Romney vs. Obama

[copestag]

Tax returns are fair game. The Republicans made a big fuss about birth certificate and Romney made a big fuss about his previous opponents tax returns.

Did Romney receive a tax ammesty for his illegal Swiss account ?

I think the public will learn a lot about tax loop holes that needs to be closed by the inspection of Romney's returns.

a VERY small number of people made a fuss about a birth certificate........ and even then........ shouldnt Romney wait until hes in office for 3 years before producing just like Obama?

What Romney did or didnt pay in taxes is NONE of your business in any way shape or form....... if he didnt pay what he owed you would already know about it........ if everything he did was legal and the IRS isnt after him for something then put on your big boy pants and get over it

you wouldnt understand the first page of his tax returns even if he did release them....... all you would do is wait for the talking points sheet to be released to spin it into something that looks bad but in reality isnt...... the same holds true for the overwhelming majority of the population

whats ironic about the tax returns whine is several of obamas staff is known to have cheated on their taxes......... yet you will defend them tooth and nail

distract distract distract....... why exactly dont the lefties want to talk about the economy???? Did the blame Bush tactic stop working for you?

 

[A.Nonymous]

I just love people on their high horse talking about how Romney didn't pay his "fair share" while acting like they aren't taking every single exemption they can possibly find to get out of paying taxes themselves. It's apparently a dirty little secret that every American dodges taxes like the plague. There's a certain point where you earn so much money that it's worth it to pay tens of thousands of dollars for accountants who can help you dodge taxes more effectively. This is some kind of a crime apparently.

Both sides are tossing red herrings on the trail here and trying to distract from the real issues. The right brings up Obama's school records. The man has been in office 4 years now. If you have no clue if he is qualified to do the job or not, don't vote. He's got 4 years on the job. You should be able to evaluate his performance. The left brings up Romney's tax returns. Again, it's irrelevant. How much the guy earned and how much he paid has absolutely nothing to do with whether the guy is qualified for the office or not. If I applied for a job and they wanted to see my tax returns I wouldn't give them up either. Just saying.

We have way bigger issues - healthcare, the economy, the ongoing wars overseas, etc.... I am interested in what both candidates have to say about those things.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Tax returns are fair game. The Republicans made a big fuss about birth certificate and Romney made a big fuss about his previous opponents tax returns.

Did Romney receive a tax ammesty for his illegal Swiss account ?

I think the public will learn a lot about tax loop holes that needs to be closed by the inspection of Romney's returns.

Let me guess. You claim no exemptions or credits and deliberately pay more taxes because you believe in America?

 

[RazorSharp]

a VERY small number of people made a fuss about a birth certificate........ and even then........ shouldnt Romney wait until hes in office for 3 years before producing just like Obama?

It was hardly a small number of people, why are you trying to downplay it? And as I've stated already, all the candidates from the past several elections have released their tax info, it's become expected by the people.

whats ironic about the tax returns whine is several of obamas staff is known to have cheated on their taxes......... yet you will defend them tooth and nail

Do you have any links to back up your statements? And no, if members of Obama's staff have cheated on their taxes, they should be removed.

distract distract distract....... why exactly dont the lefties want to talk about the economy???? Did the blame Bush tactic stop working for you?

Actually the economy has been just about the only thing any of the candidates have been talking about, Obama and Romney both, and just about all that we've been discussing in this thread. Are you being dense on purpose? Or are you just taking an excuse to spew some tired rhetoric? A page or two back I posted several links about Romney's ridiculous economic plan and how it would severely damage the economy, you may wish to educate yourself.

I just love people on their high horse talking about how Romney didn't pay his "fair share" while acting like they aren't taking every single exemption they can possibly find to get out of paying taxes themselves.

People besides Romney aren't running for the highest job in the country, a position that requires integrity, something Romney doesn't have.

We have way bigger issues - healthcare, the economy, the ongoing wars overseas, etc.... I am interested in what both candidates have to say about those things.

