Some investments listed in Mitt and Ann Romney’s 2010 tax returns – including a now-closed Swiss bank account and other funds located overseas – were not explicitly disclosed in the personal financial statement the GOP presidential hopeful filed in August as part of his White House bid.
The Romney campaign described the discrepancies as “trivial” but acknowledged Thursday afternoon that they are undergoing an internal review of how the investments were reported and will make “some minor technical amendments” to Romney’s financial disclosure that will not alter the overall picture of his finances.
A review by the Los Angeles Times/Tribune Washington Bureau found that at least 23 funds and partnerships listed in the couple’s 2010 tax returns did not show up or were not listed in the same fashion on Romney’s most recent financial disclosure, including 11 based in low-tax foreign countries such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg.
I cant help feeling how "bad" all the rep. candidates are. Seirsouly Mitt Romney is the guy noone can be passionate about, because he has no politics really, and it doesn't help him that he is rich and barely pay taxes. Why would anyone vote for him over Obama?
Newt Gingrich is obv. really good at talking, but seems stupid as a politican and a terrible human being. I feel like the only reason he could do that well in debates is because he is debating other candidates who aren't very good. Obama should be a bigger challenge.
On January 27 2012 00:39 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 27 2012 00:27 Hider wrote:
On January 26 2012 22:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On January 26 2012 22:09 Jibba wrote:
On January 26 2012 18:45 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: So, why do you support this warmongering president still?
Obama is absolutely a hawk, there's little denying that. The non-sequitur in this is that Ron Paul calls it, while his party and most of its supporters accuse Obama of being too weak. It puts him in a slightly awkward position, but I guess that's what people should've expected from a centrist. Too hawkish for the left, too doveish for the right.
As far as constitutionality, he surprisingly curbed some of his executive powers, Bush had taken, early on. At the very least, I don't think it's unfair to say that he's as constitution abiding as any other president in the last 150 years, even if you want to stick with an originalist interpretation.
I am still waiting to see the percentage of Ron Paul supporters that are going to vote for the mainstream Republican that is going to be chosen.
On a more serious note, I don't think Ron Paul accuses Obama of being a hawk because of a dovish or pacifist position. In a way, Paul's isolationism is as far from a left-wing pacifism than from the Bush doctrine and the most aggressive Republican hawks.
You can't put together similar positions obtained through opposite reasoning. Obama is a dove for Republicans, a hawk for leftists, and a tyrannic leader that goes against people's right (to chose their regime but also to be slaughtered by a bloody tyran) for libertarians.
Well. I guess when most libertarians vote they do it based on a cost-benefit system. And for most liberatarians economic freedom weights heigher than personal freedom.
Free trade comes before free people. I'm fine with it. It just keeps convincing me that libertarians talking about liberty and such are hypocrites: It's fine, I am ready to compromise, to go invade Irak or make laws against abortion, as long as I have less taxes to pay and I can do whatever I want with my workers.
This way of conceiving humanity, its freedom, its interest, through the sole prism of private property is what I find so damn offensive with libertarians ideas.
Why do you keep assuming that all the libertarians are going to vote Republican? There IS a libertarian party, and they DO always run a candidate that many people vote for. So right off the bat, you know that many libertarians are voting for neither the republican nor the democrat candidate, but even if some don't vote libertarian, what makes you think that none of them are voting democrat?
But yes, it's true that most libertarians feel closer to the republican party than the democratic party. But you have to remember that Bush originally ran on a very DIFFERENT platform from what he ended up doing. Go watch his speeches back when he was first running against Al Gore; he constantly spoke about focusing on America, and there was a strong non-interventionist bent in his speeches. Obviously he didn't deliver on that. Many libertarians probably voted for Obama, who made a big deal about pulling out of Iraq and scaling down US military action. Then he sent troops into Libya, and now he's been dancing around the idea of threatening Iran with military action.
I remember Ron Paul mentioning that peace candidates do very well. They do. It's just unfortunate that they never make good on their promises.
