« In the beginning |
| Bullish city »
Conventional wisdom holds that Romney refuses to release his tax returns because stonewalling is less damaging to him than whatever's in there.
Maybe. My guess is that we'll find out, because he can't afford to let the issue fester.
Jul 16, 2012 at 02:33 PM | Permalink
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I'm more concerned with how our money will be handled in the future, rather than how someone has handled their own money in the past.
Jul 16, 2012 at 03:03 PM
How do you determine how someone will handle our money in the future? Their rhetoric or their history?
Jul 16, 2012 at 03:55 PM
Unfortunatley it's all rhetoric right now. Unless he broke the law, what's at issue-he's a really rich dude?
Jul 16, 2012 at 04:06 PM
Oh, never mind then.
Jul 16, 2012 at 04:08 PM
I'd like to hear, too, about that Magic IRA and the off-shore hidey-holes for money. (Bloomberg yesterday on the IRA.)
Telling people you aren't going to release your tax records, or explain how that IRA mushroomed geometrically, or explain why you find it necessary to keep money outside the country, smack of things business people say. But, Romney's a politician. Continuing to not go public about his finances is grossly impolitic. For every person who agrees with Romney, 10 will decide he has something to hide. Why? Because when you hide things, it usually means you have something to hide.
He also needs to explain why his signature continued to appear on Bain documents, and why he continued to draw his $100k salary, after he says he had resigned, retroactively or otherwise.
Jul 16, 2012 at 04:40 PM
What's at issue, I believe, is not the laws broken but those NOT broken by this loose affiliation of millionaires and billionaires when taking all of the the legal loopholes their political gifts can buy to preserve that wealth.
$10 million per week streaming into the Romney coffers from mostly high end doners who share with Mitt a similar passion for wealth preservation above all else.
Tax returns shine a light on how those "really rich dudes" stay that way.
Bill Yaner |
Jul 16, 2012 at 04:52 PM
"Unless he broke the law, what's at issue-he's a really rich dude?"
First, let's acknowledge that this is 100% politics. It's not about breaking the law; if anything it's about having access to legal means that most people can't afford. So, given that, what's at issue is:
1. He's a really rich dude who's paid a lower rate of income tax than most middle-class Americans,
2. He's a really rich dude who's used offshore accounts and other instruments designed to avoid income tax;
3. He's a really rich dude who made a lot of his money reshuffling the economic deck rather than making things, and from reorganizations that often cut jobs.
None of the above is illegal. Whether it's immoral or unethical or just tacky is up to the voters. Kim may say it's all fine, and fair enough. That's a value judgment. But other voters may disagree. We know that voters care about fairness and the perception thereof, and they tend to dislike downsizing and outsourcing.
Obama's obviously hoping something here will stick. His campaign realizes that the single most important candidate attribute in presidential elections is "The candidate cares about people like me." The juxtaposition of Romney's policy proposals with his personal financial information will persuade some voters that he doesn't. Will that be enough for the president to keep his job in November?
Andrew Brod |
Jul 16, 2012 at 05:05 PM
I thought he released a full tax return this winter and we argued about it for 100 plus comments?
Account Deleted |
Jul 16, 2012 at 05:09 PM
Right. He released one full tax return for 2011 and an estimate for 2012 (or maybe it was 2010 and 2011). What's at issue is now are the years prior to 2010.
Andrew Brod |
Jul 16, 2012 at 05:50 PM
Got it. I can tell you he is richer than the cakes at Maxie B's without looking at his tax returns. The thing with cutting the kid's hair bothers me more than how much money he made while shipping jobs overseas.
Account Deleted |
Jul 16, 2012 at 05:55 PM
Nobody is going to vote for president based on Romney's tax returns or because he is or isn't rich.
The issue is the economy and Barack Obama's stewardship of it, plain and simple. The tax returns are going to be released, hardcore liberals including Obama will bitch and moan about how rich he is as if bitching about Romney's money and class envy are the solution to an economy in the tank. This will be a two day news story. The class envy will be a centerpiece of the Obama campaign- ANYTHING to avoid talking about the economy. It is going to be very, very nasty from the man who promised a new tone in politics. All of the chips are on the table because as I have been saying since 2009- this is the Left's last chance for a generation. They see it leaving as quickly as it began and they are desperate and panicky. No tactic will be off limits. Calling Romney a felon was just the beginning.
Independent voters who decide this election will not care one bit. If Romney is credible on the economy then he wins.
Jul 16, 2012 at 06:04 PM
From Fallows, who is very good on this: If you, Mitt Romney, were not in charge of Bain after you say you left, who was?
For Spag: I suspect you would vote for Romney even if we had a video of MItt sacrificing a goat to Baal. However, some people will not vote for a candidate who they think is hiding something or being dishonest.