Then listen, man. They're both talking about it nearly nonstop. They've delivered speeches, both released a lot of info about their respective economic plans - I've linked to both their plans at various points in this thread. It's not hard to find. The media likes a good red herring frenzy, and the ads being tossed around can be misleading, but the candidates themselves are still talking.

 

[ylexot]

Do you have any links to back up your statements? And no, if members of Obama's staff have cheated on their taxes, they should be removed.

Never heard of Treasury Secretary Timothy "Turbo Tax" Geithner?
Timothy Geithner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was revealed that Geithner had not paid $35,000 in self-employment taxes for the years 2001

 

[Jon Davis]

Two things trouble me about Romney refusing to show his tax returns. He only paid 14 percent last year? No problem, as unfair as it is, it was legal.

But; it's an admitted matter of public record that he has 100,000,000 dollars in his IRA. No one is allowed to contribute more than $30,000 a year to an IRA. ???
If we are to trust this man to be President shouldn't we be told how he did that?

If he took the amnesty on being caught sneaking untaxed money in a Swiss bank account that means he broke the law and took a plea deal. I don't want a crook as my President.

Instead of ranting & raving please give these two questions some thought.

 

[ylexot]

But; it's an admitted matter of public record that he has 100,000,000 dollars in his IRA. No one is allowed to contribute more than $30,000 a year to an IRA. ???
If we are to trust this man to be President shouldn't we be told how he did that?

Individual retirement account - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While the average and median IRA individual balance in 2008 were approximately $70,000 and $20,000, higher balances are not rare. 6.3% of individuals had total balances of $250,000 or more (about 12.5 times the median),[17] and in rare cases, individuals own IRAs with very substantial balances, in some cases $100 million or above (about 5,000 times the median individual balance).[18] This typically occurs when founders of companies place shares in their own company in an IRA, and the share value subsequently rises substantially.[18]

:dontknow:

 

[Lord Vader]

Some people just keep believing the spoon fed crap the Left and the media feed them, ylexot.

 

[OutofDate1980]

The Romney "War on Poverty" plan.

Mitt Romney Started Bain Capital With Money From Families Tied To Death Squads

"By 1984, the media had thoroughly exposed connections between the death squads and the Salvadoran oligarchy, including the families that invested with Romney. The sitting U.S. ambassador to El Salvador charged that several families, including at least one that invested with Bain, were living in Miami and directly funding death squads. Even by 1981, El Salvador's elite, largely relocated to Miami, were so angered by the public perception that they were financing death squads that they reached out to the media to make their case. The two men put forward to represent the oligarchs were both from families that would invest in Bain three years later. The most cursory review of their backgrounds would have turned up the ties.

The connection between the families involved with Bain's founding and those who financed death squads was made by the Boston Globe in 1994 and the Salt Lake Tribune in 1999. This election cycle, Salon first raised the issue in January, and the Los Angeles Times filled out more of the record earlier this month.

There is no shortage of unsavory links. Even the Tribune article referred to by the Romney campaign reports that "about $6.5 million of $37 million that established the company came from wealthy El Salvadoran families linked to right-wing death squads.""

 

[Lord Vader]

With respect to all this ignoring of the economy and focusing instead on peripheral, meaningless stuff--none of this is new. It's the Chicago way.

The media favorite Obama eliminated all his Democratic rivals in his first election for the Illinois legislature by suing in court to invalidate their nomination petitions and ran unopposed in the primary. Obama demolished his U.S. Senate Democratic primary rival through leaked divorce records. He demolished his initial Republican rival through leaked divorce records. When he got through with Hillary Clinton, the liberal former first lady and U.S. senator had transmogrified into a prevaricating hack and veritable racist, as Bill Clinton lamented the race card being played. John McCain released his health records and his general dismal ranking at Annapolis, leading to a false narrative that he was naturally inattentive and reckless, and scarcely hale, while Obama released neither his medical nor his college records; as Sarah Palin

 

[Lord Vader]

The Romney "War on Poverty" plan.