Oh, and that comic references civil rights as well. The Civil Rights Act was signed by a Democratic president, but look at the votes in the Congress. Republicans voted in favor of it at over 80%, while democrats voted in favor of it at around just over 60%. Bush also ORIGINALLY ran on something he called "compassionate conservatism", and he seemed like a pretty reasonable guy when it came to civil rights. Once again though, that didn't turn out to be the case, with the Patriot Act, etc.
My point, though, is that there's a lot in Republican ideology that SHOULD attract libertarians, but the republicans have just failed to stick to what ACTUAL conservatism means.
So do I really need to keep hammering on how stupid and simplistic that comic is? Or how demeaning it is to conscientious libertarians? Or can we stop posting cute comics and have a real discussion?
This. I for one will not be voting for a Republican or Obama if Ron Paul isn't on the ticket. When it comes to voting time, I will be deciding between writing Ron Paul in or voting for the Libertarian candidate.
I will not compromise and my vote will not be used to put in a "lesser evil", partly, because I don't know which is the "lesser evil," Romney/Newt for 8 potential years or Obama for "only" 4.
Also the comic is tremendously short sighted because Libertarianism isn't about "tax cuts." It is about personal liberty, of which a major tenant is small government, which only there to protect personal liberty and bind contracts. As such, low taxes are implied, one as a personal liberty and not having your possessions taken from you by force, and two as a natural occurrence of a small government.
On January 26 2012 13:24 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: I can't believe the Federal Reserve is insistent on keeping interest rates so low until 2014. Seems remarkably short sighted for what really is a long term problem. I just feel sorry for the older generation that managed to be prudent with their savings and will now be living off their principal so that this immediate-gratification generation can artificially buy houses and cars they normally wouldn't be able to afford.
28:27 addresses your concern.
Another point to note is that inflation is currently very low, and well below the Fed's 2% target, partly offsetting the effect of lower interest rates.
The current economic situation is not a long term problem. It is a short term problem. There is a lack of demand right now. The deficit being high is a long term problem. It is responsible that the Fed is doing everything it can in the short term to stimulate the economy given the political paralysis preventing any fiscal policy response.
A bunch of ignorant, uneducated, stupid people spewing falsehoods about the inflation that will never come, and the evils of the Federal Reserve.
What makes a problem short-term and long term. Short-term = spending problem. But isn't everything solved by more spending? Or is long-term problem some kind of infastructural, technological problem?
High unemployment is a short term problem, it's too high right now. There is not enough demand./spending right now.
The deficit is a long term problem. There is no adverse effect of having a high deficit right now. So it can be brought down over time, even if we add to it to boost demand now.
The problem is... That ideology has lead us into this debt crisise in the first place. There is never a "good" time to pay back debt.. Thats why most countries never did it and suddenly.. Oh shit, debt is out of control! (really sherlock? how come...).
On January 27 2012 07:52 Velr wrote: The problem is... That ideology has lead us into this debt crisise in the first place. There is never a "good" time to pay back debt.. Thats why most countries never did it and suddenly.. Oh shit, debt is out of control! (really sherlock? how come...).
The only country in crisis because of high debt is Greece.
Failing to act on the short term problem of high unemployment and insufficient demand would cause a deterioration in long term prospects too.
Another very interesting titbit that came form Bernanke's press conference was that the Fed now views maximum employment as 5.2% to 6.0% unemployment, instead of around 3% it has historically been. They cite the reason for this as technological change, so it seems more spending on education, research and training could be helpful in bringing maximum employment up.
On January 27 2012 06:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Is there a debate tonight?
Yes. On CNN.
If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable at how terrible the GOP nominees are. Such flawed people. Do you take the passionless rich-guy who flip-flops weekly or the terrible human being who is hated as much by his own party than democrats?
On January 27 2012 07:52 Velr wrote: The problem is... That ideology has lead us into this debt crisise in the first place. There is never a "good" time to pay back debt.. Thats why most countries never did it and suddenly.. Oh shit, debt is out of control! (really sherlock? how come...).
