What is the real reason Mitt Romney won't release his tax returns?

[Jhhnn]

My second link was outside spending - independent expenditures, meaning political spending outside of the candidates and parties. I know two is a hard number for you to handle, but surely someone there could help you get that far . . .

Independent expenditures are only a part of outside spending by groups that pop up like stinkhorns every cycle & disappear just as quickly. They sponsor all those "issue ads" as explained in my link, the one you obviously didn't read. Done well, the source of funding is totally obscured by their tax-exempt status, and their sheer numbers make them very difficult to even account for.

You knew that already, of course, which is why you exclude them in your "analysis", which is obviously just a rework of something from Newsmax or similar.

How many pro- Dem issue ads have you ever seen, anyway?

 

[Jhhnn]

Cross-party voting is what it is, and I'm content to show that the Republicans are compromising to a much higher extent than are the Dems.

Nice distortion, totally dishonest. Repubs' current tactic, the filibuster, precludes any voting at all under Senate rules.

Yeh, sure, Reid could force a vote on every filibuster, but he knows it's pointless & a waste of time.

Add those filibuster efforts to your vote totals, tell us what you get.

 

[berzerker60]

Nope. That's an argument for seeing Bain's tax returns, not his.

(Edit: We all know disclosing his returns doesn't have anything to do with Bain, it's just your side is too dishonest to admit it.)

Honestly I didn't care at all about his returns until suddenly it was a HUGE deal to him to keep this standard information secret. Now I do care. I would also care if President Obama suddenly refused to release any more medical records like presidents normally do each year, because that would also be out of the norm and therefore imply something being kept secret that I should know. I'd also be upset if either refused to say who their chief of staff / campaign managers were, or who their major donors are.

I don't care at all if Romney or Obama refuse to give up college records or dental records or the age they lost their virginities, because those aren't usual information given out and there's no reason to think they'd be relevant. If tax records weren't standard information given out, I'd be inclined to think it's not a super big deal either, but that's not the case. I don't think there's anything dishonest or extreme about that.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

And I showed proof that Republicans cross party lines far, far more often than do Democrats. At which point you decided the word "partisan" needed a redefinition. You may want to do some advance work on the word "compromise" too, as currently it does not mean "toe the Democrat Party line" which your post requires.


Well, I'm still really, really pissed that I defended Obama and Holder over Fast and Furious, only to have that blow up in my face. I seriously underestimated Obama's level of evil. And I'm really pissed that Obama said "If you have a business, you didn't build that." Having watched my grandfather and then my father build up a small business, having seen the level of sacrifice required, having often been the one who had to give up my evening or Sunday after working fifty hours over six days each week to go out and open the store so that someone could get a needed part to fix his car or truck, I am absolutely livid over Obama's assertion that "somebody else" made that happen.

Obama does make it crystal clear that things look a lot different to someone building up a business than to a community organizer looking to extort some of his earnings. So yeah, I guess you could say I was offended by an evil progressive. Unfortunately, he's my President. But please feel free to rejoin the circle; so far it seems pretty efficient at protecting lefties from the slings and arrows of reality.

You have so often seemed rational and respectful that the kookiness of your post in this thread disappoints me greatly.

 

[werepossum]

Nice distortion, totally dishonest. Repubs' current tactic, the filibuster, precludes any voting at all under Senate rules.

Yeh, sure, Reid could force a vote on every filibuster, but he knows it's pointless & a waste of time.

Add those filibuster efforts to your vote totals, tell us what you get.

A filibuster is a vote on cloture, so I'm assuming that those votes are counted. But perhaps it's escaped you that these aren't MY numbers, they are Open Secrets' numbers.

As to your other "point", clearly I was being dishonest when I didn't include the spending that YOUR post says can't be counted. I did read your link; I just didn't assume that what wasn't counted by the six major Democrat PACs and the six major Republican PACs indicated some kind of massive Republican vote buying. And no, my "analysis" is entirely my own. I'll do you the favor of assuming that your knee-jerk accusations of dishonesty whenever someone refuses to accept that Obama is the Messiah are your own as well. (Wait - that really isn't doing you any favors, is it?)

As far as how many pro-Democrat ads I've seen, perhaps it's escaped you that the Repubs just underwent a bloody primary battle whereas Obama, absent a few state-by-state battles with incarcerated felons, is unopposed. Most of the political spending to date has been conservative bashing conservative. But according to YOUR link, the Dems appear to be spending just about as much in spite of the lack of need to defeat primary opponents. Or perhaps it's harder than I think to convince Democrat primary voters that Obama is better than a jailed felon . . .