Mitt Romney Started Bain Capital With Money From Families Tied To Death Squads

"By 1984, the media had thoroughly exposed connections between the death squads and the Salvadoran oligarchy, including the families that invested with Romney. The sitting U.S. ambassador to El Salvador charged that several families, including at least one that invested with Bain, were living in Miami and directly funding death squads. Even by 1981, El Salvador's elite, largely relocated to Miami, were so angered by the public perception that they were financing death squads that they reached out to the media to make their case. The two men put forward to represent the oligarchs were both from families that would invest in Bain three years later. The most cursory review of their backgrounds would have turned up the ties.

The connection between the families involved with Bain's founding and those who financed death squads was made by the Boston Globe in 1994 and the Salt Lake Tribune in 1999. This election cycle, Salon first raised the issue in January, and the Los Angeles Times filled out more of the record earlier this month.

There is no shortage of unsavory links. Even the Tribune article referred to by the Romney campaign reports that "about $6.5 million of $37 million that established the company came from wealthy El Salvadoran families linked to right-wing death squads.""

So the Huffington Post says that Mitt Romney's Bain Capital was seeded with money from Latin American death squads. What's the difference in that and the Democrats being underwritten by Planned Parenthood and NARAL? If they're not death squads, I don't know what is.

Oh! The hypocrisy! Thy name is Democrat.

 

[RazorSharp]

Some people just keep believing the spoon fed crap the Left and the media feed them, ylexot.

That's rich coming from you, the guy who clearly prostrates at the altar of FOX and Glenn Beck. You come in here spouting nonsense like "Obama abstained in 50% of his state Senate votes" and "Romney doesn't favor government privacy invasion" and junk like that, probably taken directly from the airwaves, without a shred of proof, and you have the nerve to call us spoon fed?

 

[rushmore]

So the Huffington Post says that Mitt Romney's Bain Capital was seeded with money from Latin American death squads. What's the difference in that and the Democrats being underwritten by Planned Parenthood and NARAL? If they're not death squads, I don't know what is.

Oh! The hypocrisy! Thy name is Democrat.

Hey, I can not help it if my registered party has been taken over by far lefties. The sad thing is almost all in both parties are narcissists and in it for themselves, plus supported by an entourage of bottom feeders.

What Washington needs is an enema!

 

[Ken C]

Hey, I can not help it if my registered party has been taken over by far lefties. The sad thing is almost all in both parties are narcissists and in it for themselves, plus supported by an entourage of bottom feeders.

What Washington needs is an enema!

It's good to see a democrat that hasn't been brainwashed to the point of silliness.

There's a difference between a democrat and a liberal drone, just as there's a difference between a hard right wing nut bar and a conservative.

Now if we can just get more of the good ones on either side to stop being stupid and work together this country might stand a chance.

I remember back when Reagan was potus. The right would be screaming at the left. But when it came time for lunch Reagan and Tip O'Neil (a Ted Kennedy democrat for y'all too young to remember, from Massachusetts) would meet up and hang out together as friends...

 

[OutofDate1980]

Individual retirement account - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

:dontknow:

Better tax breaks ? Bain Gave Staff Way to Swell IRAs by Investing in Deals - WSJ.com

"Bain added a couple of unusual twists that made co-investing even more rewarding. It allowed employees to co-invest via tax-deferred retirement accounts, and to do so by buying a special share class that cost little but yielded much larger gains than other shares when deals proved successful, according to former employees and internal Bain documents analyzed by The Wall Street Journal."

"Gains of such magnitude raise a fundamental tax question, lawyers said: Was Bain properly valuing Wesley Jessen common shares, or other low-price Class A shares, when it created the dual-share structures in the companies? In the Wesley Jessen case, Bain valued the common shares in the aggregate at less than 6% of the company's equity, despite the large portion of gains they stood to be entitled to if the deal proved successful.

