EPThttp://www.wnd.com/2012/07/arpaio-obama-probe-finds-national-security-threat/
Now the only question is if they learned what a PDF is yet...
President Obama Re-Elected - Page 189
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
DannyJ
United States5110 Posts
http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/arpaio-obama-probe-finds-national-security-threat/ Now the only question is if they learned what a PDF is yet... | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 19 2012 07:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Do you have any evidence to back up that statement? He's released his 2010 return, given estimates on his 2011 return and said he'll release it when it's filed. How does that compare with other candidates in the past 30 years? From what I can tell that's the norm. If you have evidence that says otherwise, please share and I'll be happy to change my opinion on the matter. Here you go. No law requires presidential candidates to release their tax returns, but history does. President Obama’s re-election campaign is pressuring their Republican challenger Mitt Romney to release more of his tax returns. He has released one year, and one estimate's worth thus far. That should suffice, says the Romney camp. When then Sen. Barack Obama ran against Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary, his campaign similarly pressured her to release tax returns. A month after Obama released six years of returns, Clinton followed suit. The 2008 Republican nominee Sen. John McCain released two years of tax returns that year as well. Going back to 1996, Republican Sen. Bob Dole released 30 years of tax returns ahead of the election, and in 1992 Bill Clinton released 12 years of tax returns (although critics said it wasn't enough). On and on it goes: Michael Dukakis released five years of returns when he ran in 1988, and George H.W. Bush forced Ronald Reagan's hand as both released their returns in the lead-up to the Republican nomination in 1980. PolitiFact found only seven presidential or vice president candidates since 1976 have refused to release any tax returns. Romney is not among them, though he was in 2008. Those seven include five Republicans, one Democrat, and one Green Party: Jerry Brown, Pat Buchanan, Mike Huckabee, Steve Forbes, Rudy Giuliani, Richard Lugar, Ralph Nader. Many have pointed out that it was George Romney (Mitt's dad) who started this trend when he released 12 years of tax returns in November 1963, a full year prior to the 1964 election, saying one year just wouldn't be enough. And that's where the debate is centered now. While history demands that presidential candidates release their tax returns to the public in a sign of transparency, the record is less clear when it comes to how many years are necessary to establish some semblance of good faith. The problem for Romney is that the media, his main challenger (Obama), and the public have remaining questions over his wealth and earnings that were not answered through the release of one tax return. It's likely he'll be forced to reveal more before November. It's important to note that although McCain released two years of tax returns and Kerry released 5 during their presidential bids. However both had been Senators for at least ten years each, and where running on their records in government. John Kerry has 20 years of tax returns in the public record, as a result of running for senate. Even his wife (heiress to the Heinz empire) reluctantly released two years of tax returns. The 'candidates' that didn't release any returns -- Jerry Brown, Pat Buchanan, Mike Huckabee, Steve Forbes, Rudy Giuliani, Richard Lugar, Ralph Nader -- were all pretty much non-starters anyways. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On July 19 2012 08:05 coverpunch wrote: The comparison is the assumption of saying "I have no evidence of fire but I smell smoke". The Birthers said that about Obama's unwillingness to release his birth certificate as a candidate and now people are saying that about Romney's tax returns. They don't have to feed the trolls. Now, I agree that tax returns reveal a lot more information than a birth certificate. But is it relevant to Romney's credentials to being a good president? Not really. If he doesn't have trouble with the IRS then his tax returns are kosher. The best you can actually do is that Romney's poor handling of this situation and his retirement from Bain doesn't speak well for his political skills. He's tripped himself up pretty badly and maybe that means he won't do well in convincing Congress to produce some meaningful laws or Iran to step down its nuclear program. There are a lot of extremely unethical, yet legal, loop holes that the mega rich use. If Romney used those, there are a significant amount of people who would say that reflects poorly on his morals. They would also have good reason to believe that Romney isn't a very good person to trust to close said loop holes. If he, being really rich, uses loop holes to not pay his fair share, it also reflects poorly on his stance of trying to do all he can to get the deficit down. One man, sure, but he is applying for a leadership role. Not doing what is obviously his fair share (Since