http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...ug-companies-and-state-bank-india_648350.html
What we need is more disclosure from Mitt Romney.
ROMNEY 2012!
- Thread starter Tigran
- Start date
What we need is more disclosure from Mitt Romney.
For what? What would you hope to find in his tax returns? That *gasp* Mitt Romney is rich?
Maybe we'll find out that he's a scumbag who calls rich people greedy selfish fucks while he himself only donates less that half a percent of his income to an anti-Semitic racist church.
Maybe we'll find out that he's a scumbag who calls rich people greedy selfish fucks while he himself only donates less that half a percent of his income to an anti-Semitic racist church.
Last edited:
No need to see the returns, though it is common to release them (as Mitt's dad did). We all know what they show. Mitt, like virtually all extraordinarily wealthy Americans, has paid some expensive accountants and lawyers handsome sums in order to make sure that he pays the absolute minimum amount of taxes without committing a crime.
Yes, we know this, all rich people do that. So what?
Has there ever been a 'poor' President? Considering the poor are usually poor because they make bad choices and decisions, why would you want someone like that making choices for the entire nation?
Last edited:
I would like our elected officials and candidates for office to be as open with who they are and what they have accomplished as possible. It is hypocritical for a right that was clamoring for a long form birth certificate to defend Romney not disclosing his tax returns.
It is all stupid political theater in the end though, neither Romney or Obama are going to fix the real problems but of course that isn't what matters to most people they just want their "side" to win.
Doubt I will, that said my vote wouldn't matter much as California isn't really up for grabs in this cycle. That at least does spare us from most of the shitty presidential political ads which is nice.
It is a relevant topic during a presidential election, and the information should be public so people can form their own opinions. You may not care, but I think Romney's use of tax shelters and elaborate financial planning to pay a ~25% effective tax rate says a lot about his politics. I don't expect him to crack down on tax shelters, and if he's clamoring for even lower taxes on the rich when he already pays less than many Americans with $150k/year jobs despite making 10 times that, well... you get the picture.
Being poor isn't an inherently good or bad quality in a president. Neither is being rich. But the poor have a very different perspective from the rich, and are likely to view solutions to problems differently as a result. It's a relevant topic, and that's my point.
Also,
at broad generalizations. I'm sure Mitt has made plenty of "bad choices and decisions," but it is much easier to recover from mistakes when your dad is a billionaire politician and can get you the best pedigree money can buy with little to no effort on your part. At Bain, Romney made investments that bankrupted companies. Bad choices/decisions? Probably. But Bain got paid anyway, so Romney doesn't have to be poor. I guess that excuses his mistakes? The workers he fired didn't get paid, so their mistake (working for a company that got bought out and looted by Bain) demonstrates poor character. Got it.
Last edited:
Being poor isn't an inherently good or bad quality in a president. Neither is being rich. But the poor have a very different perspective from the rich, and are likely to view solutions to problems differently as a result. It's a relevant topic, and that's my point.
Also,
Romney has a "sterling" record at Bain according to Bill Clinton. When you go in and try to save companies (which is what some venture capitalists do) you are going to have some failures along the way. The successes at Bain (some said around 70%) are actually really great. Without the cash injection from Bain, those companies that did fail, would have failed much sooner so at least they tried to turn them around and kept jobs around.
The right clamoring for the a birth certificate was way overblown as is the left clamoring for a tax return. Quit being sheep.
The federal reserve strategy is brilliant. How do you get rid of the rich and impoverish the whole country? pump their stocks full of printed money then get a president elected who's going to tax it out. Since the poor don't understand the money system, and many of the rich don't either, they will raise taxes and then the fed will stop printing money into it and simply drain all the upper class wealth into Europe and with it all hopes of a jobs recovery for the future...
too bad you get spammers who make threads like this and only understand pictures
too bad you get spammers who make threads like this and only understand pictures
[N]PRIME189
Veteran XX
lol the poor solution to a problem "go get a credit card"
BlueSoxSWJ
Veteran X
I don't "hate" Mitt Romney; there's just no "there" there.
He makes a big deal out of "repeal and replace." But has he proposed anything at all? Nope, he just lied about Obamacare, lied about it again, and lied about it some more, then proposed "replacing" Obamacare with a legal provision ... that's been in place since 1996, and otherwise only made statements so vague as to be meaningless.
Somehow his record at Bain is supposed to prepare him to run an economy. But a company is not a country. When you trim your staff (or outsource a bunch of jobs) at a company, you're saving costs, and that's a good thing. When the "staff" gets trimmed in a country, you're causing a recession, and that's a bad thing. His solution for the economy is the same rightwing tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the middle class that's failed for the last decade. Only this time, they're taken to such an extreme that focus groups literally don't believe any politician would be tone-deaf enough adopt his position.
As for the tax returns, think of it this way. When you read a stock analysis or watch one of those money-losing shows on CNBC, the analyst is required to disclose any financial stake they have in any of the companies analyzed. That doesn't necessarily invalidate their presentation, but the audience has the right to know if the presenter has a financial stake in convincing people to buy/sell/whatever a stock. Romney's personal finances are relevant, not because they reveal anything about his character or any of that silliness (unless, of course, careful scrutiny did reveal something fraudulent), but because they let voters know Romney's personal financial stake in pushing for giant tax cuts for millionaires.