Under tax laws, valuations are supposed to reflect fair-market value. The IRS often challenges valuations of various kinds. For instance, if shares put in an IRA are undervalued, the IRS can determine there have been excess contributions to the account.

Valuing shares that aren't public is an art, not a science, tax lawyers said, and involves complex assumptions. The lawyers said they knew of no instance in which the IRS had challenged the valuation of private-equity investments held in IRA accounts, at Bain or elsewhere.

Bain often ascribed 90% of the equity value of a company it had taken over to the safer shares and just 10% of the value to the risky shares—in other words, a 9:1 ratio of all of the L shares to all of the A shares.

Some tax lawyers and private-equity experts said that was a low valuation for the A shares, particularly by today's standards. Andrew Smith, president of Houlihan Capital, a Chicago firm that performs valuations of private-company shares, said a typical dual-class structure these days might use a 3:1 or 4:1 ratio, ascribing 75% to 80% of a company's equity value to the safer share class and the rest to the risky ones. Mr. Smith said that firms were less conservative a decade ago—sometimes using 6:1 or 8:1 ratios—but even then, a 9:1 ratio would have been "pushing the envelope."

Jason R. Factor, an attorney at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton who advises private-equity firms, said, "I personally would be careful about using a ratio as high as nine to one," because an aggressive valuation can "create issues" in any kind of IRS audit."

 

[OutofDate1980]

That's rich coming from you, the guy who clearly prostrates at the altar of FOX and Glenn Beck. You come in here spouting nonsense like "Obama abstained in 50% of his state Senate votes" and "Romney doesn't favor government privacy invasion" and junk like that, probably taken directly from the airwaves, without a shred of proof, and you have the nerve to call us spoon fed?

That's why the ignore is important. If one continues to make things up, then that one is wasting everyone's time.

 

[rushmore]

That's why the ignore is important. If one continues to make things up, then that one is wasting everyone's time.

Kind of like what most of the media does (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NYT, etc). They use the conditional process for news of:

1 If it helps Obama= Report it!

2 If it does not help Obama= Do Not report it (or under report, distort)

3 Go to 1

Liberals hate Fox because they are using a rogue program. Well, not really, since they do have Shep, who makes some liberals seem conservative.

Added:

A liberal's litmus is if ANYTHING does not conform to the agenda: Ignore, distort, rant, slander, or pull the race card. Liberals truly can not handle the truth, unless it conforms to the agenda at hand.

Liberals should get out of politics and trying to lead people and stick to what they are good at: Acting, kick a$$ rock bands, art and other entertainment stuff

Liberals for some things do rock! Just stop trying to tell me what to do- you aint' my momma. Sadly, they are elite in their own mind, but trying to dictate for the rest of us.

 

[rushmore]

It's good to see a democrat that hasn't been brainwashed to the point of silliness.

There's a difference between a democrat and a liberal drone, just as there's a difference between a hard right wing nut bar and a conservative.

Now if we can just get more of the good ones on either side to stop being stupid and work together this country might stand a chance.

I remember back when Reagan was potus. The right would be screaming at the left. But when it came time for lunch Reagan and Tip O'Neil (a Ted Kennedy democrat for y'all too young to remember, from Massachusetts) would meet up and hang out together as friends...

Ironic, but perhaps my perception of democrats was naive or self-serving. Simple for me: I stand for a free economy, strong military and no censorship, but also compassion for others. That was what I thought democrats were, but either I am dumber than I thought, or there has been a "night of the long knives" in the democrat party.

It seems now that both parties are overall bad, but the republicans are the lesser of the two evils.

 

[RazorSharp]

It's good to see a democrat that hasn't been brainwashed to the point of silliness.

I had to laugh when I saw this from you.

A liberal's litmus is if ANYTHING does not conform to the agenda: Ignore, distort, rant, slander, or pull the race card. Liberals truly can not handle the truth, unless it conforms to the agenda at hand.

Ridiculous blanket statements aside - can you explain to me then why it's the presumed conservatives (e.g. Ken C, Lord Vader) who are completely unable to reply to my responses when I expose their statements as incorrect? I've been waiting for them to own up to their refuted statements, but instead merely get ignored as they and others spew more misguided vitriol.

Liberals should get out of politics and trying to lead people and stick to what they are good at: Acting, kick a$$ rock bands, art and other entertainment stuff

Excuse me? Are you forgetting that Ronald Reagan was an actor?

Liberals for some things do rock! Just stop trying to tell me what to do- you aint' my momma. Sadly, they are elite in their own mind, but trying to dictate for the rest of us.

I always find statements like this comically hilarious, as it's today's neo-conservatives and Republican Party that are doing all the rights infringement. Women's rights are being attacked daily, gay marriage is derided and blocked; meanwhile, groups like the Tea Party scream "don't tread on me!" and make all kinds of ruckus over nothing.

 

[rushmore]

Thanks Razor, I missed one:

I forgot to add "be incredulous" with any response. I can not answer for other folks, but what are your specifics?

I am not siding with conservatives, but saying they are the least of the evils.

BTW, Reagan was not a liberal and was a bad actor, so as an objective control, supports my point

 

[RazorSharp]

Thanks Razor, I missed one: I forgot to add "be incredulous" with any response.

I'm not sure what you're trying to imply here. Is this part of your "liberals" stereotype?

I can not answer for other folks, but what are your specifics?

Lord Vader: here and here
Ken C: here
You: here

 

[rushmore]

I like liberals, but absolutely hate them when they impose their own standards on others. Or anyone else, for that matter.

Again, I can not answer for others, but value perspective from all angles. The issue is when some of those angles try and dictate how I should live.

 

[RazorSharp]

I like liberals, but absolutely hate them when they impose their own standards on others.

Honestly, I feel like I'm talking to a wall. I just addressed this before. "I always find statements like this comically hilarious, as it's today's neo-conservatives and Republican Party that are doing all the rights infringement. Women's rights are being attacked daily, gay marriage is derided and blocked; meanwhile, groups like the Tea Party scream "don't tread on me!" and make all kinds of ruckus over nothing."

What standards are being imposed on you that you hate so very much? The conservatives in this thread are very short on evidence/data to back up statements.

 

[rushmore]

Your incredulity is showing. I think your perceived wall may be in part to your perception that your perceived way is the right way, hence any varied perspective is a wall. Still, I can not speak for other folks.

I go by results and a focus on Obama and not liking the results. Romney to me is the least of the evils.

Let us both agree to disagree

Added:

Fiscal standards are the issue.

A health care bill that is a small fraction of really that and the vast majority to grow government and will cause a huge tax increase (per the supreme court it is a tax) and cause costs to go up and businesses to bail. I lived in England for four years. Government healthcare sucks real bad.

Cash for clunkers

Hundreds of billions wasted on bad energy investments that the CBO and others warned about prior.

Fast and Furious

I can go on, but seems a case of folks who are brilliant in their own mind and reality is much different.

 

[ylexot]

Ironic, but perhaps my perception of democrats was naive or self-serving. Simple for me: I stand for a free economy, strong military and no censorship, but also compassion for others. That was what I thought democrats were, but either I am dumber than I thought, or there has been a "night of the long knives" in the democrat party.

It seems now that both parties are overall bad, but the republicans are the lesser of the two evils.

I'm thinking that you are probably most closely aligned with the Libertarians. In fact, I'd guess that most people would match more closely with Libertarians if they took a test based on their positions on various topics. And as long as everybody keeps aligning themselves with parties they disagree with, the two parties will continue to go against what the people want.