 

[werepossum]

You have so often seemed rational and respectful that the kookiness of your post in this thread disappoints me greatly.

Which part disappoints you most, my insistence that Obama said what he said, or my refusal to accept Republicans voting with Democrats much more often than the converse is actually evidence of Republicans' refusal to compromise with Democrats?

One HUGE difference between left and right: If you sometimes agree with the left and sometimes agree with the right, people on the right will assume you're a reasonable person even when they disagree with you. However, people on the left will almost invariably assert that you are a reasonable person ONLY when you agree with them. It's like dealing with small children who must have their way all the time.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

One HUGE difference between left and right: If you sometimes agree with the left and sometimes agree with the right, people on the right will assume you're a reasonable person even when they disagree with you. However, people on the left will almost invariably assert that you are a reasonable person ONLY when you agree with them.

As someone who has participated on boards ranging from those containing only self-declared liberals to those with audiences so far right that they'd make you blush, I can state with 100% confidence that this is utter nonsense. Both sides attack those that attack their side. They also immediately paint those who disagree with them as being part of the "other side", whether they are or not.

I've had it done to me by both righties and lefties on this board. Ironically enough, I'm pretty sure you did it to me yourself within the last 24 hours.

 

[werepossum]

As someone who has participated on boards ranging from those containing only self-declared liberals to those with audiences so far right that they'd make you blush, I can state with 100% confidence that this is utter nonsense. Both sides attack those that attack their side. They also immediately paint those who disagree with them as being part of the "other side", whether they are or not.

I've had it done to me by both righties and lefties on this board. Ironically enough, I'm pretty sure you did it to me yourself within the last 24 hours.

Maybe it's just this board then, but in every thread where I agree with the left I find them insisting that theirs is the only possible position, and in every thread where I agree with the right I find them insisting that theirs is the only possible position. In reality, on most issues neither side is totally right or totally wrong. But I will admit I was kicked off of Hannity and Lucy Ann both for (I think) being too liberal. Or at least, my accounts disappeared from both.

For the record, I do think it's possible that what Obama SAID was not what he MEANT to say, even though what he SAID was clearly in line with his previous statements about "the most fortunate among us" and "those who have won life's lottery". You're just flat out wrong on the Repubs though; they compromise much more than do the Dems. But I still think you're generally reasonable.

For a leftie.

 

[blankslate]

Nope. That's an argument for seeing Bain's tax returns, not his.

Wrong. If he drew a salary from Bain in 2000 and 2001; then what for if he didn't have anything to do with Bain?

This is stupid.

Hell no. It's very relevant and if you're taking this stance "oh it's stupid"... That's incredibly shortsighted.

Considering these questions....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjwalke...ut-bain-capital-before-the-issue-can-go-away/

5. You earned at least $100,000 as an executive from Bain in 2001 and 2002, separate from investment earnings according to filings with State of Massachusetts. Can you give an example of anyone else you personally know getting a six figure income, not dividend or investment return, but actual income, from a company they had nothing to do with?
6. What did you do for this $100,000 salary you earned from Bain in both 2000 and 2001?
7. If you did nothing to earn this salary, did the Bain managers violate their fiduciary duty by paying you a salary for no discernible reason?
8. Are there other companies that pay you six figures a year as earned income, not investment income, for which you have no involvement?

His supporters and media cohorts sure have.

They are not him. If you're going to hold him responsible for them one might very well hold Governor Romney responsible for Bain.

 

[werepossum]

Wrong. If he drew a salary from Bain in 2000 and 2001; then what for if he didn't have anything to do with Bain?



Hell no. It's very relevant and if you're taking this stance "oh it's stupid"... That's incredibly shortsighted.

Considering these questions....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tjwalke...ut-bain-capital-before-the-issue-can-go-away/





They are not him. If you're going to hold him responsible for them one might very well hold Governor Romney responsible for Bain.

Well, he owned the company, so he did still have duties with it. Just not with its day to day management. Hell, he could have taken no salary and pulled out money in stock options, paying only capital gains rates. Is $100K really so much for a CEO of a multi-million dollar company who does only the occasional signing and whose ass is still on the line for its behavior?

Before you answer, think about Michelle Obama, who when her husband was state senator got paid several times that much for a job that didn't exist before her and didn't exist after her . . .

 

[Dari]

So, has anyone refuted what Techs posted in the first page of this thread? Did Romney commit a felony?

 

[blankslate]

Before you answer, think about Michelle Obama, who when her husband was state senator got paid several times that much for a job that didn't exist before her and didn't exist after her . . .