There is a great time to pay back debt. It happens when unemployment is down.... (when tax base is up, income security outlays are down, and so its easy to pay back debt without impaling government-provided services like education and medicare.). Having a low deficit is exactly what should have happened when the economy was doing well, but countries seem to like doing the wrong things at exactly the wrong times.
On January 26 2012 13:24 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: I can't believe the Federal Reserve is insistent on keeping interest rates so low until 2014. Seems remarkably short sighted for what really is a long term problem. I just feel sorry for the older generation that managed to be prudent with their savings and will now be living off their principal so that this immediate-gratification generation can artificially buy houses and cars they normally wouldn't be able to afford.
Another point to note is that inflation is currently very low, and well below the Fed's 2% target, partly offsetting the effect of lower interest rates.
The current economic situation is not a long term problem. It is a short term problem. There is a lack of demand right now. The deficit being high is a long term problem. It is responsible that the Fed is doing everything it can in the short term to stimulate the economy given the political paralysis preventing any fiscal policy response.
A bunch of ignorant, uneducated, stupid people spewing falsehoods about the inflation that will never come, and the evils of the Federal Reserve.
What makes a problem short-term and long term. Short-term = spending problem. But isn't everything solved by more spending? Or is long-term problem some kind of infastructural, technological problem?
High unemployment is a short term problem, it's too high right now. There is not enough demand./spending right now.
The deficit is a long term problem. There is no adverse effect of having a high deficit right now. So it can be brought down over time, even if we add to it to boost demand now.
So how do deficit become long term problem? If interest rates are high?
On January 27 2012 07:52 Velr wrote: The problem is... That ideology has lead us into this debt crisise in the first place. There is never a "good" time to pay back debt.. Thats why most countries never did it and suddenly.. Oh shit, debt is out of control! (really sherlock? how come...).
The only country in crisis because of high debt is Greece.
You might want to look at other countries with high debt and the prospects for them borrowing in the future.
Portugal is paying 15% on 10 year money now. That is not sustainable.
Japan has over one QUADRILLION yen in public debt. That's over 200% of their GDP. Even though their interest rates are low on that debt, I think it takes something ridiculous like 40% of their government spending to just cover interest payments. Let that sit in your head for a second.
On January 27 2012 06:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Is there a debate tonight?
Yes. On CNN.
If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable at how terrible the GOP nominees are. Such flawed people. Do you take the passionless rich-guy who flip-flops weekly or the terrible human being who is hated as much by his own party than democrats?
Lul.
Or the only guy who isn't a warmonger and is actually a fiscal conservative but denounces separation of church and state and has retarded foreign/economic policy...
JACKSONVILLE, Florida -- If you read the emails from Mitt Romney's campaign, there are no tough questions, no gaffes, no slip-ups: Everything's going swimmingly.
The reason: The campaign makes a practice of whitewashing transcripts and stories before circulating to the press, a practice that has become familiar to reporters covering the candidate.
For example, last Monday, during a press call with Tim Pawlenty, a Miami Herald reporter asked the campaign surrogate about Romney's investments in Freddie Mac.
"The Democratic group American Bridge has pointed out that Mitt Romney invested in these federal government loan ventures as well, and therefore his hands aren't clean," reporter Marc Caputo said. "Can you respond to that?"
Pawlenty punted on the question--saying that he'd "have to ask the campaign to follow up with you." But when the Romney press shop e-mailed out a transcript of the call later that day, the exchange was nowhere to be found.
It wasn't the first time the campaign whitewashed its official transcript to leave out a question that didn't match its message for the day. The same thing happened earlier this month to NBC's Garrett Haake, when he asked John Sununu during a campaign press call if he thought Romney should release his tax records sooner rather than later. (At the time, the candidate was still saying he would release them in April.)
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.leftycartoons.com/wp-content/uploads/how_libertarians_vote.png)