Besides, to imagine you would say the same thing if Obama was waist deep in this mess strains all credulity.
Jul 16, 2012 at 06:13 PM
Besides, how are you gonna convince people you are "credible on the economy" if you got rich offshoring American jobs?
He is not, I think, the perfect candidate.
Jul 16, 2012 at 06:16 PM
"some people will not vote for a candidate who they think is hiding something or being dishonest."
I agree with that. For example, someone who calls a tax a penalty. Someone who promises to close Gitmo, but doesn't. Someone who promises to end "enhanced interrogation" but doesn't. Someone who says he wants to end the "Bush tax cuts", but extends them. Someone who wants to set a "new tone" in Washington, but accuses his opponent of being a criminal. Someone who demands his opponent release his tax records, but won't release his own college grades. Someone who said his economic plan would keep unemployment under 8%, but it didn't. Someone who said that lobbyists wouldn't be in his Administration, but hired them anyway. Someone who promised to "cut the deficit in half" by the end of his first term, but increased it instead.
So yeah, "He is not, I think, the perfect candidate."
What people really care about are Romney's tax returns.
Jul 16, 2012 at 06:32 PM
Hmmm. Could it be that Crazy Republicans in the House and the GOP anti-democracy filibuster in the Senate have something to do with Obama failing to deliver every one of his campaign promises?
Any time Righties resort to telling us that our guy is no better than their guy, we are winning.
Jul 16, 2012 at 06:54 PM
Spag, you list items Obama had hoped to get accomplished in his first term though he now admits to having underestimated how politics trumps policy in this government. Still there are many things he was able to get done in this term.
It's hard for me to see how you would categorize those missed campaign promises as hiding something, or being dishonest. Couldn't we run through that same exercise for everyone who ever ran for that office and won?
Bill Yaner |
Jul 16, 2012 at 06:56 PM
Yes, the "politics" forced him to hire lobbyists. The politics caused the unemployment rate to go well beyond Obama's prediction even though his plan was passed- over the opposition. The politics causes him to call the health care tax a penalty. The politics causes him to keep Gitmo open. It goes on and on- it's not his fault, he's just a victim of the Republicans who controlled the House and Senate for his first two years when he was trying to get all of this done.
That narrative is only going to convert the already converted in the liberal base. It won't work on independents.
Have you tried blaming Bush yet?
Jul 16, 2012 at 08:23 PM
Let'em go Shitcago. Envy > unemployment
Jul 16, 2012 at 08:38 PM
"The issue is the economy and Barack Obama's stewardship of it, plain and simple."
That's an opinion, not a fact. It may turn out to be a very prescient opinion, but we don't know that yet.
Obviously, the economy is not Obama's strongest campaign asset. Did he prevent the economy from getting worse? Of course. But that's a tough case to make. As I said this is about politics. So it's time for Obama to do what Bush did in 2004, make it a compare-and-contrast election. Will Obama's accurate-but-negative strategy work against Romney? I think so, but I don't know the answer any more than Spag does.
Andrew Brod |
Jul 16, 2012 at 09:02 PM
Obama is stuck campaigning with a jobless and shaky economic recovery. But he is lucky because the GOP is stuck with an astoundingly weak candidate. Truly, if you wrote this guy into a movie script people would complain that it was unrealistic because nobody could be that clueless, awkward, and unlikable.
I'm not at all sure he's going to release any more returns. The election won't turn on that but it will make the low information voters, the ones who haven't made up their minds yet, suspicious. For good reason.
Jul 16, 2012 at 09:11 PM
If Obama had been given half the rope Bush2 got, he might have hanged himself or he might have pulled things together. I'm not willing to give R-money a thing, including presumed credibility. He's bought what he needed thus far, and he may buy the rest. He is one of the things Bohner has been right about: people aren't going to fall in love with him.
Bill Bush |
Jul 16, 2012 at 09:11 PM
I'll be writing in, None of the above, as my choice.
Billy Jones |
Jul 16, 2012 at 09:29 PM
just like the other one
Jul 16, 2012 at 09:35 PM
"accurate-but-negative strategy" ?
So Romney is a felon?
The Bain stuff is accurate?
Not according to Fact Check and The Washington Post.
Jul 16, 2012 at 09:37 PM
"From Fallows, who is very good on this: If you, Mitt Romney, were not in charge of Bain after you say you left, who was?"
Ask the New York Times. they can tell you.
Hint: It was not Mitt Romney.
" 'It’s a disconnect between the ownership interest and managerial functions,' Harvey Pitt, who served as S.E.C. chairman under President George W. Bush, told the Times. 'When Bain takes positions in public companies, they’re required to show anyone who has an ownership interest that could be the effective equivalent of control. So Romney has to be shown on those filings.
