Should Mitt release his tax returns?
- Thread starter northeast
- Start date
NAOS
Well-Known Member
You want to be more specific?
Was there a history before "the market" as conceived by capitalism? yes.
Have there been periods since the birth of capitalism where people have secured parts of their livelihood without entering into a transaction in this market? yes.
The history of capitalism has shown that unchecked capital growth will winnow down these possibilities. In other words, it wants you to go to the market for everything... even your language.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
I know that story. He just gave them a koolaid-like substance or something.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
fixed
You can't quote yourself, make changes and say fixed. Bad form... bad form. Use the damn edit button!!
socialism doesn't exist in natural reality. It is a damned lie invented by a philosopher who served the caprice of some elitiists who wanted to rationalize central control in their own hands. Same thing with communism, and that idiot who wrote "The Wealth of Nations" to serve the caprice on some wide-ranging corporate interests a few centuries ago.
Its quite a hoot seeing otherwise intelligent folks taking it seriously, like it describes underlying human nature or principles of advanced civilizations.
It seems to me that modern America is already a form of Socialism , and has been for some time.
Remember the phrase "What's good for GM is good for America" ?
Only it's not just GM , its also Boeing, Lockheed, Amazon, Apple, Verizon, CBS, NBC, Fox, Viacom, Walmart, McDonalds, Goldman, Morgan, Exxon, Chevron, Ford, Caterpillar, IBM, Intel, Starbucks, Macy's, Nike, Freddie, Fannie, Citi, Allstate, Lilly, JNJ, etc, etc, etc...
Corporate behavior is guided by government. Their success or failure is effected by government policy. Battles are fought in government run arenas. Corporations are financed and owned by the public and government. The wealth of the nation is entirely dependent on the success of these corporations.
Is this not socialism?
Remember the phrase "What's good for GM is good for America" ?
Only it's not just GM , its also Boeing, Lockheed, Amazon, Apple, Verizon, CBS, NBC, Fox, Viacom, Walmart, McDonalds, Goldman, Morgan, Exxon, Chevron, Ford, Caterpillar, IBM, Intel, Starbucks, Macy's, Nike, Freddie, Fannie, Citi, Allstate, Lilly, JNJ, etc, etc, etc...
Corporate behavior is guided by government. Their success or failure is effected by government policy. Battles are fought in government run arenas. Corporations are financed and owned by the public and government. The wealth of the nation is entirely dependent on the success of these corporations.
Is this not socialism?
Last edited:
absolutely. . . . . as we are sometimes willing to apply the basic sense of the term.
It's still a concept we have made up, and generally are willing to apply as we are pleased to frame our thoughts. Most Republicans will vehemently deny that they are socialists, just as more "liberal" folks will vehemently deny their "capitalist" proclivities and otherwise fascist comfort zones.
I don't think we can save ourselves with these fashions of semantics/rhetoric. If we shed our false professions and are willing to shout/vote down the "players" who are manipulating us, maybe.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
I'm looking forward to Simon's blog post calling out all the big studios who decided to shoot their movies/TV shows in other states to avoid paying the high taxes in Cali.
https://davidsimon.com/mitt-romney-...-at-least-13-percent-and-hes-proud-to-say-so/
https://davidsimon.com/mitt-romney-...-at-least-13-percent-and-hes-proud-to-say-so/
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Because those movie studios are running for president? With the main reason (given by their campaign) to elect them being that they are very good business men and they could utilize that skill to improve the economy?
If that is the case, then I want to see their tax returns too. If not, then it's a non issue.
I was thinking about something the other day... There are a lot of losers who get some chick pregnant, pay the bare minimum child support, and never see the kid, never call the kid, never even send a Christmas or birthday card. They just pay the bare minimum child support that the judge orders.
Technically, they are totally legal. But I think most of us agree that they should be doing more.
Now, imagine that you (and everyone else) started calling one of these losers out for not living up to his responsibilities as a father. Imagine that the only responses you got were "I am meeting my legal responsibilities" and "If I do any more it will just give more ammo for people to criticize."
It's just baffling to me that this guy can ignore the precedent of releasing his taxes. The precedent that was started by his own father.
That he paid little taxes is not even that big of a deal. I think the real reason he won't release them is because it will show that he is a liar. He was probably paid many millions by Bain during the time when he says he had nothing to do with them. Plus some of those offshore accounts may not have been totally legal.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
FWIW, my post does not deal with the discussion on this board as to whether or not Mitt should release his tax returns. I merely thought this was a good place to post about Simon's blog post. But the main point of what Simon is saying is that it's pathetic of Mitt to claim he's never paid below 13% on his taxes and feel proud about that.
He has released his taxes. Oh, you mean 20 years worth so you can find dirt on him. Carry on.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
And according to your scenario, Mitt is the NBA player who got a chick pregnant and is now paying the $30K a month in child support (AKA the "bare minimum").
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
He has not released his taxes. He released only 1 year, and it's not even the complete return.
If he has dirt in his taxes, shouldn't we know about that?
If some democrat was running on the premise that he is a good business man, but refused to release his taxes because of the dirt everyone would see, i guarantee you and all the other right wingers would be calling for his head. Especially if it was his own father who started the practice of releasing many years of returns.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
Paying the bare minimum and never spending any time with the kid, talking to the kid, acknowledging the kid, etc, is bad. Even if some NBA player is paying more than the typical person, he's still a loser if he doesn't acknowledge the kid in any other way.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
OK, to take your scenario one step further, Mitt is then the NBA player who made fortunes, paid a hefty amount of child support (well more than the average fellow) and then decided to retire at the peak of his game and spend all his time with his kids. Mitt gave up making a lot more money to leave the private sector and serve in the public sector.
SaltyDawg
Well-Known Member
No Mitt is not. That is a terrible analogy, lol.
Mitt is the one saying "I have met all of my legal requirements" when we all know he SHOULD be doing a lot more. So he is the guy paying the bare minimum child support that he can get a judge to approve, and not acknowledging the kid in any other way. The bare minimum that he is legally required.
Will you be satisfied if he releases 2 full years, as he has promised to do? If not, then your response here is disingenuous.
I don't have any dirt in my own taxes (that I know about), yet I would not want to release them to the public. And if he does have dirt in his taxes, why wouldn't the IRS be all over him?