we assume we cannot rely on legality alone, given the obvious amount of really unethical loop holes) hurts his credibility. | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On July 19 2012 08:49 Mohdoo wrote: There are a lot of extremely unethical, yet legal, loop holes that the mega rich use. If Romney used those, there are a significant amount of people who would say that reflects poorly on his morals. They would also have good reason to believe that Romney isn't a very good person to trust to close said loop holes. If he, being really rich, uses loop holes to not pay his fair share, it also reflects poorly on his stance of trying to do all he can to get the deficit down. One man, sure, but he is applying for a leadership role. Not doing what is obviously his fair share (Since we assume we cannot rely on legality alone, given the obvious amount of really unethical loop holes) hurts his credibility. What would be an example of an "extremely unethical loop hole"? I think the worst case scenario is that his tax returns from 2009 and 2010 show how badly he got smoked during the financial crisis on some of his investments. The question stops being "Is Romney hiding something really bad on his tax returns?" and becomes "Do you want to vote for a guy who thought RIM would make it and Apple wouldn't?" Either that or we find a conflict of interest like he was pushing for GM to go into bankruptcy but he was a bondholder. A bigger problem than his unwillingness to change the tax code would be someone heavily invested in companies that make drones but as president he promises to restrict drone warfare. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On July 18 2012 12:59 JonnyBNoHo wrote: No it's double taxation. The term is not misapplied either - you'll find it used in textbooks aplenty. If I invest in a corporation by lending to it, the interest expense is 100% tax deductible for the corporation while taxed at ordinary income rates for the individual. Here the cash flow generated by the business is only taxed once - at the individual level. If I invest in a corporation by buying shares, corporate profits are taxed. If I receive any cash from the corporation I have to pay dividend taxes. So here the same cash flow is taxed twice (corp profits and dividends). Capital gains are a bit more squishy to show as double taxation since the only cash flow is at the investor level when an asset is bought and sold. However, the value of a firm is the sum of all future after tax cash flows (profits) discounted over time. So the value of the company already includes taxes. So when you tax cap gains you are taxing future expected profits (that will already be taxed). If that sounds too theoretical think of it this way - if it turns out that those future expected profits were imaginary the shares will fall to $0 - and the cap gain tax the government collected will be wiped out by cap losses. So cap gains only exist if profits exist - which are already taxed - and therefore double taxation exists. Try actually reading and responding to the points in the links I provided, instead of assuming I don't know what you're talking about. Your explanation is simply incorrect, for reasons that the links explain. | ||
|
Wolvmatt.
205 Posts
On July 19 2012 08:49 Mohdoo wrote: There are a lot of extremely unethical, yet legal, loop holes that the mega rich use. If Romney used those, there are a significant amount of people who would say that reflects poorly on his morals. They would also have good reason to believe that Romney isn't a very good person to trust to close said loop holes. If he, being really rich, uses loop holes to not pay his fair share, it also reflects poorly on his stance of trying to do all he can to get the deficit down. One man, sure, but he is applying for a leadership role. Not doing what is obviously his fair share (Since we assume we cannot rely on legality alone, given the obvious amount of really unethical loop holes) hurts his credibility. Legal but "extremely unethical" tax loop holes? If you're going to make such an extravagant claim, the least you could do is provide a source or an example. Also, I agree we should demand his tax returns. Normally I would say there is no reason for him to release that. However, since neither he nor Obama respects our privacy, why should we respect theirs? | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 19 2012 09:01 coverpunch wrote: What would be an example of an "extremely unethical loop hole"? I think the worst case scenario is that his tax returns from 2009 and 2010 show how badly he got smoked during the financial crisis on some of his investments. The question stops being "Is Romney hiding something really bad on his tax returns?" and becomes "Do you want to vote for a guy who thought RIM would make it and Apple wouldn't?" or "Hey Romney thought Netflix raising its prices was a good idea LOLOL". Either that or we find a conflict of interest like he was pushing for GM to go into bankruptcy but he was a bondholder. You see, I think that would be defensible. Which makes me wonder if his 2009 actually indicates something even worse than not paying taxes that year. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
| ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On July 19 2012 09:06 Defacer wrote: You see, I think that would be defensible. Which makes me wonder if his 2009 actually indicates something even worse than not paying taxes that year. What could you possibly imagine is something he would tell the IRS? You need to keep some perspective on this. It's not like we're going to find he's writing off business expenses from funding Al Qaeda. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 19 2012 08:49 Defacer wrote: Here you go. It's important to note that although McCain released two years of tax returns and Kerry released 5 during their presidential bids. However both had been Senators for at least ten years each, and where running on their records in government. John Kerry has 20 years of tax returns in the public record, as a result of running for senate. Even his wife (heiress to the Heinz empire) reluctantly released two years of tax returns. The 'candidates' that didn't release any returns -- Jerry Brown, Pat Buchanan, Mike Huckabee, Steve Forbes, Rudy Giuliani, Richard Lugar, Ralph Nader -- were all pretty much non-starters anyways. Awesome, thanks! Looks like 6+ is the norm while Romney's at 2 and there's a long history of saying whatever is not enough. I laughed pretty hard that people thought Clinton's 12 wasn't enough  So, he's certainly less transparent than most on this topic. It'll be interesting to see how many voters still care as the months go by. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 18 2012 09:54 sunprince wrote: That's not what double taxation means. The term is deliberately misapplied by 1% lobbyists in order to create a false distinction between capital gains taxes and other taxes. The idea that capital gains taxes are double taxation is a myth, as explained by the following sources (the former conservative and the latter liberal): http://heathenrepublican.blogspot.com/2012/01/capital-gains-and-double-taxation.html http://www.ctj.org/taxjusticedigest/archive/2011/08/warren_buffett_is_right_the_wa.php Oh nice, thanks for the links. I figured there was more to it than that because if it was really a double tax I would actually guess that it would be much lower (like 4% or something). | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 19 2012 09:09 coverpunch wrote: What could you possibly imagine is something he would tell the IRS? You need to keep some perspective on this. It's not like we're going to find he's writing off business expenses from funding Al Qaeda. Some people are speculating that he took advantage of the IRS amnesty on Swiss Bank accounts in 2009. Wouldn't it be nuts if he had, like, $100 million in there? It's not illegal, but it would just galvanize the caricature of Romney as a rich white guy that is only successful because he games the system. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 19 2012 09:11 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Awesome, thanks! Looks like 6+ is the norm while Romney's at 2 and there's a long history of saying whatever is not enough. I laughed pretty hard that people thought Clinton's 12 wasn't enough So, he's certainly less transparent than most on this topic. It'll be interesting to see how many voters still care as the months go by. I can only imagine what must be going through the heads of the GOP right now. "How did we let this guy with so much baggage become our candidate ... ?" | ||
|
Lightwip
United States5497 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 19 2012 09:03 sunprince wrote: Try actually reading and responding to the points in the links I provided, instead of assuming I don't know what you're talking about. Your explanation is simply incorrect, for reasons that the links explain. Ok. First your blogspot article: As I said, I’ve heard it twice just this week where a conservative states unequivocally that a person who earns capital gains pays the 15% rate on top of any income tax rate. It’s not a straw man – it’s a very real misconception held by some conservatives. That would be a misconception - though I've never heard that one before. There is another double taxation argument that basically says the corporation has already paid its taxes on profits, and the price of my shares of stock reflect it. To then tax me on the increased value of my stock is a form of double taxation. There is truth in this argument, but it’s also a bit of a distraction. As the individual shareholder I am not personally taxed twice. The corporation has paid its taxes and I pay my own capital gains tax. Yes, the value of my share is discounted based on the amount of corporate taxes paid, but I am not paying tax twice. The corporation, similarly, is not taxed twice. Not to mention, this argument only applies to capital gains earned through the purchase/sale of stock and would not apply to other capital gains like interest earned. Here's the problem: the taxation on the corporation does matter. If you own a small business as the sole owner as a sole proprietorship you ARE the business. The profit the business generates is your income and you pay taxes on it as your own income. The business itself pays no taxes. Corporations, on the other hand, are taxed themselves and any income that flows to the owner is taxed a second time as dividends. So two taxes on one stream of income (double taxation). The CTJ article makes 3 arguments: my replies follow. 