If they didn’t show them on those filings, they would have broken the law. But it has nothing to do with who’s actually running Bain Capital,' Pitt added."
Spag has it right. This whole ludicrous piece of nonsense meme is just a distraction away from the ongoing Obama Depression.
So is this thread....as usual.
Jul 16, 2012 at 10:02 PM
"That's an opinion, not a fact."
Your opinion is not a fact. It's also evidence of denial of the obvious, which is your stock in trade.
Jul 16, 2012 at 10:04 PM
You're missing the point, but fair enough--I also overstated things a bit.
First, regarding the "felon" comment, I read the Obama official's comment to mean that it would have been a felony to misreport things to the SEC and therefore Bain and Romney didn't do that. After all, the Obama campaign's point is that the SEC filings tell us the truth. Obama benefits more from the SEC filings being true than from making wild claims about Romney being a felon.
(Which of course is precisely why the conservative media have trumpeted the wild-claim spin.)
As for the fact checkers, however, you're right... to a point. It appears that Romney didn't run Bain Capital as a hands-on manager/owner between 1999 and 2002. If that's the narrow meaning of the Obama charges, then yeah, they're not quite accurate.
Instead, the SEC filings show that Romney was a salary-earning owner with a great no-show job. He probably didn't personally do the outsourcing, but it's hard to imagine that none of the meetings he had back in Boston had anything to do with Bain. There's a lot of gray area here, and that's where I'll admit I overstated things a bit. But not by much. A lot of the gray area is really good for Obama.
And note that the Obama campaign's accusations have morphed a bit. Now it's saying that Romney was the owner and chief beneficiary of a firm that has a lot of outsourcing and downsizing blood on its hands. That's accurate. And he continued to benefit from all that even after 2002, which may well be one of the reasons Romney really, really doesn't want to release tax returns for those years.
So my original point stands. I agree that this isn't strictly about policy, but it could be fruitful politically. It's not a foregone conclusion that it won't work.
Andrew Brod |
Jul 16, 2012 at 10:05 PM
"You're missing the point, but fair enough--I also overstated things a bit."
I was referring to Spag.
Bubba I ignore.
Andrew Brod |
Jul 16, 2012 at 10:06 PM
"Bubba I ignore."
But you read me, nevertheless......and don't have an answer for the obvious. Hence, your denial.
That's what I like about you, Arnold. You're consistent, like the mediocre fast food discussed here recently.
Jul 16, 2012 at 10:11 PM
This lie will grow tiresome even for the Obamabots.
Hey Spag and Bubba, lookit.
outsourcing for bucks
Busy Month for Obama Campaign with Fundraisers in Switzerland, Sweden, Paris and Communist China
Fred Gregory |
Jul 17, 2012 at 01:23 AM
Tell ya what - make them each open up a lemonade stand, from the same amount of capital, and whoever makes the most money - from customers - not grants or government fuding, WINS!
GINIA ZENKE |
Jul 17, 2012 at 02:11 AM
As far as I'm concerned, Romney is Obama Lite. 4 years of either one won't be any different. Both are in the pockets of the world's wealthiest crooks and both will do as they're told to do. Obamacare=Romneycare a year ago even many on the right would have agreed with me and did so. To believe Romney has moved to the right simply because he got nominated is stupid. Romney doesn't represent the right. Obama doesn't represent the left. And neither of them represent the middle. We all know it to be true no matter which side we stand on.
So why in the hell are we taking sides for candidates that none of us approve of? Are we all that stupid?
Well just so you know, I'm not that stupid and I plan to send a message. And if enough of you would quit acting like morons and send the same message we could break the back of the very system that is designed to rip us all off.
But granted, I really don't expect most of you brainwashed clowns to ever become that smart. It's just not in you.
Billy Jones |
Jul 17, 2012 at 09:11 AM
speaking as an independent voter, obama might not have been the "promised" obama for the past four years, but he accomplished enough (kill bin laden, save the country from the brink of a deep depression, successfully reinvest in the auto industry, push health care reform forward, etc.) to negate my issues with him (not getting strong enough bank reform, more patriot act-like laws, etc.) and garner my vote over mitt romney -- a man who is so full of false accusations and spin it makes my head hurt.
Jul 17, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Ditto, Sean--mine too-- I am (gasp) a book-loving, lefty leaning Liberal and proud of it!!!!
Shirlee Murphy |
Jul 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM
It's going to be difficult for Romney to win if he already has unfavorable ratings above 50 percent in swing states like Ohio and Colorado. This link via Washington Post is full of lots of info about how unliked both men are. I would think Obama has more core devotees than what's left of the GOP, but the race is down to the wire I think.
Account Deleted |
Jul 17, 2012 at 12:25 PM
Yeah because when people speak of independents, they are referring to people on the far Left and Right....
Nice try, though.
Jul 17, 2012 at 01:03 PM
I don't know... I found the bit about which candidate was more like various animals quite useful.
Jul 17, 2012 at 02:15 PM
Everyone knows the hand out crowd will continue to pull the lever for the check writer in chief. The problem is most traditional americans believe in american exceptionalism and don't buy the whole class warfare charade being presented by this parasite and the looney left. The independents will break hard for Romney and he will win easily because they can't stand to hear this limousine liberal lieing about how he cares about the middle class anymore.
Jul 17, 2012 at 02:30 PM
"but he accomplished enough (kill bin laden, save the country from the brink of a deep depression, successfully reinvest in the auto industry, push health care reform forward, etc.) to negate my issues .
Killed bin laden. Failed in Afghanistan.
Maybe saved GM, but Ford didn't get the bailout and is doing as well or better than gm. Chrysler is now owned by Fiat.
Saved the country. Seriously? Ran up enormous debt and we're a long way from being out of the woods.
Your bar is set very low, and based upon the issues you stated are important to you, you're not independent.
formerly gt |
Jul 17, 2012 at 05:15 PM
Ford's thanking its lucky stars that GM and Chrysler were bailed out.
As I often note in speeches after claiming that the tail end of the Bush administration and the beginning of the Obama administration saved the country from an economic abyss whose depth we couldn't know...
The thing about saving the world is that after you do it, it's easy for people to believe that no action was really needed.
Andrew Brod |
Jul 17, 2012 at 05:32 PM
"The thing about saving the world is that after you do it, it's easy for people to believe that no action was really needed."- Andrew
Yes, the art of spending taxpayers money to enlighten your union supporters was quite a magnificent act. Then handing billions over to the job creators like Solyndra was another achievement of true brilliance. If you don't understand how much smarter these Far Left Lawyers and Professors are than the average person you just need to go listen so they can tell you. Or better yet, just ignore the Parasites.
Jul 17, 2012 at 05:53 PM
"The thing about saving the world is that after you do it, it's easy for people to believe that no action was really needed."
So, are you quoting someone or are you now asserting he saved the entire world? Ah, he is the One.
formerly gt |
Jul 17, 2012 at 06:02 PM
"....but he accomplished enough (kill bin laden, save the country from the brink of a deep depression, successfully reinvest in the auto industry, push health care reform forward, etc.)"
Jul 17, 2012 at 06:40 PM
"If you don't understand how much smarter these Far Left Lawyers and Professors are than the average person you just need to go listen so they can tell you."
I love reading Arnold's Fables. They're legendary for their unintentional hilarity.
Jul 17, 2012 at 06:43 PM
formerly gt: "Your bar is set very low, and based upon the issues you stated are important to you, you're not independent."
i'm not registered republican nor democrat; i'm registered unaffiliated. to pollsters and politicos i am an independent voter AKA a vote that can't be counted upon. it doesn't matter which direction i lean most often, or the fact that i'm fiscally conservative and socially liberal, i'm part of floating group of people, outside the party clubs, who will determine this election based on the evidence presented before them.
it's my opinion that mitt romney is a complete mess of a candidate with absolutely ZERO vision for this country, but i'll wait until the debates are over to seal that perspective with wax.
Jul 17, 2012 at 11:21 PM
I too am an independent voter who voted in today's Republican primary run off, one of the 3.58 percent of registered voters who did. Party does not predict my vote either.
Jul 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM
"....or the fact that i'm fiscally conservative"
Based on what?
Jul 18, 2012 at 08:45 AM
I didn't say a was a "fiscal" conservative by definition of the lunatic GOP; I beleive in balanced budgets, not borrowing from SS to pay for wars, smart not over regulation, and fair taxing. It's not my problem you fucktards have hijacked any sensibility that once stemmed from the notion of being conservative with money.
sean coon |
Jul 18, 2012 at 10:02 AM
"I didn't say a was a "fiscal" conservative by definition of the lunatic GOP;"
I'm not a big fan of the GOP but that doesn't make me an "independent". I'm a conservative.
You appear to be a liberal. Why won't you and Roch own it? You'll feel better when you say it.
formerly gt |
Jul 18, 2012 at 04:53 PM
so if you're not a fan of the GOP, and you're not a registered independent... you're a conservative hanging onto the GOP out of reflex?
what exactly do you want me to say? i'm neither a registered democrat nor republican. i'm conservative in certain ways, and i'm liberal in many ways -- particularly with social issues -- and i'm registered unaffiliated so i don't have either of those scumbag political parties calling me one of theirs. so feel free to call me what you want, bubba takes such liberty each day.
i took this survey and didn't land in obama camp -- i turned out to be 75% aligned with jill stein... but who knows what the hell that means in a world of political identity where there's no room between being either Conservative and Liberal.
Jul 18, 2012 at 06:05 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.