President Obama Re-Elected - Page 264

On August 10 2012 12:48 Nymphaceae wrote:

You don't think kids from poorer communities should have an equal opportunity as you? You don't think crime goes down as there become more intellectuals? What about less fires? What about the homeless? Is it wrong for them to cool down in the library during a hot summer day? Is it wrong for him to use a computer to write a resume?

On August 10 2012 12:24 sam!zdat wrote:


It's wrong if the way you do it is by being a capitalist pig, yeah

On August 10 2012 12:42 Velocirapture wrote:


This is almost certainly the case. I would not be surprised if there have been years where Romney paid less than 10% by abusing offshore loopholes and various deductions intended to stabilize and give incentives to the middle class but commonly abused by the rich.

This is the fundamental flaw of the current regulatory system. We, for some reason, have no problem segregating the poor structurally within the regulatory system but any benefit a guy at 70k a year gets has to be given to a guy making 100 million. Tax breaks for home/property ownership for example are designed to essentially be subsidies for the middle class. The rich have no place getting these benefits.

On August 10 2012 11:11 Nymphaceae wrote:


Don't you ever wonder that by Romney not telling his agenda would be better than him telling it. Like his agenda is good, but if it were known, then it would hurt the country as a whole, but if it were unknown, then it would benefit the country greatly?

I'm sorry if I offended you, but I just feel like Obama is really secretive about things like his GPA, his birth certificate, and other basic things that would be required for a resume, but when you look at Romney, they ask him for very personal things, like his taxes. Does that not seem wrong to you?

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.

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.

On August 10 2012 12:48 JinDesu wrote:


I'll make them. It's possible for me, as it appears that jobs are created by one person without any help.

Dunno why people complain about not being able to find jobs.

On August 10 2012 12:52 1Eris1 wrote:


Wrong is subjective.

Romney's just making the most of his meager existence on this planet.

On August 10 2012 12:55 Nymphaceae wrote:

McDonalds is hiring.

On August 10 2012 12:56 Leporello wrote:
So no source then?

Great.

But at least you made your point: The less we tax the rich, the more libraries they'll build for us (with air conditioning, of course).

Jesus Christ.

On August 10 2012 12:59 JinDesu wrote:


On the plus side, we give more money to the government, who will also build us libraries. We will have so many libraries.

We'll become the smartest nation on earth.

On August 10 2012 12:56 Leporello wrote:
So no source then?

Great.

But at least you made your point: The less we tax the rich, the more libraries they'll build for us (with air conditioning, of course).

Jesus Christ.

On August 10 2012 13:00 sam!zdat wrote:


Hey, it's a step up from "fattest"

On August 10 2012 13:01 Nymphaceae wrote:


yeah,
What else do you think an anthropologist should do?

On August 10 2012 13:02 Leporello wrote:


Study African tribes?

No. You're trolling. You have to be.

The word is philanthropy.
edit: Either way, thanks for the laughs. But god, I hope you're trolling.

On August 10 2012 12:55 Defacer wrote:



I've already addressed this in detail.

Yes, I do agree that tax returns are quite personal. Ironically, it's a precedent that George Romney started.

While releasing tax returns is not mandatory, it's become customary for candidates to be transparent as possible about their finances, which is what makes Romney's refusal seems so odd. It would essentially make him the LEAST TRANSPARENT, MOST SECRETIVE presidential candidate in 30 years.

For Mitt Romney not to release more than two years -- and the truth is, he's only released 1 return and an incomplete return, well after he decided to run for presidency -- is absolutely deserving of criticism in 20/21st century politics. In fact, there have been calls from right-wing publications and pundits such as National Review and Bill Kristol for Romney to just-release-his-fucking-returns-already.



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.