the same source as above:

Originally Posted by abc news

"We remind you that Gov. Romney does not choose anything; these are BLIND TRUSTS," a campaign official wrote in an email.

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

And if you don't care about getting richer but you do care about appearances then you could just invest it all in the US and then brag about it.

So what if you're rich and really want to be richer but you do care about appearances and want to pretend that it's all invested in the US? Maybe you brag that you're a job creator, lie about money being in a blind trust, and hide the full story as best you possibly can.

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

That we are discussing it here? That it is in the news?

Success would mean we never noticed.

No. Success and failure are measured by how much the issue changes voters' minds. That it is in the news and we are talking about it indicates nothing about how (or if) it has affected anyone's vote. Obviously people think it has that potential, but that doesn't mean it actually has. The bases of both parties can easily get worked up about issues that the middle doesn't care about, with nobody actually changing their vote.

So, is there any evidence that this has moved any votes?

JoeTheJuggler · 10th July 2012, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Evidence?

I confess, I can't prove that Romney's unwillingness to release more (especially older) tax returns isn't going swimmingly for him. Do you have any evidence that it's so?

He sure seems defensive about it though, doesn't he?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...-his-finances/

ETA: From the same source, more on the "blind" trust:

Originally Posted by CBS news

Federal officeholders are required to either fully disclose all their financial holdings and any possible conflicts of interest, or place their holdings in a blind trust. Robert Kelner, a Republican election lawyer in Washington, D.C. with no ties to a current presidential campaign, explained the federal rules governing those blind trusts. "The Office of Government Ethics requires that a financial institution be appointed as the trustee and that the financial institution not be controlled by or have done business with the candidate," said Kelner. "It would preclude you from hiring your favorite lawyer as the trustee."

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

So what if you're rich and really want to be richer but you do care about appearances and want to pretend that it's all invested in the US?

Then it's a tradeoff: possibly lower returns versus possibly better publicity. But that call is easier to make when you can see what you're doing. If you put money in a blind trust, you have no control over the tradeoff. That's a stupid move.

Choosing ignorance is only a smart move if there's a reward for the ignorance itself. In the case of someone subject to conflict of interest rules, there is. For basically everyone else, there isn't. That's why nobody actually uses blind trusts for the purpose you suggest. There's no reason to think tax cuts would or could change that. More disposable income from a tax cut isn't somehow completely different from your existing disposable income.

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by Polaris

"Ok, I'll release my tax records. Right after I release....the kraken!!"

AlBell · 10th July 2012, 01:10 PM

Would one or more of you Obama lovers here postulate what upside Mitt might expect by releasing the tax records under discussion?

All I foresee is a MSM pileon similar to this thread.

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Would one or more of you Obama lovers here postulate what upside Mitt might expect by releasing the tax records under discussion?

All I foresee is a MSM pileon similar to this thread.

He might expect it will cost him the election. If I were somehow on his side, I'd hope he wouldn't.

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I confess, I can't prove that Romney's unwillingness to release more (especially older) tax returns isn't going swimmingly for him. Do you have any evidence that it's so?

No, I don't. It's entirely possible he's trying to play rope-a-dope and it isn't working. Or maybe it is, or will. It's also possible that he's really trying to hide something that will look bad. I don't know which it is. The point is, neither do you, or any of us. So the smart move is to adopt a position that won't bite you on the ass if you guess wrong about which outcome is correct. That's really my point.

JoeTheJuggler · 10th July 2012, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That's why nobody actually uses blind trusts for the purpose you suggest.

I'm not sure what you think I suggested so I'll spell it out. The Romney campaign has falsely claimed that this money is a blind trust (even though they have admitted that it's not). The reason for the requirement that federal office holders either disclose their financial holdings or place them in an actual blind trust is to prevent conflicts of interest.

I'm not sure if what Romney is hiding are actual conflicts of interest, but it's clear he doesn't want the details of his financial holdings known because he opted to try for a nominal blind trust rather than disclosure. I suspect it's because he has more foreign investments (other than the Swiss bank account(s) we know existed in 2010-11).

I think those kinds of investments are politically embarrassing to him since they contradict the rational that if we cut taxes the job creators will create jobs for our country's economy.

JoeTheJuggler · 10th July 2012, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It's entirely possible he's trying to play rope-a-dope and it isn't working. .

AGain, he seems to be answering questions about this matter very defensively. Compare that to Obama's complete dismissive attitude toward Birther challenges.

Didn't he give a really nifty zinger during Q & A once--comparing their CT to Apollo moon landing hoax theories or some such?

If I'm interpreting your meaning of "rope-a-dope" correctly (see above), I don't think Romney's response to this matter is at all the same as Obama's was to the Birthers.

Ziggurat · 10th July 2012, 01:16 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I'm not sure what you think I suggested so I'll spell it out.

While what you spelled out makes some sense, I don't see any connection between what you said in this post and what you seemed to be arguing in regards to a conflict of interest between his position on taxes and the use of a blind trust. If this post is what you meant all along, your prior attempts to explain it were as clear to me as mud.

JoeTheJuggler · 10th July 2012, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Would one or more of you Obama lovers here postulate what upside Mitt might expect by releasing the tax records under discussion?

All I foresee is a MSM pileon similar to this thread.

I agree, and a deserved one. Ironically, it's the Romney supporters who seem to think Romney's doing something wrt his personal finances that will be to his advantage.

Personally, I think Romney is trying his best to minimize political damage. And I think the best he can do for himself is to continue to refuse to release more tax returns.

[ETA: But the best he could do for the electorate, and therefore for the country would be to release them. I think we're talking about two very different motives, and that what's best for Romney on this subject isn't what's best for the country.]

Spindrift · 10th July 2012, 01:19 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

I don't think we have ever had a President with this much money, or one with assets like this in hidden accounts.

Romney could make it all good, though.

Close it all down and donate it to the treasury.

Might even win him the election.

We've had many very wealthy presidents: Washington, Madison, Jackson, Kennedy, FDR, TR, Hoover. But most were quite some time ago. Even Kennedy was 50 years ago.

AlBell · 10th July 2012, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I agree, and a deserved one. Ironically, it's the Romney supporters who seem to think Romney's doing something wrt his personal finances that will be to his advantage.

Personally, I think Romney is trying his best to minimize political damage. And I think the best he can do for himself is to continue to refuse to release more tax returns.

Agreed.

Quote:

[ETA: But the best he could do for the electorate, and therefore for the country would be to release them. I think we're talking about two very different motives, and that what's best for Romney on this subject isn't what's best for the country.]

I think Obama is twice the disaster for this country that Romney would be or even could be.

JoeTheJuggler · 10th July 2012, 01:34 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Didn't he give a really nifty zinger during Q & A once--comparing their CT to Apollo moon landing hoax theories or some such?

My memory is pretty bad. I was thinking of this, from a White House Correspondents' Dinner:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Spindrift · 10th July 2012, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

Agreed.

I think Obama is twice the disaster for this country that Romney would be or even could be.

So you're saying Romney is only half an Obama?

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

...

I think Obama is twice the disaster for this country that Romney would be or even could be.

So, you are saying that Romney could be a disaster?

AlBell · 10th July 2012, 02:51 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

So, you are saying that Romney could be a disaster?

I'll agree to that; he's by no means who I'd like as the republican nominee. He'll damn sure do less damage than Obama can likely manage in 4 more years.

I preferred Gingrich and still would.

JoeTheJuggler · 10th July 2012, 03:01 PM

I'm no fan of argument by pithiness (or eloquence, rhyme, etc.), but this was pretty funny.

Speaking at the National Council of La Raza convention, Biden said of Romney, "He wants you to show your papers, but he won't show us his."

He went on to say, "This is the man who says President Obama is out of touch? This coming from the man who until recently had a Swiss bank account, and millions of dollars invested in the Grand Cayman Islands beyond scrutiny, and the president, Obama, is out of touch?"

I think this sort of thing will resonate with many voters.

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

I'm no fan of argument by pithiness (or eloquence, rhyme, etc.), but this was pretty funny.

Speaking at the National Council of La Raza convention, Biden said of Romney, "He wants you to show your papers, but he won't show us his."

He went on to say, "This is the man who says President Obama is out of touch? This coming from the man who until recently had a Swiss bank account, and millions of dollars invested in the Grand Cayman Islands beyond scrutiny, and the president, Obama, is out of touch?"

I think this sort of thing will resonate with many voters.

Go Joe! (Biden, that is. You go, too, JoeTheJuggler!)

TragicMonkey · 10th July 2012, 03:09 PM

I bet the reason Romney hides his finances is because he didn't get it from deals or business or inheritance at all--in fact, it's all derived from the compound interest from a small deposit he made a long time ago. You see, it turns out Romney's an immortal vampire, and he deposited four pounds with a bank in London in 1589, and all his 2012 wealth comes from compound interest on that deposit. He's concealing the paperwork because he thinks Americans wouldn't vote for any vampire less sexy than Eric Northman. And he's correct in this. Dracula ran in 1988 and didn't even get enough support to attend the debates. And when Angel was mayor of LA there was a successful recall election because he "got too chubby". The American people may not demand financial transparency in their presidents, but they do demand sexiness in their vampires.

Tricky · 10th July 2012, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I bet the reason Romney hides his finances is because he didn't get it from deals or business or inheritance at all--in fact, it's all derived from the compound interest from a small deposit he made a long time ago. You see, it turns out Romney's an immortal vampire, and he deposited four pounds with a bank in London in 1589, and all his 2012 wealth comes from compound interest on that deposit. He's concealing the paperwork because he thinks Americans wouldn't vote for any vampire less sexy than Eric Northman. And he's correct in this. Dracula ran in 1988 and didn't even get enough support to attend the debates. And when Angel was mayor of LA there was a successful recall election because he "got too chubby". The American people may not demand financial transparency in their presidents, but they do demand sexiness in their vampires.

I've never heard of an offshore blood bank.

BenBurch · 10th July 2012, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I bet the reason Romney hides his finances is because he didn't get it from deals or business or inheritance at all--in fact, it's all derived from the compound interest from a small deposit he made a long time ago. You see, it turns out Romney's an immortal vampire, and he deposited four pounds with a bank in London in 1589, and all his 2012 wealth comes from compound interest on that deposit. He's concealing the paperwork because he thinks Americans wouldn't vote for any vampire less sexy than Eric Northman. And he's correct in this. Dracula ran in 1988 and didn't even get enough support to attend the debates. And when Angel was mayor of LA there was a successful recall election because he "got too chubby". The American people may not demand financial transparency in their presidents, but they do demand sexiness in their vampires.

Oh! So he actually WAS his father!

Doesn't this make him ineligible since he was born on (and sleeps with) foreign soil?

Corsair 115 · 10th July 2012, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

I bet the reason Romney hides his finances is because he didn't get it from deals or business or inheritance at all--in fact, it's all derived from the compound interest from a small deposit he made a long time ago.

Philip J. Fry also followed the same path to financial success, only he started off with $0.93 on deposit and left it in the bank for one thousand years.

Monketey Ghost · 11th July 2012, 06:41 AM

People please stay on topic without using future toon-tense.

Ausmerican · 11th July 2012, 09:11 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.

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.

June 2008 unless you are one of those that doesn't believe the so-called "short form" is equally valid. "Birthers" I believe they were/are called.
BTW Zig, aren't you saying in your first paragraph that it therefore means it WAS a double standard to insist on Obama's birth certificate(s) Since they dont insist on any of the others?

10th July 2012, 11:48 AM	#81
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler So do you think it would sell politically for him to advocate for tax cuts on the wealthy so they can put large sums of money into a blind trust (which Romney claims to know nothing about--such as whether or not that money is in foreign investments)? What on earth are you talking about? Romney didn't put that money in a blind trust in order to maximize his wealth. He put it in a blind trust to insulate himself against charges of conflicts of interest because of his potential political position. That's not only obvious, it's also proper. I also find it peculiar that you say "Romney claims to know nothing about" what the money is invested in. If the money is in a blind trust, then that's not a claim: that's the truth. If he knows, it's not a blind trust. It's illegal for the trustees of a blind trust to inform him. As for the money within the trust, it is subject to the same tax laws as money not invested in such a trust, so there are no tax consequences of using a blind trust, and no effect on its use of either a tax cut or a tax increase. And the rich in general aren't going to be using blind trusts because they have absolutely no reason to. There is no financial advantage to a blind trust. Tax cuts on the wealthy will obviously have no affect on whether or not they put money into blind trusts, because they won't put their money in one either way. In short, there is absolutely no connection between blind trusts and tax rates.
	__________________ "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, 11:50 AM	#82
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by Robrob He delayed it so long intentionally just to make the wingnuts look like fools. It worked too. Yes, that is precisely my point.
	__________________ "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, 12:09 PM	#83
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,166	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Yes, that is precisely my point. But that, of course, isn't what Romney is doing. Also back to my claim that the 2010 return argues against his tax proposal: his 2010 form disclosed the existence of an account or accounts in Switzerland. Do you think that's fits with his tax proposals? Cut taxes on the job creators so they can put money in Swiss bank accounts!
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

10th July 2012, 12:11 PM	#84
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,166	Originally Posted by Ziggurat In short, there is absolutely no connection between blind trusts and tax rates. Sure there is. Lower tax rates means more discretionary income. What does a wealthy person do with that discretionary income (and extra discretionary income if you're arguing for a tax cut)? Does he not create American jobs with it? No, he puts it in a blind trust in his wife's name and pleads ignorance of whether or not he's creating jobs in China rather than in the U.S. with it.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

10th July 2012, 12:12 PM	#85
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	I don't think we have ever had a President with this much money, or one with assets like this in hidden accounts. Romney could make it all good, though. Close it all down and donate it to the treasury. Might even win him the election.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2012, 12:18 PM	#86
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler But that, of course, isn't what Romney is doing. You don't know that. Quote: Also back to my claim that the 2010 return argues against his tax proposal: his 2010 form disclosed the existence of an account or accounts in Switzerland. Do you think that's fits with his tax proposals? Cut taxes on the job creators so they can put money in Swiss bank accounts! Again, you have it backwards, just as with his charitable giving. The Swiss account lowers his taxes. Decrease the tax rate here, and you decrease the incentive to try to avoid taxation. High tax rates, not low tax rates, are what provide incentives to avoid taxes.
	__________________ "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, 12:18 PM	#87
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,166	Originally Posted by Ziggurat I also find it peculiar that you say "Romney claims to know nothing about" what the money is invested in. If the money is in a blind trust, then that's not a claim: that's the truth. I agree, if the money is in a blind trust, it's true. What's peculiar is that the Romney campaign has admitted it's not. Originally Posted by abc news "We remind you that Gov. Romney does not choose anything; these are BLIND TRUSTS," a campaign official wrote in an email. <snip> Said one prominent campaign lawyer who has advised past Republican presidential candidates on these matters: "I don't see how this would provide the required trustee independence under the executive branch blind trust requirements." <snip> In an email to ABC News, Romney's campaign acknowledged the arrangement does not live up to the strict standards for blind trusts established by the federal Office of Government Ethics. On a tangent: Romney himself used to consider the blind trust to be "an age-old ruse" back when he ran against Kennedy in '94. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mitt-r...ry?id=15188063
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

10th July 2012, 12:25 PM	#88
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 7,004	While the pile-on has been amusing, I should say the reason Romney refuses to release his records is because they would make him look bad. This is precisely why people should (and will) keep on his case until not releasing his finances makes him look worse. From a political calculation angle, I'd think the sooner he releases them the better (the danger is that it gives his opponents time to define and pigeon-hole him). Still, he should dump that crap on a Friday at 5:00, maybe when people are distracted by the Olympics.
	__________________ *Arrested Development* is coming back! Michael (to GOB): Get rid of the Seaward. Lucille: I’ll leave when I’m good and ready.

10th July 2012, 12:26 PM	#89
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,166	Originally Posted by Ziggurat You don't know that. Fair enough. If that's what he thinks he's doing (and I don't believe for a second it is), it's backfiring miserably on him. Quote: Decrease the tax rate here, and you decrease the incentive to try to avoid taxation. High tax rates, not low tax rates, are what provide incentives to avoid taxes. Right. Disposable income is total personal income minus taxes. Discretionary income is income minus taxes minus expenses for maintaining some standard of living (paying the bills). Putting money into Swiss bank accounts is something you can only do with discretionary income, and I've shown the mathematical relationship between taxes and discretionary income. Lowering taxes not only has the effect of increasing discretionary income it also, as you point out, can have a multiplier effect by allowing them to put a greater percentage of their income into tax shelters. (Same as with charitable contribution. People with little to no discretionary income--most of us-- simply can't give large sums of money to the LDS church or open Swiss bank accounts.) Romney's tax proposal depends on the premise that if you cut taxes on the wealthy they will spend it on job creation. His own tax return shows that they are likely to do other things with their increased discretionary income.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 10th July 2012 at 12:29 PM.

10th July 2012, 12:28 PM	#90
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,166	Originally Posted by Cain While the pile-on has been amusing, I should say the reason Romney refuses to release his records is because they would make him look bad. This is precisely why people should (and will) keep on his case until not releasing his finances makes him look worse. Yep. Quote: From a political calculation angle, I'd think the sooner he releases them the better Unless, as has been pointed out, he has reason to believe the political damage for releasing them is substantially worse than the political damage of never releasing them.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

10th July 2012, 12:29 PM	#91
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler Sure there is. Lower tax rates means more discretionary income. What does a wealthy person do with that discretionary income (and extra discretionary income if you're arguing for a tax cut)? Does he not create American jobs with it? No, he puts it in a blind trust in his wife's name and pleads ignorance of whether or not he's creating jobs in China rather than in the U.S. with it. What complete nonsense. The trust doesn't need to be blind in order for it to be in his wife's name, and putting it in his wife's name wouldn't make it any more blind than putting it in his own name. So what the hell was that part even about? As for China, if he's not running for office (and very few rich people are), then nobody will know what he's doing with that money anyways. There's no reason to plead ignorance because there's no pleading that needs to be done. If you're rich and want to get richer, then you most definitely don't want to put that money in a blind trust, because you lose control of it. And if you don't care about getting richer but you do care about appearances then you could just invest it all in the US and then brag about it. And if you're rich but don't want to be AND you don't care about appearances, then you can blow it on on whiskey and hookers.
	__________________ "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, 12:31 PM	#92
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler Fair enough. If that's what he thinks he's doing (and I don't believe for a second it is), it's backfiring miserably on him. Evidence?
	__________________ "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, 12:53 PM	#93
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Evidence? That we are discussing it here? That it is in the news? Success would mean we never noticed.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2012, 12:53 PM	#94
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,215	Originally Posted by BenBurch I am only left with the feeling that Romney is hiding something. Something terrible. "Ok, I'll release my tax records. Right after I release....the kraken!!"
Polaris Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 5,215	__________________ "There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar "Roy Moore of Alabama. The world would absolutely benefit by him being run over by any vehicle." - Lowpro

10th July 2012, 01:01 PM	#95
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,166	Originally Posted by Ziggurat What complete nonsense. The trust doesn't need to be blind in order for it to be in his wife's name, and putting it in his wife's name wouldn't make it any more blind than putting it in his own name. So what the hell was that part even about? I'm sure you're asking the wrong person. Why don't you ask Mitt why he did that? Quote: There's no reason to plead ignorance because there's no pleading that needs to be done. I agree, but again his campaign has both pled ignorance and admitted that it is not actually a blind trust (that is, that he is not strictly speaking ignorant). From the same source as above: Originally Posted by abc news "We remind you that Gov. Romney does not choose anything; these are BLIND TRUSTS," a campaign official wrote in an email. Originally Posted by Ziggurat And if you don't care about getting richer but you do care about appearances then you could just invest it all in the US and then brag about it. So what if you're rich and really want to be richer but you do care about appearances and want to pretend that it's all invested in the US? Maybe you brag that you're a job creator, lie about money being in a blind trust, and hide the full story as best you possibly can.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

10th July 2012, 01:02 PM	#96
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by BenBurch That we are discussing it here? That it is in the news? Success would mean we never noticed. No. Success and failure are measured by how much the issue changes voters' minds. That it is in the news and we are talking about it indicates nothing about how (or if) it has affected anyone's vote. Obviously people think it has that potential, but that doesn't mean it actually has. The bases of both parties can easily get worked up about issues that the middle doesn't care about, with nobody actually changing their vote. So, is there any evidence that this has moved any votes?
	__________________ "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, 01:04 PM	#97
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,166	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Evidence? I confess, I can't prove that Romney's unwillingness to release more (especially older) tax returns isn't going swimmingly for him. Do you have any evidence that it's so? He sure seems defensive about it though, doesn't he? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...-his-finances/ ETA: From the same source, more on the "blind" trust: Originally Posted by CBS news Federal officeholders are required to either fully disclose all their financial holdings and any possible conflicts of interest, or place their holdings in a blind trust. Robert Kelner, a Republican election lawyer in Washington, D.C. with no ties to a current presidential campaign, explained the federal rules governing those blind trusts. "The Office of Government Ethics requires that a financial institution be appointed as the trustee and that the financial institution not be controlled by or have done business with the candidate," said Kelner. "It would preclude you from hiring your favorite lawyer as the trustee."
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 10th July 2012 at 01:06 PM.

10th July 2012, 01:07 PM	#98
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler So what if you're rich and really want to be richer but you do care about appearances and want to pretend that it's all invested in the US? Then it's a tradeoff: possibly lower returns versus possibly better publicity. But that call is easier to make when you can see what you're doing. If you put money in a blind trust, you have no control over the tradeoff. That's a stupid move. Choosing ignorance is only a smart move if there's a reward for the ignorance itself. In the case of someone subject to conflict of interest rules, there is. For basically everyone else, there isn't. That's why nobody actually uses blind trusts for the purpose you suggest. There's no reason to think tax cuts would or could change that. More disposable income from a tax cut isn't somehow completely different from your existing disposable income.
	__________________ "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, 01:08 PM	#99
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	Originally Posted by Polaris "Ok, I'll release my tax records. Right after I release....the kraken!!"
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2012, 01:10 PM	#100
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,567	Would one or more of you Obama lovers here postulate what upside Mitt might expect by releasing the tax records under discussion? All I foresee is a MSM pileon similar to this thread.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,567	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

10th July 2012, 01:12 PM	#101
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	Originally Posted by AlBell Would one or more of you Obama lovers here postulate what upside Mitt might expect by releasing the tax records under discussion? All I foresee is a MSM pileon similar to this thread. He might expect it will cost him the election. If I were somehow on his side, I'd hope he wouldn't.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2012, 01:13 PM	#102
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler I confess, I can't prove that Romney's unwillingness to release more (especially older) tax returns isn't going swimmingly for him. Do you have any evidence that it's so? No, I don't. It's entirely possible he's trying to play rope-a-dope and it isn't working. Or maybe it is, or will. It's also possible that he's really trying to hide something that will look bad. I don't know which it is. The point is, neither do you, or any of us. So the smart move is to adopt a position that won't bite you on the ass if you guess wrong about which outcome is correct. That's really my point.
	__________________ "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, 01:13 PM	#103
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,166	Originally Posted by Ziggurat That's why nobody actually uses blind trusts for the purpose you suggest. I'm not sure what you think I suggested so I'll spell it out. The Romney campaign has falsely claimed that this money is a blind trust (even though they have admitted that it's not). The reason for the requirement that federal office holders either disclose their financial holdings or place them in an actual blind trust is to prevent conflicts of interest. I'm not sure if what Romney is hiding are actual conflicts of interest, but it's clear he doesn't want the details of his financial holdings known because he opted to try for a nominal blind trust rather than disclosure. I suspect it's because he has more foreign investments (other than the Swiss bank account(s) we know existed in 2010-11). I think those kinds of investments are politically embarrassing to him since they contradict the rational that if we cut taxes the job creators will create jobs for our country's economy.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

10th July 2012, 01:16 PM	#104
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,166	Originally Posted by Ziggurat It's entirely possible he's trying to play rope-a-dope and it isn't working. . AGain, he seems to be answering questions about this matter very defensively. Compare that to Obama's complete dismissive attitude toward Birther challenges. Didn't he give a really nifty zinger during Q & A once--comparing their CT to Apollo moon landing hoax theories or some such? If I'm interpreting your meaning of "rope-a-dope" correctly (see above), I don't think Romney's response to this matter is at all the same as Obama's was to the Birthers.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

10th July 2012, 01:16 PM	#105
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,285	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler I'm not sure what you think I suggested so I'll spell it out. While what you spelled out makes some sense, I don't see any connection between what you said in this post and what you seemed to be arguing in regards to a conflict of interest between his position on taxes and the use of a blind trust. If this post is what you meant all along, your prior attempts to explain it were as clear to me as mud.
	__________________ "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, 01:19 PM	#106
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,166	Originally Posted by AlBell Would one or more of you Obama lovers here postulate what upside Mitt might expect by releasing the tax records under discussion? All I foresee is a MSM pileon similar to this thread. I agree, and a deserved one. Ironically, it's the Romney supporters who seem to think Romney's doing something wrt his personal finances that will be to his advantage. Personally, I think Romney is trying his best to minimize political damage. And I think the best he can do for himself is to continue to refuse to release more tax returns. [ETA: But the best he could do for the electorate, and therefore for the country would be to release them. I think we're talking about two very different motives, and that what's best for Romney on this subject isn't what's best for the country.]
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons Last edited by JoeTheJuggler; 10th July 2012 at 01:20 PM.