1) Some corporations pay no tax. This is irrelevant! The corporation pays the taxes it is supposed to. If you don't like the 'loophole' it uses then argue to close the loophole. 2) 2/3 of dividends are paid to tax-exempt entities. Another irrelevant argument! 3) Third, a capital gain from selling a corporate stock is not necessarily a form of corporate profit. Yes it is. As the CTJ article correctly points out the value can come from expected future profits. Therefore, and as I said in my previous response, the capital gain can only exist if the expected profits come true. And if they do, they will be taxed! | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 19 2012 09:32 Lightwip wrote: As someone else suggested, it's also possible that he bet against the US currency. That would be absolutely damning if true. I hope not. I like to think that financial literacy isn't that poor. Though, yeah, it probably is. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 19 2012 09:32 Lightwip wrote: As someone else suggested, it's also possible that he bet against the US currency. That would be absolutely damning if true. Oh god. That would be awful. Is Romney the worst candidate of all time? I don't mean that in a moralistic, judgemental way. He's not 'evil'. But other than the bad economy, he really doesn't have a leg to stand on. He can't defend his record at Bain. He can't defend or explain his wealth. He can't defend his record as Governor (despite it being, for all intents and purposes, successful and politically moderate). He's flipped positions on almost every social issue -- He can't even claim to have integrity! This is compounded by his totally uncool and unappealing personality. He has obnoxious hobbies, like dressage. He has horrible sense of humor, including stints masquerading as a police officer and bullying gay kids in high school. He laughs like a robot. All he has left is ... the Olympics. You know. The one where he outsourced the US uniforms to Burma. Fucking junta-governed, military-oppressed, freedomless Burma. D'oh! | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On July 19 2012 09:53 Defacer wrote: Oh god. That would be awful. Is Romney the worst candidate of all time? I don't mean that in a moralistic, judgemental way. He's not 'evil'. But other than the bad economy, he really doesn't have a leg to stand on. He can't defend his record at Bain. He can't defend or explain his wealth. He can't defend his record as Governor (despite it being, for all intents and purposes, successful and politically moderate). He's flipped positions on almost every social issue -- He can't even claim to have integrity! This is compounded by his totally uncool and unappealing personality. He has obnoxious hobbies, like dressage. He has horrible sense of humor, including stints masquerading as a police officer and bullying gay kids in high school. He laughs like a robot. All he has left is ... the Olympics. You know. The one where he outsourced the US uniforms to Burma. Fucking junta-governed, military-oppressed, freedomless Burma. D'oh! Yea, see, this is why it seems like Kerry v Bush all over again. They're both personally wealthy too. Well I suppose Romney can actually talk without people falling asleep. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On July 19 2012 09:05 Wolvmatt. wrote: Legal but "extremely unethical" tax loop holes? If you're going to make such an extravagant claim, the least you could do is provide a source or an example. Also, I agree we should demand his tax returns. Normally I would say there is no reason for him to release that. However, since neither he nor Obama respects our privacy, why should we respect theirs? If I'm not mistaken, Romney could rapatriate his capital from overseas through the purchase of some local municipal bonds. There's also the matter of simple manipulation of capital to minimize tax rates. Regardless, this whole thing is painting Romney as the "bad" kind of rich guy. The thing with Americans, we love our Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Henry Fords. They are/were innovative men who made their fortune through great products and great business, even if they may have stepped on a few people. We understand that. What Americans (and the rest of the world really) do get mad at are people that game the system in order to make their fortune. If the portrait of Romney turns from "successful leader of Bain," as questionable that is in the first place, into "financial swindler," it could really give a huge blow to his campaign that he could never shake. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
Kerry had similar problems, Gore should have won comfortably based of the state of the economy/nation but ran a pitiful campaign and was unlikable, Dole had similar personality/awkwardness issues. And these are just the recent candidates that I have an actual memory of -- is Romney really a worse candidate than McGovern or Goldwater? (I'll leave out Strom Thurmond since he was 3rd party and is too easy to pick on.) | ||
| ||
