Should Mitt release his tax returns?

[Stoked]

So are you saying they are wrong with this particular story? Like I said, there are lots of sources for this, I just posted the first link that came up in google search.

They may be biased and you may hate them, but they are still reporting correctly in this particular story.

Here's the desnews with a similar story:
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/765587857/Assets-offshore-raise-Romney-wealth-questions.html

They are not reporting anything. They are taking something and spinning it to suit their needs. I don't hate them. I jus tknow better than to use them as a source of reliable news.

In regards to this story, they may be right. The sun signs on every dogs *** now and then.

 

[northeast]

Naos, the first link in One Brows recent post briefly touches on this subject.

 

[The Thriller]

So are you saying they are wrong with this particular story? Like I said, there are lots of sources for this, I just posted the first link that came up in google search.

They may be biased and you may hate them, but they are still reporting correctly in this particular story.

Here's the desnews with a similar story:
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/765587857/Assets-offshore-raise-Romney-wealth-questions.html

Oldest trick in the book.

When you cannot refute a point, attack the messenger. Stoked and his ilk do this all the time. What he's essentially implying is that the Dnews is a Democrat controlled newspaper with a liberal bias.

And then he wonders why he has no credibility?

 

[Stoked]

Oldest trick in the book.

When you cannot refute a point, attack the messenger. Stoked and his ilk do this all the time. What he's essentially implying is that the Dnews is a Democrat controlled newspaper with a liberal bias.

And then he wonders why he has no credibility?

FAIL.

This is a reply to a reply. Go back and read what Salty is talking about. The link to the Huffington post.

What you are implying is that you are an idiot that jumps to conclussions before you know the whole story. Classic Thriller, opinions on faulty info.

Bravo, bravo! Encore!!

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

pretty simple, really..

Actually, not nearly that simple. All governments deficit spend and accumulate debts. There's a number of legitimate reasons for this, for example, infrastructure spending generates benefits over generations, borrowing to pay for infrastructure ensures that those who benefit from this investment in the future share the burdens paying for it.

In any case, no government of any major nation can 'pay cash' for all of its expenses.

Now, this is not to say that governments can't or shouldn't exercise prudence in the size of deficits and debt they accumulate. This is a very legitimate discussion, and I agree that we do need to be more prudent than we have been. But it doesn't help the situation to reduce it to such simplistic and wrong cliches.

On a slightly related issue (and this is not directed at you PKM), I'll believe that the right is serious about deficit reduction when it is ready to enter into a serious discussion about cutting military spending, increasing revenues, and (I may be going out a bit on this one), rethinking the failed and costly war on drugs. Until that day, to me, the right has no credibility on deficit and debt issues. I guarantee that cutting the National Endowment of the Arts and eliminating the Dept of Education (the evergreen hobby horses of the right) will not do the trick.

 

[NAOS]

Actually, not nearly that simple. All governments deficit spend and accumulate debts. There's a number of legitimate reasons for this, for example, infrastructure spending generates benefits over generations, borrowing to pay for infrastructure ensures that those who benefit from this investment in the future share the burdens paying for it.

In any case, no government of any major nation can 'pay cash' for all of its expenses.

Now, this is not to say that governments can't or shouldn't exercise prudence in the size of deficits and debt they accumulate. This is a very legitimate discussion, and I agree that we do need to be more prudent than we have been. But it doesn't help the situation to reduce it to such simplistic and wrong cliches.

On a slightly related issue (and this is not directed at you PKM), I'll believe that the right is serious about deficit reduction when it is ready to enter into a serious discussion about cutting military spending, increasing revenues, and (I may be going out a bit on this one), rethinking the failed and costly war on drugs. Until that day, to me, the right has no credibility on deficit and debt issues. I guarantee that cutting the National Endowment of the Arts and eliminating the Dept of Education (the evergreen hobby horses of the right) will not do the trick.

Ah, c'mon man... you're spoiling the question I asked (but wasn't going to be answered, i guess)

(also I like your acknowledgment of 'cash'. Too many Conservative Joes think that all money is 'cash' and can be managed as such. That's really really wrong.)

This is a sincere question:
Let's say the government started behaving as you wish... no spending of money it didn't have.
Please list at least three things you think would happen to society as a result. In other words, what are are the major consequences of this?

 

[The Thriller]

FAIL.

This is a reply to a reply. Go back and read what Salty is talking about. The link to the Huffington post.

What you are implying is that you are an idiot that jumps to conclussions before you know the whole story. Classic Thriller, opinions on faulty info.

Bravo, bravo! Encore!!

I thought you had me on ignore? FAIL.

What's a conclussion? I haven't seen this word in the English dictionary. Is it new? FAIL.

And as far as your criticisms of his link(s), I read your post. Your attacks on the messenger (in this case, the Huffington Post. You not so cleverly ignored that the exact same story had been published/written about by several other sources) rather than the actual message is truly a sign of your failed arguments. Truly, putting ahead ideology instead of facts is putting you at a grave disadvantage.

Of course, you won't see this message because I'm on your ignore list, right?

LOL

 

[The Thriller]

Actually, not nearly that simple. All governments deficit spend and accumulate debts. There's a number of legitimate reasons for this, for example, infrastructure spending generates benefits over generations, borrowing to pay for infrastructure ensures that those who benefit from this investment in the future share the burdens paying for it.

In any case, no government of any major nation can 'pay cash' for all of its expenses.

Now, this is not to say that governments can't or shouldn't exercise prudence in the size of deficits and debt they accumulate. This is a very legitimate discussion, and I agree that we do need to be more prudent than we have been. But it doesn't help the situation to reduce it to such simplistic and wrong cliches.

On a slightly related issue (and this is not directed at you PKM), I'll believe that the right is serious about deficit reduction when it is ready to enter into a serious discussion about cutting military spending, increasing revenues, and (I may be going out a bit on this one), rethinking the failed and costly war on drugs. Until that day, to me, the right has no credibility on deficit and debt issues. I guarantee that cutting the National Endowment of the Arts and eliminating the Dept of Education (the evergreen hobby horses of the right) will not do the trick.

Great post.

Honesty and critical thinking. Something folks like Stoked could definitely benefit from.

 

[The Thriller]

Ah, c'mon man... you're spoiling the question I asked (but wasn't going to be answered, i guess)

(also I like your acknowledgment of 'cash'. Too many Conservative Joes think that all money is 'cash' and can be managed as such. That's really really wrong.)

Are any of us surprised by the lack of responses from the right?

This exact thing happens nationally when anyone brings up these points. The right typically:

1. Will change the subject and attack the messenger.
2. Refer to the Constitution and complain about how government has gotten too big.
3. Refer to Adam Smith's wealth of nations and how lower taxes, less regulation, etc will fix everything.
4. Change the subject to talk about Socialism/Communism.

Thus leaving the vital questions and points brought up, completely unanswered and untouched.

 

[northeast]

Are any of us surprised by the lack of responses from the right?

This exact thing happens nationally when anyone brings up these points. The right typically:

1. Will change the subject and attack the messenger.
2. Refer to the Constitution and complain about how government has gotten too big.
3. Refer to Adam Smith's wealth of nations and how lower taxes, less regulation, etc will fix everything.
4. Change the subject to talk about Socialism/Communism.

Thus leaving the vital questions and points brought up, completely unanswered and untouched.

good points
bitches be crazy yo

 

[SaltyDawg]

So 53 pages later, we have Romney and his supporters still saying he won't and shouldn't release his taxes because the democrats will criticize him for them.

Never mind the fact that he is being eaten alive by critics right now for not releasing them, and never mind the fact that even most republicans want him to release them.

I guess we're supposed to just take his word that his success in business is what we want, and not examine the actual record of success? We're supposed to just "trust" possibly the biggest flip flopping hypocrite to ever run for president?

Wow, you can't make this stuff up.

 

[Stoked]

So 53 pages later, we have Romney and his supporters still saying he won't and shouldn't release his taxes because the democrats will criticize him for them.

Never mind the fact that he is being eaten alive by critics right now for not releasing them, and never mind the fact that even most republicans want him to release them.

I guess we're supposed to just take his word that his success in business is what we want, and not examine the actual record of success? We're supposed to just "trust" possibly the biggest flip flopping hypocrite to ever run for president?

Wow, you can't make this stuff up.

1. He will be eaten alive wether he releases them or not. Do not pretend otherwise please.
2. They are all flip floppers. Romney just has been painted that way since day one. It fits, no arguement.
3. Wether he was successful would depend on your defenition of success and I bet it will vary from person to person. (to a certaind egree anyways)

 

[One Brow]

Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States.

One must also be at least 35 years of age to be president.

Finally, one must live in the United States for at least 14 years to be president, in addition to being a natural-born citizen.

These are the only explicit criteria in the Constitution.

I don't see anything about finances in there, but I do see something about being born in the U.S. or having both parents citizens if born abroad.

Food for thought.

Junk food.

The actual text in question:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Nothing about "both parents".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (c) provides that children born abroad after December 24, 1952 to unmarried American mothers are U.S. citizens, as long as the mother has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year at any time prior to the birth.

There is no question Obama is a natural-born citizen under that law, if corn abroad. If born in the USA (as he obviously was), he is also a natural-born citizen. The birth certificate thing was a sham, and an attempt to "otherize" Obama.

 

[franklin]

In the one year of taxes that Mitt Romney has reported, he received a $77,000 reduction in tax liability thanks to this dancing dressager.

This has been thoroughly debunked in this thread. Romney received a grand total of $17 in tax relief for this horse. Moreover, rather than hording this $77,000 in tax-exempt municipal bonds like Commie Obama does, Romney spent $77,000 into an economy and provided gainful employment for a craftsperson doing what he loves. Social Security & FICA taxes were collected off Romney's $77,000, as well as sales taxes on the downhill spending, supported paying property taxes at the holding barn, & funded municipal programs that tend to provide well paying, pensioned jobs for the community.

Romney effectively paid probably 35% or better by investing this $77,000 in a dressage horse while propping up local communities and government facilities. So who's the real champion of the people? Commie O loaning the money to municipalities or Romney for paying the bill? And why do Northeast, SaltyWag, & Thriller hate Romney for employing so damn many people in this tough economy?

 

[SaltyDawg]

1. He will be eaten alive wether he releases them or not. Do not pretend otherwise please.
2. They are all flip floppers. Romney just has been painted that way since day one. It fits, no arguement.
3. Wether he was successful would depend on your defenition of success and I bet it will vary from person to person. (to a certaind egree anyways)

1: Yes, he will be eaten alive either way. This is precisely why he should not be using it as an excuse (getting eaten alive) for not releasing them. He's already being eaten alive, so saying "I won't release them because I will be eaten alive" is a bogus excuse.
2: They are all flip floppers, true. But Romney has taken flip flopping to an unprecedented level. He has been on both sides of almost every major issue.
3: Success is absolutely a relative term that will vary from person to person. All the more reason he should release his tax records and let everyone judge for themselves. Right now all we have is an unfounded claim from one of the most untrustworthy politicians in history. It's borderline insane that we should trust someone who has gone back on his word countless times, while said person is openly hiding the documents that will prove what is true.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

1. He will be eaten alive wether he releases them or not. Do not pretend otherwise please.
2. They are all flip floppers. Romney just has been painted that way since day one. It fits, no arguement.
3. Wether he was successful would depend on your defenition of success and I bet it will vary from person to person. (to a certaind egree anyways)

Yes, many politicians flip flop. Some also make principled changes in opinion based on evidence, experience, arguments, etc. But Romney has made flip flopping an art form (https://mittromneyflipflops.com). There is no group he won't pander to, and there is nothing he wont' say to pander to them. The fact that many politicians flip flop doesn't mean they all do it to the same degree. Romney is truly shameless when it comes to pandering flip flops.

 

[franklin]

Yes, many politicians flip flop. Some also make principled changes in opinion based on evidence, experience, arguments, etc. But Romney has made flip flopping an art form (https://mittromneyflipflops.com). There is no group he won't pander to, and there is nothing he wont' say to pander to them. The fact that many politicians flip flop doesn't mean they all do it to the same degree. Romney is truly shameless when it comes to pandering flip flops.

Poppycock. He just went into the NAACP and said he would dismantle Obamacare. He's damned if he does pander and damned if he doesn't pander.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Poppycock. He just went into the NAACP and said he would dismantle Obamacare. He's damned if he does pander and damned if he doesn't pander.

How is that not a flip flop? Remember, he is the guy who basically invented obamacare.

 

[One Brow]

Poppycock. He just went into the NAACP and said he would dismantle Obamacare. He's damned if he does pander and damned if he doesn't pander.

You mean, he took the bold politcal action of saying something he knew the NAACP would oppose? How brave.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

How is that not a flip flop? Remember, he is the guy who basically invented obamacare.

Geez, no kidding. It is no secret that Romneycare was an important basis for developing Obamacare--they are very similar to each other. Romeny avowing Romneycare but disavowing Obamacare is really the height of disingenuous.

Romney tries to split hairs and say, well, Romneycare has a state mandate, Obamacare has a federal mandate and that state mandates are ok, but federal mandates are bad. Which raises the question, what is really the difference between a state mandate and a federal madate? If I, say, pay a $1,000 state mandated premium, or a $1,000 federally mandated premium, what really is the difference? You are still mandated to pay and you still pay $1,000. I should confess, though, that I'm not so hung up on state sovereignty issues. Frankly, living in a state with such strange religious idiosyncrasies as Utah, I worry much more about state government tyranny than I do federal government tyranny.