FREE TAPATALK APP

BenBurch · 18th July 2012, 05:50 AM

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...86G10D20120718

Quote:

(Reuters) - Republican Mitt Romney shrugged off growing pressure on Tuesday to release more of his tax returns, and his campaign lashed out at President Barack Obama in an effort to turn the campaign debate away from Romney's business and financial record.

Romney said he would not give in to mounting attacks over his refusal to release his tax returns prior to 2010, including calls from some Republican allies to disclose the records and end the controversy.

"In the political environment that exists today, the opposition research of the Obama campaign is looking for anything they can use to distract from the failure of the president to reignite our economy," Romney told the conservative National Review Online.

"I'm simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort and lie about," he told the magazine, which itself later published an editorial urging Romney to release more tax returns.

<SNIP>

Translation; "What is in there would sink me."

ETA: Thousands of pages? How many deductions did this guy take?

Alferd_Packer · 18th July 2012, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by Cain

Romney says that if he releases past tax returns, the Obama camp will lie and "distort" his record. So why does he plan on releasing this year's returns?

Waaaaa wasaaaa waaaaaa

What a crybaby

Alferd_Packer · 18th July 2012, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...86G10D20120718

Translation; "What is in there would sink me."

ETA: Thousands of pages? How many deductions did this guy take?

At least $75,000, give or take a few grand, on those damned dressage horses.

Dymanic · 18th July 2012, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by Cain

Romney says that if he releases past tax returns, the Obama camp will lie and "distort" his record.

If he was going to base his campaign strategy on the premise that "The less they know about you, the fewer bad things they'll be able to say about you", maybe his best bet would have been not to even release his name. Run as "candidate X", and wear a bag over his head whenever he appeared in public.

Tricky · 18th July 2012, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Cain

Romney says that if he releases past tax returns, the Obama camp will lie and "distort" his record. So why does he plan on releasing this year's returns?

As John Stewart pointed out, he is only releasing returns from the years when he was actually running for President, which oddly coincides with the exact time he started cleaning up his resume.

mhaze · 18th July 2012, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...86G10D20120718

Translation; "What is in there would sink me."

ETA: Thousands of pages? How many deductions did this guy take?

It does seem a bit ridiculous, to dump thousands of pages on bigoted witch hunters.

Upchurch · 18th July 2012, 07:20 AM

Huh. Okay.

So, am I correctly reading this as Romney is going to refuse to release his tax records, not merely that he just hasn't done it yet?

That is an ...interesting choice. Of course, he is free to not do so. But then, we are free to consider that when deciding on whom to vote for.

BenBurch · 18th July 2012, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Huh. Okay.

So, am I correctly reading this as Romney is going to refuse to release his tax records, not merely that he just hasn't done it yet?

That is an ...interesting choice. Of course, he is free to not do so. But then, we are free to consider that when deciding on whom to vote for.

Yes, they unequivocally stated that. No returns will be released. Period.

So if he does release them, it will be a huge loss of face, and even if nothing is in the damned things, is going to damage him.

Dymanic · 18th July 2012, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by mhaze

It does seem a bit ridiculous, to dump thousands of pages on bigoted witch hunters.

The US electorate vetting a candidate for President = witch hunt.

That's an interesting perspective. Do you feel that it somehow applies uniquely to this particular election?

daredelvis · 18th July 2012, 07:28 AM

Mitt vs. Mitt.

Quote:

Ironically, during the 1994 Senate race, Romney challenged his opponent, Senator Edward Kennedy, to release his state and federal taxes to prove Kennedy had “nothing to hide.”

Daredelvis

BenBurch · 18th July 2012, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Dymanic

The US electorate vetting a candidate for President = witch hunt.

That's an interesting perspective. Do you feel that it somehow applies uniquely to this particular election?

What does he have against wiccans? Yeah, I know all religion is a lie, but why does MHaze hate wiccans so badly?

m-n-m · 18th July 2012, 09:22 AM

From the OP:

Quote:

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." ...

So, Romney 2012: 'Blind Trust! Nothing to see here!'

Retroactive Mitt: "Blind Trusts are a ruse!"

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

BenBurch · 18th July 2012, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by m-n-m

From the OP:

So, Romney 2012: 'Blind Trust! Nothing to see here!'

Retroactive Mitt: "Blind Trusts are a ruse!"

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

Add to that - he is totally lying about the that being a legally-acceptable blind trust. It's not blind, though he pretends so.

ANTPogo · 18th July 2012, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Add to that - he is totally lying about the that being a legally-acceptable blind trust. It's not blind, though he pretends so.

It's legally blind like someone merely closing their eyes is legally blind.

m-n-m · 18th July 2012, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Add to that - he is totally lying about the that being a legally-acceptable blind trust. It's not blind, though he pretends so.

So it's just a ruse?

If you would, could you provide a link w/regards to it not being a legally accepted blind trust?

mhaze · 18th July 2012, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Add to that - he is totally lying about the that being a legally-acceptable blind trust. It's not blind, though he pretends so.

Really? This is based on the theory that having the trust managed by a close friend or personal advisory is not an arms length transaction. I'm not sure about that, seems like it would depend on the exact rules and the wording of the documents.

Numerous fiduciary responsibilities may be handled by relatives, close friends and so forth and are totally legal. Nonetheless, it's a bit odd that local resident rabid democrats would want to call Romney a liar for noting that blind trusts are a ruse, then smear him for not having a blind trust.

Well, which is it? You guys going to smear him for having a blind trust, for not having a blind trust, for talking frankly about historical abuses of blind trusts, or what?

Take a deep breath, and try to put your thoughts together before responding. Or don't...

ANTPogo · 18th July 2012, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by m-n-m

If you would, could you provide a link w/regards to it not being a legally accepted blind trust?

Here, from back when Gingrich attacked Romney about the issue during the primary.

Bonus quote from Mitt himself, back when he was running against Ted Kennedy:

Quote:

“The blind trust is an age-old ruse. You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don't invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they're going to get an advantage from me.” Romney told The Boston Globe in 1994. "'A United States senator has an obligation to tell its blind trust what it cannot and can invest in," he later told the Associated Press.

Tricky · 18th July 2012, 09:59 AM

It is quite possible that Romneys financial wizardry is not quite as legal as most have assumed.

Quote:

Romney's $100 million IRA is remarkable in its size. Even under the most generous assumptions, Romney would have been restricted to annual contributions of $30,000 while he worked at Bain. How does this grow to $100 million?

One possibility is that a truly mighty oak sprang up virtually overnight from relatively tiny annual acorns because of the unprecedented prescience of every one of Romney's investment choices.

Another, which on its face is quite plausible, is that Romney stuffed far more into his retirement plans each year than the maximum allowed by law by claiming that the stock of the Bain company deals that the retirement plan acquired had only a nominal value. He presumably would have done so by relying on a special IRS "safe harbor" rule relating to the taxation of a service partner's receipt of such interests, but that rule emphatically does not apply to an interest when sold to a retirement plan, which is supposed to be measured by its true fair market value.

Really, Romney? A hundred million dollar IRA? At 30,000 a year max, that would have taken over three thousand years to put that much in. Even assuming really good return on investment, it would have taken much more than his lifetime. If this sort of thing is legal, then it shouldn't be.

BenBurch · 18th July 2012, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

Here, from back when Gingrich attacked Romney about the issue during the primary.

Bonus quote from Mitt himself, back when he was running against Ted Kennedy:

Thanks for answering that!

BenBurch · 18th July 2012, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by Tricky

It is quite possible that Romneys financial wizardry is not quite as legal as most have assumed.

Really, Romney? A hundred million dollar IRA? At 30,000 a year max, that would have taken over three thousand years to put that much in. Even assuming really good return on investment, it would have taken much more than his lifetime. If this sort of thing is legal, then it shouldn't be.

Again, we need to see his tax returns.

After the election, I want to see a full IRS audit come down on this bastard like a ton of bricks.

mhaze · 18th July 2012, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

It is quite possible that Romneys financial wizardry is not quite as legal as most have assumed.

Really, Romney? A hundred million dollar IRA? At 30,000 a year max, that would have taken over three thousand years to put that much in. Even assuming really good return on investment, it would have taken much more than his lifetime. If this sort of thing is legal, then it shouldn't be.

Of course, if you believed propaganda, you might reach erroneous conclusions. And that's what seems to be embedded in the article - well, after all, cnn....

Here 'ya go.

A guy has a company retirement plan, like a 401k. He exits the company then does a rollover into an IRA. Bingo, the 30k per year max is irrelevant and all the innuendo of the article (and of you) has just been chopped to little pieces.

Try again?

SezMe · 18th July 2012, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Really? This is based on the theory that having the trust managed by a close friend or personal advisory is not an arms length transaction. I'm not sure about that, seems like it would depend on the exact rules and the wording of the documents.

Documents that we don't have, do we?

mhaze · 18th July 2012, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by SezMe

Documents that we don't have, do we?

I don't know. Have the formation documents for the blind trust been released, or are they public record, as many things of this sort are? They are NOT related to a tax return.

That's a question that can be looked into by people looking for dirt. But lazy minds don't do that, they just make things up. That doesn't work. Stick with the methods of the master propagandists. Always base your propaganda on a central shred of a fact. Just one tiny thing that's true. Then build up the lies and repeat them over and over.

So far all I've been seeing here is a lot of ignorance on the subject matters. Frankly, I'd hate to see the guys on this thread deal with a thousand page long tax return - ten or twenty years of that length. You don't really need them, of course. You can just make things up. But asking for something that isn't public creates suspicion of covering things up and of possible wrongdoing.

Now carry on, and ignore my mad ramblings. I'll stick to batting home runs on errors of fact. To avoid that, keep the smear vague.

Dymanic · 18th July 2012, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

So far all I've been seeing here is a lot of ignorance on the subject matters.

That's really the whole issue: we don't know what's in those returns.

Quote:

You don't really need them, of course. You can just make things up. But asking for something that isn't public creates suspicion of covering things up and of possible wrongdoing.

I think you're finally starting to catch on to the way this works. NOW do you see why even Republicans are now calling for the release of those returns?

ANTPogo · 18th July 2012, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

I don't know. Have the formation documents for the blind trust been released, or are they public record, as many things of this sort are? They are NOT related to a tax return.

So, do you disagree with Mitt Romney when he said the following:

Quote:

‘The blind trust is an age-old ruse. You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don’t invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they’re going to get an advantage from me.’ ” [Boston Globe, 10/19/1994] and “‘It’s a conflict of interest pure and simple – and it’s wrong for a U.S. senator,’ said Romney. ‘The fact that it’s a blind trust does not hide it.’ [Boston Herald. 10/19/1994] and “‘A United States senator has an obligation to tell its blind trust what it cannot and can invest in,’ Romney said.” [The Associated Press, October 18, 1994].

If he's engaged in an "age-old ruse", wouldn't you like more details about this ruse? Or is his party affiliation enough for you?

mhaze · 18th July 2012, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by BenBurch

Again, we need to see his tax returns.

After the election, I want to see a full IRS audit come down on this bastard like a ton of bricks.

You mean, along the way that Clinton caused Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, Liz Ward Gracen, Billy Dale, The National Rifle Association, The Heritage Foundation, The National Review, The American Spectator, Freedom Alliance, National Center for Public Policy Research, American Policy Center, American Cause, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for Honest Government, Progress and Freedom Foundation, Concerned Women for America and the San Diego Chapter of Christian Coalition to be audited by the IRS?

Thanks for revealing a bit of your nature and thinking, Ben.

BenBurch · 18th July 2012, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by ANTPogo

So, do you disagree with Mitt Romney when he said the following:

If he's engaged in an "age-old ruse", wouldn't you like more details about this ruse? Or is his party affiliation enough for you?

MHaze can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that he had nothing nice to say about Romney last year.

So, it must be party affiliation.

Tricky · 18th July 2012, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Of course, if you believed propaganda, you might reach erroneous conclusions. And that's what seems to be embedded in the article - well, after all, cnn....

Here 'ya go.

A guy has a company retirement plan, like a 401k. He exits the company then does a rollover into an IRA. Bingo, the 30k per year max is irrelevant and all the innuendo of the article (and of you) has just been chopped to little pieces.

Try again?

That's not what the financial experts seem to be saying. They're all wondering how he performed this "miracle", because they'd like to do it too. And the thing is, if he is really such a financial genius, wouldn't he want to show the world how smart he is?

So keep dancing. We're enjoying the show.

JoeTheJuggler · 18th July 2012, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by AlBell

My fondest hope is a different, actual, Nominee is selected at RNC. Either way republican idiots (NE establishment types) have ensured 4 more Obama years.

Of the pool of candidates, Romney was the least nutty, IMO. While I disagree with his proposals, they're not as nutty as what any of the other guys offered. (Newt's budget/tax proposal was utterly preposterous.)

I think it's pretty safe to say that Romney will be the GOP's candidate this year.

ETA: And of the GOP candidates, I think Romney will probably make for the best head to head debates. Best, that is, for the electorate. Of all the actual GOP candidates, Romney is most likely to have debates with Obama that focus on the issues of importance to our country.

JoeTheJuggler · 18th July 2012, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

I don't know. Have the formation documents for the blind trust been released, or are they public record, as many things of this sort are?

Well we certainly know who the trustee is. And we know that because the trustee is a person who has a long standing relationship with Romney that this doesn't qualify as a blind trust for purposes of the federal office holder disclosure requirements.

And the reason it doesn't is no technicality.

And again, as evidence that the trustee is not making disinterested decisions, we have the fact that he invested $10 million from the trust in the company started by Romney's son and one of his campaign donors.

eeyore1954 · 18th July 2012, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

That's not what the financial experts seem to be saying. They're all wondering how he performed this "miracle", because they'd like to do it too. And the thing is, if he is really such a financial genius, wouldn't he want to show the world how smart he is?

So keep dancing. We're enjoying the show.

Chances are he was not such a financial genius to end up with such a large amount in his IRA because the IRA will be taxed at 35% (current rates) rather than at a capital gains rate which this almost certainly is.

I think many experts have a good idea how such a large amount ended up in an IRA. Bain and/or Bain investments were put into the IRA in the early days of Bain.

JoeTheJuggler · 18th July 2012, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

A guy has a company retirement plan, like a 401k. He exits the company then does a rollover into an IRA. Bingo, the 30k per year max is irrelevant and all the innuendo of the article (and of you) has just been chopped to little pieces.

You missed a very important point. Tricky also said:

Originally Posted by Tricky

If this sort of thing is legal, then it shouldn't be.

You seem to be arguing merely that Mitt found a legal loophole to get around the $30K per year IRA limit. That's damning by faint praise.

RandFan · 18th July 2012, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

I think many experts have a good idea how such a large amount ended up in an IRA. Bain and/or Bain investments were put into the IRA in the early days of Bain.

I'm not sure how this addresses the issue. What does this mean exactly and how does it answer the question? BTW: I don't think the question is how the money got there but whether it is legitimate given the caps on contributing to one's IRA. There are lots of ways for me to get money. Not all of them are legal and/or ethical.

not_so_new · 18th July 2012, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by mhaze

Of course, if you believed propaganda, you might reach erroneous conclusions. And that's what seems to be embedded in the article - well, after all, cnn....

Here 'ya go.

As an aside, why is it that all right wing types always say that EVERY news source is biased and hiding the truth?

I get it, MSNBC is left leaning, but every other new source is as well? When something is published by a news source that isn't obviously outright right leaning (i.e. Fox News) then that news source is obviously showing their bias.

Come on... please wake up to your own bias.

Back to your regularly scheduled program already in progress.....

Tricky · 18th July 2012, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by not_so_new

As an aside, why is it that all right wing types always say that EVERY news source is biased and hiding the truth?

I get it, MSNBC is left leaning, but every other new source is as well? When something is published by a news source that isn't obviously outright right leaning (i.e. Fox News) then that news source is obviously showing their bias.

Come on... please wake up to your own bias.

Back to your regularly scheduled program already in progress.....

Commentators at Fox are saying he should release his tax info too. Where is an uber-right ideologue to go? National Enquirer?

Tricky · 18th July 2012, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by eeyore1954

I think many experts have a good idea how such a large amount ended up in an IRA. Bain and/or Bain investments were put into the IRA in the early days of Bain.

There's still a limit to how much you can put in. Most the economists I'm reading say that what he probably did was put in a bunch of stock, valuing it at pennies on the dollar, and, surprise surprise, it turned out to be worth much more. Of course, Mitt never had a clue this was happening nudge nudge wink wink.

AlBell · 18th July 2012, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Dymanic

The US electorate vetting a candidate for President = witch hunt.

That's an interesting perspective. Do you feel that it somehow applies uniquely to this particular election?

It is quickly doing so. Mitt is a lousy campaigner, as well as a doof.

Damn shame neither MSM nor McCain had interest in vetting Obama in 2008, or now for that matter. The man is a great politician, I give him that.

AlBell · 18th July 2012, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Of the pool of candidates, Romney was the least nutty, IMO. While I disagree with his proposals, they're not as nutty as what any of the other guys offered. (Newt's budget/tax proposal was utterly preposterous.)

I think it's pretty safe to say that Romney will be the GOP's candidate this year.

ETA: And of the GOP candidates, I think Romney will probably make for the best head to head debates. Best, that is, for the electorate. Of all the actual GOP candidates, Romney is most likely to have debates with Obama that focus on the issues of importance to our country.

Obama will focus on nothing but tax returns and Bain job losses. You may think that's more important than the economy and 8%+ unemployment.

I suspect Mitt will look goofy in debates as always.

mhaze · 18th July 2012, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Tricky

That's not what the financial experts seem to be saying. They're all wondering how he performed this "miracle", because they'd like to do it too. And the thing is, if he is really such a financial genius, wouldn't he want to show the world how smart he is?

So keep dancing. We're enjoying the show.

Really? You miss my point, I have simply show that they are not much of "financial experts" to have missed something so obvious. Then again, taking things at face value, they may simply be propagandists and not experts at all. That seems much more likely doesn't it?

Because I've shown them wrong pretty easily...

mhaze · 18th July 2012, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by JoeTheJuggler

Well we certainly know who the trustee is. And we know that because the trustee is a person who has a long standing relationship with Romney that this doesn't qualify as a blind trust for purposes of the federal office holder disclosure requirements.....

I'm sure that would be corrected if and when he became POTUS. So your complaint is what, exactly?

That it doesn't qualify for something it doesn't have to?

You think they haven't thought of a simple one line change naming another person as trustee if and when it is required?

Wow...

18th July 2012, 05:50 AM	#281
BenBurch Gatekeeper of The Left Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: The Universe 35.2 ms ahead of this one. Posts: 32,492	Romney digs in against releasing more tax returns http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...86G10D20120718 Quote: (Reuters) - Republican Mitt Romney shrugged off growing pressure on Tuesday to release more of his tax returns, and his campaign lashed out at President Barack Obama in an effort to turn the campaign debate away from Romney's business and financial record. Romney said he would not give in to mounting attacks over his refusal to release his tax returns prior to 2010, including calls from some Republican allies to disclose the records and end the controversy. "In the political environment that exists today, the opposition research of the Obama campaign is looking for anything they can use to distract from the failure of the president to reignite our economy," Romney told the conservative National Review Online. "I'm simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort and lie about," he told the magazine, which itself later published an editorial urging Romney to release more tax returns. <SNIP> Translation; "What is in there would sink me." ETA: Thousands of pages? How many deductions did this guy take?
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now! Last edited by BenBurch; 18th July 2012 at 05:52 AM.

18th July 2012, 06:03 AM	#282
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,279	Originally Posted by Cain Romney says that if he releases past tax returns, the Obama camp will lie and "distort" his record. So why does he plan on releasing this year's returns? Waaaaa wasaaaa waaaaaa What a crybaby
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

18th July 2012, 06:05 AM	#283
Alferd_Packer Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 7,279	Originally Posted by BenBurch http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...86G10D20120718 Translation; "What is in there would sink me." ETA: Thousands of pages? How many deductions did this guy take? At least $75,000, give or take a few grand, on those damned dressage horses.
	__________________ No laws of physics were broken in the writing of this post

18th July 2012, 06:09 AM	#284
Dymanic Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 4,809	Originally Posted by Cain Romney says that if he releases past tax returns, the Obama camp will lie and "distort" his record. If he was going to base his campaign strategy on the premise that "The less they know about you, the fewer bad things they'll be able to say about you", maybe his best bet would have been not to even release his name. Run as "candidate X", and wear a bag over his head whenever he appeared in public.
Dymanic Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 4,809

18th July 2012, 07:17 AM	#286
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by BenBurch http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...86G10D20120718 Translation; "What is in there would sink me." ETA: Thousands of pages? How many deductions did this guy take? It does seem a bit ridiculous, to dump thousands of pages on bigoted witch hunters.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

18th July 2012, 06:11 AM	#285
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,403	Originally Posted by Cain Romney says that if he releases past tax returns, the Obama camp will lie and "distort" his record. So why does he plan on releasing this year's returns? As John Stewart pointed out, he is only releasing returns from the years when he was actually running for President, which oddly coincides with the exact time he started cleaning up his resume.

18th July 2012, 07:20 AM	#287
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: Funky Town (STL, MO) Posts: 23,472	Huh. Okay. So, am I correctly reading this as Romney is going to refuse to release his tax records, not merely that he just hasn't done it yet? That is an ...interesting choice. Of course, he is free to not do so. But then, we are free to consider that when deciding on whom to vote for.

18th July 2012, 07:26 AM	#288
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 Upchurch Huh. Okay. So, am I correctly reading this as Romney is going to refuse to release his tax records, not merely that he just hasn't done it yet? That is an ...interesting choice. Of course, he is free to not do so. But then, we are free to consider that when deciding on whom to vote for. Yes, they unequivocally stated that. No returns will be released. Period. So if he does release them, it will be a huge loss of face, and even if nothing is in the damned things, is going to damage him.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

18th July 2012, 07:26 AM	#289
Dymanic Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 4,809	Originally Posted by mhaze It does seem a bit ridiculous, to dump thousands of pages on bigoted witch hunters. The US electorate vetting a candidate for President = witch hunt. That's an interesting perspective. Do you feel that it somehow applies uniquely to this particular election?
Dymanic Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 4,809

18th July 2012, 07:28 AM	#290
daredelvis Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Torrey Pines Posts: 1,904	Mitt vs. Mitt. Quote: Ironically, during the 1994 Senate race, Romney challenged his opponent, Senator Edward Kennedy, to release his state and federal taxes to prove Kennedy had “nothing to hide.” Daredelvis
	__________________ People like Coldplay and voting for the Nazis. People can't be trusted. -Jez

18th July 2012, 07:33 AM	#291
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 Dymanic The US electorate vetting a candidate for President = witch hunt. That's an interesting perspective. Do you feel that it somehow applies uniquely to this particular election? What does he have against wiccans? Yeah, I know all religion is a lie, but why does MHaze hate wiccans so badly?
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

18th July 2012, 09:32 AM	#294
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,595	Originally Posted by BenBurch Add to that - he is totally lying about the that being a legally-acceptable blind trust. It's not blind, though he pretends so. It's legally blind like someone merely closing their eyes is legally blind.
	__________________ "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

18th July 2012, 09:42 AM	#295
m-n-m Scholar Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 107	Originally Posted by BenBurch Add to that - he is totally lying about the that being a legally-acceptable blind trust. It's not blind, though he pretends so. So it's just a ruse? If you would, could you provide a link w/regards to it not being a legally accepted blind trust?
m-n-m Scholar Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 107

18th July 2012, 09:46 AM	#296
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by BenBurch Add to that - he is totally lying about the that being a legally-acceptable blind trust. It's not blind, though he pretends so. Really? This is based on the theory that having the trust managed by a close friend or personal advisory is not an arms length transaction. I'm not sure about that, seems like it would depend on the exact rules and the wording of the documents. Numerous fiduciary responsibilities may be handled by relatives, close friends and so forth and are totally legal. Nonetheless, it's a bit odd that local resident rabid democrats would want to call Romney a liar for noting that blind trusts are a ruse, then smear him for not having a blind trust. Well, which is it? You guys going to smear him for having a blind trust, for not having a blind trust, for talking frankly about historical abuses of blind trusts, or what? Take a deep breath, and try to put your thoughts together before responding. Or don't...
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

18th July 2012, 09:47 AM	#297
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,595	Originally Posted by m-n-m If you would, could you provide a link w/regards to it not being a legally accepted blind trust? Here, from back when Gingrich attacked Romney about the issue during the primary. Bonus quote from Mitt himself, back when he was running against Ted Kennedy: Quote: “The blind trust is an age-old ruse. You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don't invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they're going to get an advantage from me.” Romney told The Boston Globe in 1994. "'A United States senator has an obligation to tell its blind trust what it cannot and can invest in," he later told the Associated Press.
	__________________ "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 Last edited by ANTPogo; 18th July 2012 at 09:48 AM.

18th July 2012, 09:59 AM	#298
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,403	It is quite possible that Romneys financial wizardry is not quite as legal as most have assumed. Quote: Romney's $100 million IRA is remarkable in its size. Even under the most generous assumptions, Romney would have been restricted to annual contributions of $30,000 while he worked at Bain. How does this grow to $100 million? One possibility is that a truly mighty oak sprang up virtually overnight from relatively tiny annual acorns because of the unprecedented prescience of every one of Romney's investment choices. Another, which on its face is quite plausible, is that Romney stuffed far more into his retirement plans each year than the maximum allowed by law by claiming that the stock of the Bain company deals that the retirement plan acquired had only a nominal value. He presumably would have done so by relying on a special IRS "safe harbor" rule relating to the taxation of a service partner's receipt of such interests, but that rule emphatically does not apply to an interest when sold to a retirement plan, which is supposed to be measured by its true fair market value. Really, Romney? A hundred million dollar IRA? At 30,000 a year max, that would have taken over three thousand years to put that much in. Even assuming really good return on investment, it would have taken much more than his lifetime. If this sort of thing is legal, then it shouldn't be.
	Last edited by Tricky; 18th July 2012 at 10:02 AM.

18th July 2012, 10:35 AM	#299
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 ANTPogo Here, from back when Gingrich attacked Romney about the issue during the primary. Bonus quote from Mitt himself, back when he was running against Ted Kennedy: Thanks for answering that!
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

18th July 2012, 10:37 AM	#300
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 Tricky It is quite possible that Romneys financial wizardry is not quite as legal as most have assumed. Really, Romney? A hundred million dollar IRA? At 30,000 a year max, that would have taken over three thousand years to put that much in. Even assuming really good return on investment, it would have taken much more than his lifetime. If this sort of thing is legal, then it shouldn't be. Again, we need to see his tax returns. After the election, I want to see a full IRS audit come down on this bastard like a ton of bricks.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

18th July 2012, 12:20 PM	#301
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by Tricky It is quite possible that Romneys financial wizardry is not quite as legal as most have assumed. Really, Romney? A hundred million dollar IRA? At 30,000 a year max, that would have taken over three thousand years to put that much in. Even assuming really good return on investment, it would have taken much more than his lifetime. If this sort of thing is legal, then it shouldn't be. Of course, if you believed propaganda, you might reach erroneous conclusions. And that's what seems to be embedded in the article - well, after all, cnn.... Here 'ya go. A guy has a company retirement plan, like a 401k. He exits the company then does a rollover into an IRA. Bingo, the 30k per year max is irrelevant and all the innuendo of the article (and of you) has just been chopped to little pieces. Try again?
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

18th July 2012, 12:23 PM	#302
SezMe post-pre-born Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Santa Barbara, CA Posts: 16,643	Originally Posted by mhaze Really? This is based on the theory that having the trust managed by a close friend or personal advisory is not an arms length transaction. I'm not sure about that, seems like it would depend on the exact rules and the wording of the documents. Documents that we don't have, do we?