10th July 2012, 01:19 PM	#107
Spindrift Enturbulator Extraordinaire Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 8,656	Originally Posted by BenBurch I don't think we have ever had a President with this much money, or one with assets like this in hidden accounts. Romney could make it all good, though. Close it all down and donate it to the treasury. Might even win him the election. We've had many very wealthy presidents: Washington, Madison, Jackson, Kennedy, FDR, TR, Hoover. But most were quite some time ago. Even Kennedy was 50 years ago.
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.

10th July 2012, 01:30 PM	#108
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,567	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler I agree, and a deserved one. Ironically, it's the Romney supporters who seem to think Romney's doing something wrt his personal finances that will be to his advantage. Personally, I think Romney is trying his best to minimize political damage. And I think the best he can do for himself is to continue to refuse to release more tax returns. Agreed. Quote: [ETA: But the best he could do for the electorate, and therefore for the country would be to release them. I think we're talking about two very different motives, and that what's best for Romney on this subject isn't what's best for the country.] I think Obama is twice the disaster for this country that Romney would be or even could be.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,567	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

10th July 2012, 01:42 PM	#110
Spindrift Enturbulator Extraordinaire Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 8,656	Originally Posted by AlBell Agreed. I think Obama is twice the disaster for this country that Romney would be or even could be. So you're saying Romney is only half an Obama?
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.

10th July 2012, 02:18 PM	#111
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	Originally Posted by AlBell ... I think Obama is twice the disaster for this country that Romney would be or even could be. So, you are saying that Romney could be a disaster?
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2012, 02:51 PM	#112
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,567	Originally Posted by BenBurch So, you are saying that Romney could be a disaster? I'll agree to that; he's by no means who I'd like as the republican nominee. He'll damn sure do less damage than Obama can likely manage in 4 more years. I preferred Gingrich and still would.
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,567	__________________ "The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." M. Thatcher, Economics: Share The Wealth. Obamanomics: Share The Pain. Important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real.

10th July 2012, 03:01 PM	#113
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,166	I'm no fan of argument by pithiness (or eloquence, rhyme, etc.), but this was pretty funny. Speaking at the National Council of La Raza convention, Biden said of Romney, "He wants you to show your papers, but he won't show us his." He went on to say, "This is the man who says President Obama is out of touch? This coming from the man who until recently had a Swiss bank account, and millions of dollars invested in the Grand Cayman Islands beyond scrutiny, and the president, Obama, is out of touch?" I think this sort of thing will resonate with many voters.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

10th July 2012, 03:05 PM	#114
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler I'm no fan of argument by pithiness (or eloquence, rhyme, etc.), but this was pretty funny. Speaking at the National Council of La Raza convention, Biden said of Romney, "He wants you to show your papers, but he won't show us his." He went on to say, "This is the man who says President Obama is out of touch? This coming from the man who until recently had a Swiss bank account, and millions of dollars invested in the Grand Cayman Islands beyond scrutiny, and the president, Obama, is out of touch?" I think this sort of thing will resonate with many voters. Go Joe! (Biden, that is. You go, too, JoeTheJuggler!)
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

10th July 2012, 03:09 PM	#115
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,285	I bet the reason Romney hides his finances is because he didn't get it from deals or business or inheritance at all--in fact, it's all derived from the compound interest from a small deposit he made a long time ago. You see, it turns out Romney's an immortal vampire, and he deposited four pounds with a bank in London in 1589, and all his 2012 wealth comes from compound interest on that deposit. He's concealing the paperwork because he thinks Americans wouldn't vote for any vampire less sexy than Eric Northman. And he's correct in this. Dracula ran in 1988 and didn't even get enough support to attend the debates. And when Angel was mayor of LA there was a successful recall election because he "got too chubby". The American people may not demand financial transparency in their presidents, but they do demand sexiness in their vampires.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

10th July 2012, 04:08 PM	#116
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,403	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey I bet the reason Romney hides his finances is because he didn't get it from deals or business or inheritance at all--in fact, it's all derived from the compound interest from a small deposit he made a long time ago. You see, it turns out Romney's an immortal vampire, and he deposited four pounds with a bank in London in 1589, and all his 2012 wealth comes from compound interest on that deposit. He's concealing the paperwork because he thinks Americans wouldn't vote for any vampire less sexy than Eric Northman. And he's correct in this. Dracula ran in 1988 and didn't even get enough support to attend the debates. And when Angel was mayor of LA there was a successful recall election because he "got too chubby". The American people may not demand financial transparency in their presidents, but they do demand sexiness in their vampires. I've never heard of an offshore blood bank.