Did that job entail investing in companies that later would specialize in outsourcing?

Who was the employer?

Is $100K really so much for a CEO of a multi-million dollar company who does only the occasional signing and whose ass is still on the line for its behavior?

It's not the amount but what it was for? And how it squares up with statements during his campaign for governor that at first glance seems odd considering his stance now.

Remember those companies were bought while he was at Bain. Supposedly he left Bain after 1999. Good enough at first glance but SEC filings show him not only as majority shareholder but as CEO as well during the time that companies owned by Bain shipped jobs overseas. In light of that yes I'm asking that question.

On another note...

I would be interested in seeing it. My point however was not that Republicans don't get their share of money, but rather to counter this widespread fallacy that "the rich" are buying elections for Republicans.

Here is the spreadsheet file where I just plugged in the numbers from the opensecrets site pages concerning donations from the 90's into the 2000s
It was done using Open Office but I saved it as an office 2003 file format. there might be formatting issues...
but I doubt it since there are no macros and the formulas are easy to see.
Interest Groups calculated(open.Office)(Excel.format).xls

 

[berzerker60]

So, has anyone refuted what Techs posted in the first page of this thread? Did Romney commit a felony?

It's doubtful, and even if he did it would be a terrible political move to prosecute him for it, but we can't prove or disprove anything without the returns. By far the most likely scenario is that there's something in Romney's taxes that's legal but politically terrible, like making huge money on the recession, doing better since Obama came into office, a really low effective rate that undercuts his calls for tax cuts, or some combination of those. His camp seems to have decided that no matter how upset everyone gets over him not disclosing the tax records, it's not as bad as if he did, but that's the only real clue we have.

If there's no new shiny news item to distract attention, he might get pressured into giving them up. If there's a disaster somewhere or something, he might get away with the secrecy.

 

[blankslate]

By far the most likely scenario is that there's something in Romney's taxes that's legal but politically terrible

I think that this is most likely

 

[werepossum]

Did that job entail investing in companies that later would specialize in outsourcing?

Who was the employer?

It's not the amount but what it was for? And how it squares up with statements during his campaign for governor that at first glance seems odd considering his stance now.

Remember those companies were bought while he was at Bain. Supposedly he left Bain after 1999. Good enough at first glance but SEC filings show him not only as majority shareholder but as CEO as well during the time that companies owned by Bain shipped jobs overseas. In light of that yes I'm asking that question.

On another note...

Here is the spreadsheet file where I just plugged in the numbers from the opensecrets site pages concerning donations from the 90's into the 2000s
It was done using Open Office but I saved it as an office 2003 file format. there might be formatting issues...
but I doubt it since there are no macros and the formulas are easy to see.
Interest Groups calculated(open.Office)(Excel.format).xls

If memory serves it was a PR position at a hospital, so no, no outsourcing. Just good old-fashioned cronyism and backdoor lobbying. By the way, you DO know the guy actually running Bain during much of the outsourcing is now one of Obama's biggest bundlers, right? Now matter how polarized they may be, the two parties are still more similar than not.

Thanks for the file, I'm definitely interested in perusing it although I trust your evaluation of it. I signed up for a 4share account and I'm waiting for my confirmation to download. It will probably a couple days on it though since I've wasted FAR too much time today so I'm still at work and I've got things I have to get out tonight and tomorrow.

I agree with you and Berzerker, there's almost no chance of anything illegal and almost 100% chance of something politically embarrassing.

 

[blankslate]

By the way, you DO know the guy actually running Bain during much of the outsourcing is now one of Obama's biggest bundlers, right? Now matter how polarized they may be, the two parties are still more similar than not.

Got a link? I try to be diligent about those when I can.

As for the guy running Bain during those years being involved in the Obama campaign I wouldn't be surprised however, given the SEC filings I do question the "official story" of who was running Bain... day to day? sure. Overall direction? /shrug.

I'm thinking more about the consequences of who gets elected...

After all there's one way presidents can leave a lasting influence on the course of the U.S.A. long after they have left office.

 

[Balt]

Ann Romney has settled this matter:

Roberts pressed: "Why not show that, then?" and reasoned that people could "move on" if her husband released his returns.

(Ann) Romney responded, "Because there are so many things that will be open again for more attack... and that's really, that's just the answer. And we've given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and about how we live our life."

You've been told everything you need to be told. Now settle down, peasants.

Apparently Mitt isn't the only one who just naturally comes across as condescending.