18th July 2012, 01:04 PM	#303
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by SezMe Documents that we don't have, do we? I don't know. Have the formation documents for the blind trust been released, or are they public record, as many things of this sort are? They are NOT related to a tax return. That's a question that can be looked into by people looking for dirt. But lazy minds don't do that, they just make things up. That doesn't work. Stick with the methods of the master propagandists. Always base your propaganda on a central shred of a fact. Just one tiny thing that's true. Then build up the lies and repeat them over and over. So far all I've been seeing here is a lot of ignorance on the subject matters. Frankly, I'd hate to see the guys on this thread deal with a thousand page long tax return - ten or twenty years of that length. You don't really need them, of course. You can just make things up. But asking for something that isn't public creates suspicion of covering things up and of possible wrongdoing. Now carry on, and ignore my mad ramblings. I'll stick to batting home runs on errors of fact. To avoid that, keep the smear vague.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms Last edited by mhaze; 18th July 2012 at 01:05 PM.

18th July 2012, 01:09 PM	#304
Dymanic Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 4,809	Originally Posted by mhaze So far all I've been seeing here is a lot of ignorance on the subject matters. That's really the whole issue: we don't know what's in those returns. Quote: You don't really need them, of course. You can just make things up. But asking for something that isn't public creates suspicion of covering things up and of possible wrongdoing. I think you're finally starting to catch on to the way this works. NOW do you see why even Republicans are now calling for the release of those returns?
Dymanic Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 4,809

18th July 2012, 01:10 PM	#305
ANTPogo Unique Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 9,595	Originally Posted by mhaze I don't know. Have the formation documents for the blind trust been released, or are they public record, as many things of this sort are? They are NOT related to a tax return. So, do you disagree with Mitt Romney when he said the following: Quote: ‘The blind trust is an age-old ruse. You give a blind trust rules. You can say to a blind trust, don’t invest in properties which would be in conflict of interest or where the seller might think they’re going to get an advantage from me.’ ” [Boston Globe, 10/19/1994] and “‘It’s a conflict of interest pure and simple – and it’s wrong for a U.S. senator,’ said Romney. ‘The fact that it’s a blind trust does not hide it.’ [Boston Herald. 10/19/1994] and “‘A United States senator has an obligation to tell its blind trust what it cannot and can invest in,’ Romney said.” [The Associated Press, October 18, 1994]. If he's engaged in an "age-old ruse", wouldn't you like more details about this ruse? Or is his party affiliation enough for you?
	__________________ "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

18th July 2012, 01:11 PM	#306
mhaze Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Woo*(+-1.10)^20=AGWwoo Posts: 15,400	Originally Posted by BenBurch Again, we need to see his tax returns. After the election, I want to see a full IRS audit come down on this bastard like a ton of bricks. You mean, along the way that Clinton caused Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Gennifer Flowers, Liz Ward Gracen, Billy Dale, The National Rifle Association, The Heritage Foundation, The National Review, The American Spectator, Freedom Alliance, National Center for Public Policy Research, American Policy Center, American Cause, Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens for Honest Government, Progress and Freedom Foundation, Concerned Women for America and the San Diego Chapter of Christian Coalition to be audited by the IRS? Thanks for revealing a bit of your nature and thinking, Ben.
	__________________ Get your climate widget Climategate - History's Biggest Scam Poptech's List Climate Acronyms

18th July 2012, 01:21 PM	#307
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 ANTPogo So, do you disagree with Mitt Romney when he said the following: If he's engaged in an "age-old ruse", wouldn't you like more details about this ruse? Or is his party affiliation enough for you? MHaze can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that he had nothing nice to say about Romney last year. So, it must be party affiliation.
	__________________ Are you IN? Join the IN crowd now!

18th July 2012, 01:33 PM	#308
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,403	Originally Posted by mhaze Of course, if you believed propaganda, you might reach erroneous conclusions. And that's what seems to be embedded in the article - well, after all, cnn.... Here 'ya go. A guy has a company retirement plan, like a 401k. He exits the company then does a rollover into an IRA. Bingo, the 30k per year max is irrelevant and all the innuendo of the article (and of you) has just been chopped to little pieces. Try again? That's not what the financial experts seem to be saying. They're all wondering how he performed this "miracle", because they'd like to do it too. And the thing is, if he is really such a financial genius, wouldn't he want to show the world how smart he is? So keep dancing. We're enjoying the show.

18th July 2012, 01:38 PM	#309
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,166	Originally Posted by AlBell My fondest hope is a different, actual, Nominee is selected at RNC. Either way republican idiots (NE establishment types) have ensured 4 more Obama years. Of the pool of candidates, Romney was the least nutty, IMO. While I disagree with his proposals, they're not as nutty as what any of the other guys offered. (Newt's budget/tax proposal was utterly preposterous.) I think it's pretty safe to say that Romney will be the GOP's candidate this year. ETA: And of the GOP candidates, I think Romney will probably make for the best head to head debates. Best, that is, for the electorate. Of all the actual GOP candidates, Romney is most likely to have debates with Obama that focus on the issues of importance to our 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; 18th July 2012 at 01:40 PM.

18th July 2012, 01:46 PM	#310
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,166	Originally Posted by mhaze I don't know. Have the formation documents for the blind trust been released, or are they public record, as many things of this sort are? Well we certainly know who the trustee is. And we know that because the trustee is a person who has a long standing relationship with Romney that this doesn't qualify as a blind trust for purposes of the federal office holder disclosure requirements. And the reason it doesn't is no technicality. And again, as evidence that the trustee is not making disinterested decisions, we have the fact that he invested $10 million from the trust in the company started by Romney's son and one of his campaign donors.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

18th July 2012, 01:48 PM	#311
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,166	Originally Posted by Tricky That's not what the financial experts seem to be saying. They're all wondering how he performed this "miracle", because they'd like to do it too. And the thing is, if he is really such a financial genius, wouldn't he want to show the world how smart he is? So keep dancing. We're enjoying the show. Chances are he was not such a financial genius to end up with such a large amount in his IRA because the IRA will be taxed at 35% (current rates) rather than at a capital gains rate which this almost certainly is. I think many experts have a good idea how such a large amount ended up in an IRA. Bain and/or Bain investments were put into the IRA in the early days of Bain.
eeyore1954 Illuminator Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 4,166

18th July 2012, 01:49 PM	#312
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 27,166	Originally Posted by mhaze A guy has a company retirement plan, like a 401k. He exits the company then does a rollover into an IRA. Bingo, the 30k per year max is irrelevant and all the innuendo of the article (and of you) has just been chopped to little pieces. You missed a very important point. Tricky also said: Originally Posted by Tricky If this sort of thing is legal, then it shouldn't be. You seem to be arguing merely that Mitt found a legal loophole to get around the $30K per year IRA limit. That's damning by faint praise.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

18th July 2012, 01:54 PM	#313
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,941	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 I think many experts have a good idea how such a large amount ended up in an IRA. Bain and/or Bain investments were put into the IRA in the early days of Bain. I'm not sure how this addresses the issue. What does this mean exactly and how does it answer the question? BTW: I don't think the question is how the money got there but whether it is legitimate given the caps on contributing to one's IRA. There are lots of ways for me to get money. Not all of them are legal and/or ethical.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith Last edited by RandFan; 18th July 2012 at 01:56 PM.

18th July 2012, 02:14 PM	#314
not_so_new Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,544	Originally Posted by mhaze Of course, if you believed propaganda, you might reach erroneous conclusions. And that's what seems to be embedded in the article - well, after all, cnn.... Here 'ya go. As an aside, why is it that all right wing types always say that EVERY news source is biased and hiding the truth? I get it, MSNBC is left leaning, but every other new source is as well? When something is published by a news source that isn't obviously outright right leaning (i.e. Fox News) then that news source is obviously showing their bias. Come on... please wake up to your own bias. Back to your regularly scheduled program already in progress.....

18th July 2012, 02:34 PM	#315
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,403	Originally Posted by not_so_new As an aside, why is it that all right wing types always say that EVERY news source is biased and hiding the truth? I get it, MSNBC is left leaning, but every other new source is as well? When something is published by a news source that isn't obviously outright right leaning (i.e. Fox News) then that news source is obviously showing their bias. Come on... please wake up to your own bias. Back to your regularly scheduled program already in progress..... Commentators at Fox are saying he should release his tax info too. Where is an uber-right ideologue to go? National Enquirer?

18th July 2012, 02:36 PM	#316
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,403	Originally Posted by eeyore1954 I think many experts have a good idea how such a large amount ended up in an IRA. Bain and/or Bain investments were put into the IRA in the early days of Bain. There's still a limit to how much you can put in. Most the economists I'm reading say that what he probably did was put in a bunch of stock, valuing it at pennies on the dollar, and, surprise surprise, it turned out to be worth much more. Of course, Mitt never had a clue this was happening nudge nudge wink wink.

18th July 2012, 02:56 PM	#317
AlBell Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,567	Originally Posted by Dymanic The US electorate vetting a candidate for President = witch hunt. That's an interesting perspective. Do you feel that it somehow applies uniquely to this particular election? It is quickly doing so. Mitt is a lousy campaigner, as well as a doof. Damn shame neither MSM nor McCain had interest in vetting Obama in 2008, or now for that matter. The man is a great politician, I give him that.
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.