 

[werepossum]

Got a link? I try to be diligent about those when I can.

As for the guy running Bain during those years being involved in the Obama campaign I wouldn't be surprised however, given the SEC filings I do question the "official story" of who was running Bain... day to day? sure. Overall direction? /shrug.

I'm thinking more about the consequences of who gets elected...

After all there's one way presidents can leave a lasting influence on the course of the U.S.A. long after they have left office.

Here's a couple. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/obama-bundler-tied-to-outsourcing-pioneers/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ma-taking-bain-donations-height-of-hypocrisy/

Honestly, I've only skimmed them as I've been very busy lately, but it's talking about Jonathan Levine, managing director at (I think) the Boston office who managed three of the four companies in the Obama attack ad.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Here's a couple. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/06/obama-bundler-tied-to-outsourcing-pioneers/

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ma-taking-bain-donations-height-of-hypocrisy/

Honestly, I've only skimmed them as I've been very busy lately, but it's talking about Jonathan Levine, managing director at (I think) the Boston office who managed three of the four companies in the Obama attack ad.

Let me further back that up a bit as well.

http://www.examiner.com/article/mor...ows-obama-took-donations-from-bain-executives

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/07/13/Obama-took-bain-cash

Said SEC filing that list the individuals named who Obama took cash from in 2008 and where around during the outsourcing periods that Obama falsely claimed Mitt was a part of in Bain at the time.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1054290/000092701601001009/0000927016-01-001009-0001.txt

 

[sportage]

So McCain says no red flags with the Romney's tax returns that McCain once looked at?
This coming from a guy that couldn't remember how many homes he and his wife owned when asked during the 2008 campaign.
Yeah... Right.
Bedsides the fact McCain is also color blind.
Especially to the color red.

 

[Phokus]

Well, he owned the company, so he did still have duties with it. Just not with its day to day management. Hell, he could have taken no salary and pulled out money in stock options, paying only capital gains rates. Is $100K really so much for a CEO of a multi-million dollar company who does only the occasional signing and whose ass is still on the line for its behavior?

Before you answer, think about Michelle Obama, who when her husband was state senator got paid several times that much for a job that didn't exist before her and didn't exist after her . . .

I don't see how 100k is relevant, considering Steve Jobs (and i think Lee Iaccoca) had $1 salaries as CEO's. The fact that he HAS a salary does say something about his involvement in the company.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Which part disappoints you most, my insistence that Obama said what he said, or my refusal to accept Republicans voting with Democrats much more often than the converse is actually evidence of Republicans' refusal to compromise with Democrats?

One HUGE difference between left and right: If you sometimes agree with the left and sometimes agree with the right, people on the right will assume you're a reasonable person even when they disagree with you. However, people on the left will almost invariably assert that you are a reasonable person ONLY when you agree with them. It's like dealing with small children who must have their way all the time.

No, the part where you called the President of the United States "evil." That is both offensive to me as an American and absurdly stupid hyperbole.

In general I think of you as a reasonable person, but ironically not when it comes to the sentiment in the second paragraph of this very post.

The GOP's leadership, both popular and elected (e.g., Rush, Ann Coulter, Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum, among many others) have made an unyielding resistance to compromise and mockery of their liberal colleagues some of the party's most essential defining characteristics. Accordingly, their sentiment isn't, "I disagree with the President on issue X," it is, as you yourself wrote, "the President is evil." Or "the President is a Communist," or a Muslim, or not an American citizen, or a terrorist plant, or someone who hates America.

Your own post is a self-evident demonstration of the falsity of the very premise you're arguing.

 

[Jhhnn]

A filibuster is a vote on cloture, so I'm assuming that those votes are counted. But perhaps it's escaped you that these aren't MY numbers, they are Open Secrets' numbers.

Modern filibusters often have no voting. The minority leader merely asserts that he has the votes to prevent cloture & a floor vote, and that's that. The likelihood of filibuster also inhibits matters being advanced at all.

 

[berzerker60]

I agree with you and Berzerker, there's almost no chance of anything illegal and almost 100% chance of something politically embarrassing.

And yet that's a completely illegitimate "reason." Imagine that at a more traditional job interview. "Why won't you tell me anything about your last job, Mr. Prospective Employee?" "Well, if I told you, you'd never hire me!" "Oh, okay then. You've got the job!"

Basically he's saying the American people are too stupid to weigh evidence and decide for themselves the import of some unknown information. As a realist, that could be the case, but in principle, that's an truly awful stance for someone to take.

 

[Phokus]

The real reason Romney won't release his taxes :awe: