Mitt Romney stayed at Bain 3 years longer than he stated

What do you think of the suggestion that someone out there in newsland made: "Hey, Obama! You've got private papers you don't want shown, I've got private papers I don't want shown. You present the originals of yours, and I'll produce the originals of mine. You're the transparency president, after all. Put up or shut up. Yours, Mitt."

reply to post by charles1952


I think that post reflects none of the intelligence I have seen you demonstrate in other posts.

President Obama has released 12 years of tax returns.

He has released both COB and long form versions of his birth certificate despite a there being no credible evidence that he was born anywhere besides where he said he was.

More research and scrutiny has been heaped upon President Obama than any other President in history.

Romney still refuses to release any tax returns beyond the one he prepared for election purposes.

Romney's father? Released 12 years worth of tax returns...

President Obama? Released 12 years worth of tax returns.

Mitt Romney? 1 year...and an "estimate" for 2011...weren't taxes due in April? or are the rules different for his ilk?

Know what George Romney, Mitt's father, said about releasing only one years worth of returns?

“Release of the document, while it might serve a political purpose, would not prove very much, he argued. One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show, and what mattered in personal finance was how a man conducted himself over the long haul.”

reply to post by Indigo5


Nobody cares about tax returns.

Americans want 400,000 jobs created every month.

Any ideas?

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Nobody cares about tax returns.

Americans want 400,000 jobs created every month.

Any ideas?

Well...not Romney...unless you want those jobs created in China.


The tax issue isn't going away...Republicans are continuing to call for him to release his tax returns. You don't hide something unless you have something to hide.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Obama is in bed with General Electric.

Has GE been creating jobs in China ???

Obama has been creating jobs....in Brazil !

Obama is the outsourcing king.

Seek the truth.

reply to post by Indigo5

Dear Indigo5,

I'm sorry to have disappointed you, but please allow me to try and dodge some of the blame. The idea I presented wasn't mine, it came from comments made by Donald Trump. I posted them to see how they would be received by our community.

I agree with you that Romney is sensitive about his tax returns and that those opposed to him are calling for more information using the "If you've done nothing wrong, why can't we search your ______." argument.

Now whether they're right or wrong, there are a large number of people opposed to Obama who want more information about Obama's past. They are also using the "If you've done nothing wrong . . ." argument.

Obama's opponents are coming to the realization that they may never find out anything that they can trust about Obama's past. I think that is why there is such sensitivity on their part. The idea that Obama can hide things without any repercussions, but there is one thing that Romney wants to hide with the result that he is called names and deemed unfit for office, which rankles their very souls. (I am assuming that we all have souls.)

It's the difference in treatment that strikes them as unfair.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I suspect the truth is that for some or all of the years prior to 2010 (when he prepared the return with "public release" in mind)...that prior years returns will show 0% paid in taxes as he heavily leveraged off-shore accounts and investments and loop-holes.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Dear Indigo5,

I'm sorry to have disappointed you, but please allow me to try and dodge some of the blame. The idea I presented wasn't mine, it came from comments made by Donald Trump.

Donald Trump?...well that explains the stupidity of the remark.

Originally posted by charles1952
I agree with you that Romney is sensitive about his tax returns and that those opposed to him are calling for more information using the "If you've done nothing wrong, why can't we search your ______." argument.

Not just "opponents"...

Growing conservative voice: Romney should release taxes
politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...

And no offense...but PLEASE don't leave that blank space as if it is an open, endless request... witch-hunt.
No one has accused him of being born in Kenya or asked for his long-form birth certificate.

That is a dishonest tact pretending that it is an unwarranted and open inquirey.

What is being asked for is what every other Presidential candidate over the last 50 years has provided.

For the love of God...releasing multiple years of tax returns is something his own father demanded of political candidates.

Originally posted by charles1952
Now whether they're right or wrong, there are a large number of people opposed to Obama who want more information about Obama's past. They are also using the "If you've done nothing wrong . . ." argument.

You are equating fringe, conspiracy inquiries, the vast majority of which have been answered repeatedly, just not to the conspiratorial fringe's insatiable satisfaction....to legitimate, established, relevant disclosure for Presidential candidates...so say other conservatives from Romney's own party...so say every Presidential candidate since Romney's own father set the precident.

By equating those two things you aim to dismiss both as equally invalid inquiries. They are not equivelant by any measure or idealogical imagination. Dishonest tact.

A Tax Return does NOT EQUAL an Application for the grade school that the President attended when he was 5 years old....which by the way I think was actually published.

Nonsense...Romney needs to obey his fathers demands for basic financial transparency.

Has anybody posted Ben Swann's video on this matter?

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Indigo5

Dear Indigo5,

It truly is a treat to be talking with you again, you're teaching me quite a bit. Allow me to clear up one other small misunderstanding. The blank space I left was not intended to refer to Romney or Obama. What I failed to do was to convey the argument the police use. "If you've done nothing wrong, why can't we search your (car, purse, house, computer drive, locker, etc.) I agree with you that this issue is only about his tax returns.

There is something I'm having a harder time agreeing with, though. It's the idea that every Presidential candidate over the last 50 years has provided 12 years of returns prior to their election. I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that I haven't been able to find support for it before Obama - Biden.

I also agree with you that some Romney supporters are calling for the release, but my point wasn't that this is a one side partisan thing. I could have made it read that "some people" are calling for the release of Romney's papers and "some people" are calling for the release of Obama's papers.

You are equating fringe, conspiracy inquiries, the vast majority of which have been answered repeatedly, just not to the conspiratorial fringe's insatiable satisfaction....to legitimate, established, relevant disclosure for Presidential candidates...so say other conservatives from Romney's own party...so say every Presidential candidate since Romney's own father set the precident.

Let me ask for forgiveness in advance for this, but by calling one set of inquiries "legitimate, established, relevant," and the other as "fringe conspiracy theories," saying they have already been answered, and describing the "conspiratorial fringe" as "insatiable," you seem to be describing emotional opinions rather than established fact. I'm sure tens of millions of voters would disagree with you. So the question remains.

A Tax Return does NOT EQUAL an Application for the grade school that the President attended when he was 5 years old....which by the way I think was actually published.

You're certainly correct. But the request for Obama's records is designed to establish citizenship. Yes, I know that many people believe it has been established, but many people don't believe it.

Besides, what's the purpose of asking for the tax records? Would the world be satisfied if he released his records from 2003 forward? I am certain the answer is "no." There will be nothing surprising in his tax records for that period. Everybody knows he is rich, and that he's given vast amounts to charities, and that he has money in banks outside the US. There is nothing of interest there. So what is the purpose? What is the world looking for?

I would bet that the search is for something that might show him as an active participant to Bain in '99 - '02 in order to try to catch him in a false statement to the government. This question has been investigated several times and it has been shown to be a false accusation.

This seems very similar to Obama and his citizenship. The request for records is targeted to a particular goal, trying to catch him in a false statement to the government. The difference is that the Bain claims have been investigated by a government body and several newspapers, the Obama claims have largely been ignored, laughed at, or attacked.

You know, at bottom, I wish they would just get back to discussing the economy, foreign policy, and specific plans for the future. I see this as sidetracking the important debates they should be having.

Perhaps you should run for something. If you're in my state, I'd probably vote for you. You're certainly valuable here on ATS.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
You're certainly correct. But the request for Obama's records is designed to establish citizenship. Yes, I know that many people believe it has been established, but many people don't believe it.

The "request for Obama's records" was and is not designed to "establish citizenship". If that was the case those inquiries would have been satisifed long ago as every credible source possible has been provided to "establish citizenship".

Those inquiries were designed, in my honest opinion, to appeal to Xenophobia and cast him as "the other" "not American" and for some the citizenship question served as a proxy for racial intolerance that is not publicly acceptable in todays society.

Aside from that...wether or not "many people don't believe it"...they still had documentation to review and come to thier own conclusions. This is not the case with Mitt Romney, who refuses to provide simple tax returns.

Originally posted by charles1952
Besides, what's the purpose of asking for the tax records?
Would the world be satisfied if he released his records from 2003 forward? I am certain the answer is "no."

Bain is not what Romney is hiding.

He prepared his 2010 return with the knowledge that he might be pressured into disclosing it during the GOP Nominee debates...and yet the best he could manage was a 14% tax rate for that public scrutiny.

What do you think his 2008 and 2009 returns would reveal? when he wasn't certain he would run for President yet?

I suspect they will show heavy hedging (bets against the American Economy) during the financial crisis. I suspect he will have been heavily involved in the same fund managers that took reckless bets with complex derivatives. I suspect that he benefited heavily from investing in banks that recieved bailouts. I suspect he was neck deep in the crisis that Wall Street led us to. And I suspect that his tax rate was MUCH lower in those years than 14%, perhaps even some years where he paid 0% or single digits, by taking advantage of tax shelters and off-shore investments.

In short I think his previous years tax records will show him face down in the trough, profiting from the economic crisis and investing those profits abroad for further profits.

And I think that investment philosophy is deeply relevant when discussing economic policy.

reply to post by Indigo5

Dear Indigo5,

Thanks again, that's not a slant I have ever thought of, I appreciate it.

I suspect they will show heavy hedging (bets against the American Economy) during the financial crisis. I suspect he will have been heavily involved in the same fund managers that took reckless bets with complex derivatives. I suspect that he benefited heavily from investing in banks that recieved bailouts. I suspect he was neck deep in the crisis that Wall Street led us to. And I suspect that his tax rate was MUCH lower in those years than 14%, perhaps even some years where he paid 0% or single digits, by taking advantage of tax shelters and off-shore investments.

In short I think his previous years tax records will show him face down in the trough, profiting from the economic crisis and investing those profits abroad for further profits.

And I think that investment philosophy is deeply relevant when discussing economic policy.

The first time I read it I thought that Romney was in trouble, if true. Then I paused. Aren't all the people buying gold betting against the dollar and the economy? From the little I remember, betting the economy would go down was the smart move from 2008 until, perhaps, even today. If he had bet the economy would go up he would have lost his shirt and we could have criticized him for not having business expertise.

Again, we're still in the supposition stage, but millions of Americans had investments with Chase, J.P. Morgan, Goldman Sachs and the like. I'd hate to think that he knew those companies were doing bad things and he invested in them because of that. "Neck deep in the crisis?" Do you think he caused it? Or did something illegal?

Assume, again, that he had a tax rate of 0% all his life. He must have been audited several times, he is too big a target to pass up. I wish I knew how to pay 0% (Well, actually, I do, but it involves a lot of poverty.)

Even if all your assumptions are true, they paint a picture of a man who is able to grow his wealth more successfully than most others. I admire that, I'm not jealous of it.

Besides, the US invests abroad. We promised $2 billion to the Brazillian oil company in guarantees, the new SF bridge is in the news because it is being built in China. Our foreign aid is nothing more than foreign investments. The list is lengthy. Apparently, according to your assumptions, Romney is familiar with foreign investments and is able to make them profitably.

I don't think he's running for president to increase his personal wealth. I think we have to assume, as we do for all presidential candidates, that his intention is to strengthen the country.

Yes, it is interesting that he hasn't released his tax returns. He's not required to. While I can easily understand that we could see something questionable in his decision, it doesn't seem enough to disqualify him.

Again, thank you for opening my eyes to new thoughts. You are invaluable.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


First...what I listed were suspicions...not facts. facts will only come to light if he discloses his returns.

Also...yes IF he made "shrewd" investments that exploited the financial crisis in his favor, then yes...it could be percieved as simply someone with great financial wisdom (influence aside).

Ditto with a potential tax rate on those returns much lower than the 14% he already took a beating for..nothing illegal...just "smart business"..

Then why not lay bare those returns?...........

Why not just start form an honest disclosure? Let the American people judge for themselves the merit and virtue of his earnings, the manner in which he accumulated wealth and the tax rate he managed to pay?

Tax returns are not moral documents, they are factual. Should not the American people be privy to those facts?

I am neither envious nor jealous of Mitt Romney's wealth. I do not endorse the manner in which he obtained it. There is a difference between exploiting a failing company and bleeding it before bankruptcey and turning one around. He did both...whichever was most profitable.

Perhaps you can answer this...how is a government unlike a business?

If taxes equal revenues...? And the public good equals expense? Then what is a profitable government?

Or...Who is the Governments free-market competition?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
This is not going away like Romney hoped it would.

Friday he scheduled interviews with all 5 networks after a week long thrashing...and what did he say..."Their lies, but I'm not going to release anything to prove they are lies".

If these truly are lies...Romney could destroy Obama by just simply releasing his tax returns. But he isn't doing this...and now he has some top Republicans demanding that he release his tax returns.

Obama usually doesn't go on an attack like this...so I suspect that he has some very credible information to back up these claims...because sticking your neck out there like this could be a disaster if Romney can prove all these claims wrong.


I honestly believe we either just saw the deciding point in Romney's campaign...we either just saw him lose the election (most likely), lose the Republican nomination (kind of likely), or he just won the election if he can prove all these allegations false (not so likely).

I agree with you outkast, I don't like your anti paul stance, but I agree with you here.

Mitt Romney brought his Bain experience into this, not the president. He touted it as his reason why he is above the other cnadidates and the most qualified. In his successes he often bragged about his successes at Staples. What year did that take place?

Why is he allowed to take credit for all the good done at Bain and completely ignore things that don't benefit him? He brought his Bain record into this, he should be able to defend, so far he's done nothing but stumble and lie.

I dislike Obama as much as the next guy, but this is fair game imo. However, I'd rather they discuss real issues, but this is a testament to Romneys character, whatever is politically expedient is his current position. He's a liar, might be the biggest lying politician I have ever seen. He is on both sides of nearly ever discussion, it's truly amazing he's got followers, lol.

Originally posted by Eurisko2012
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Nobody cares about tax returns.

Americans want 400,000 jobs created every month.

Any ideas?

You wish they didn't, they most certainly do, no one trust mittens, well maybe Goldman Sachs.

reply to post by Indigo5

Dear Indigo5,

Thanks again for your thoroughness and patience. I'm beginning to think that our differences are over how much weight and importance we give to several things. That is going to be a matter of personal judgment, like which is more important a car's styling, or it's MPG rating. (Yes, I understand this is much more serious.)

First...what I listed were suspicions...not facts. facts will only come to light if he discloses his returns.

Also...yes IF he made "shrewd" investments that exploited the financial crisis in his favor, then yes...it could be percieved as simply someone with great financial wisdom (influence aside).

Ditto with a potential tax rate on those returns much lower than the 14% he already took a beating for..nothing illegal...just "smart business"..

Then why not lay bare those returns?...........

Why not just start form an honest disclosure? Let the American people judge for themselves the merit and virtue of his earnings, the manner in which he accumulated wealth and the tax rate he managed to pay?

Tax returns are not moral documents, they are factual. Should not the American people be privy to those facts?

I don't think we'll get much further on this part of the discussion. He has no legal obligation or obligation to the American people to release his returns. We have nothing against his tax history except suspicions based on the fact that he won't allow us to enter some private area of his life. Would it be nice to see them? Absolutely, but I have no right to them. Again, it's the "If you haven't done anything wrong..." argument which I, as a personal matter, don't give much weight to. (In fact it raises my hackles, whatever hackles are.)

I am neither envious nor jealous of Mitt Romney's wealth. I do not endorse the manner in which he obtained it. There is a difference between exploiting a failing company and bleeding it before bankruptcey and turning one around. He did both...whichever was most profitable.

You see, this is another difference which I'm tempted to put down to personal taste. As far as I know he had a good reputation in the industry. It may be that we prefer his industry not to exist, but there are other industries I prefer not to exist. (Legal pornography and prostitution, boy bands, makers of cars capable of going three times the speed limit, pet hair dyers, etc.) Anyway, everybody knows what kind of work he did, adding the details of his returns won't change that.

Perhaps you can answer this...how is a government unlike a business?

Coercion. Businesses rely on voluntary exchanges to increase the value to both sides. Besides, there is no way to measure public good. Some are convinced that they pay more in taxes than they obtain in public good. Whether they're right or not, doesn't matter as much as their belief that they're getting shafted over and over with no way to escape.

Then what is a profitable government?

Or...Who is the Governments free-market competition?

I'm not sure I understand completely, but security guards are competition for police, UPS is for USPS, private schools are for public schools. I understand there are (or were) private toll roads, but quite often the government sets up areas where others may not compete, either by law or by their inability to get taxpayer money.

Thanks agian, you are really clarifying my thinking and I'm grateful.

With respect,
Charles1952

Originally posted by charles1952
I don't think we'll get much further on this part of the discussion. He has no legal obligation or obligation to the American people to release his returns. We have nothing against his tax history except suspicions based on the fact that he won't allow us to enter some private area of his life. Would it be nice to see them? Absolutely, but I have no right to them. Again, it's the "If you haven't done anything wrong..." argument which I, as a personal matter, don't give much weight to. (In fact it raises my hackles, whatever hackles are.)

Correct that he has no legal obligation to release them.

I understand the "If you haven't done anything wrong..." argument. It runs counter to our principles of privacy rights. It is the refrain of those that endorse illegal searches or who think "probable cause" for a search is some liberal invention, rather than a constitutional protection.

That said, he is running for President. No one has ever claimed that he is legally obligated to release his returns, BUT ...I say this with the utmost certaintity....If he doesn't release the returns, he will likely lose the election. Maybe he will lose the election if he does release them, but he will absolutely lose if he does not.

The very influential and very conservative National Journal called for him to release his returns yesterday.

“Romney may feel impatience with requirements that the political culture imposes on a presidential candidate that he feels are pointless (and inconvenient),” the editors write. “But he’s a politician running for the highest office in the land, and his current posture is probably unsustainable. In all likelihood, he won’t be able to maintain a position that looks secretive and is a departure from campaign conventions.”

The editors acknowledge that releasing the returns will only beg a new wave of scrutiny about Mr. Romney’s finances — a major plank of the Romney defense — but they argue that other candidates have been much more forthcoming about their income and investments over the years and that the Republican should observe those protocols.

“It is to President Obama’s advantage to fight the election out over tactics and minutiae,” the editors write. “By drawing out the argument over the returns, Romney is playing into the president’s hands. He should release them, respond to any attacks they bring, and move on.”

blogs.wsj.com...

The electoral math is not in Romney's favor now....I have a hard time seeing him win with out some radical moves. He is betting his campaign on his VP pick. I think he is placing too much weight in that pick. He needs to release the returns and as the National Journal said "move on".

Otherwise he will lose.

Originally posted by charles1952

You see, this is another difference which I'm tempted to put down to personal taste. As far as I know he had a good reputation in the industry. It may be that we prefer his industry not to exist, but there are other industries I prefer not to exist. (Legal pornography and prostitution, boy bands, makers of cars capable of going three times the speed limit, pet hair dyers, etc.) Anyway, everybody knows what kind of work he did, adding the details of his returns won't change that.

Let me know when a pornographer runs for office

Romney has claimed...in so many words..."I got rich so I know how to fix the economy"...the plain response to that is ..."OK...tell us how you got rich?"

That seems a valid line of inquirey? Does it not?

Originally posted by charles1952

Perhaps you can answer this...how is a government unlike a business?

Coercion. Businesses rely on voluntary exchanges to increase the value to both sides. Besides, there is no way to measure public good. Some are convinced that they pay more in taxes than they obtain in public good. Whether they're right or not, doesn't matter as much as their belief that they're getting shafted over and over with no way to escape.

True...and the government needs to work hard to restore it's credibility. Agree there. That is a failing by both parties and everyone in between.

Originally posted by charles1952

Then what is a profitable government?

Or...Who is the Governments free-market competition?

I'm not sure I understand completely, but security guards are competition for police, UPS is for USPS, private schools are for public schools. I understand there are (or were) private toll roads, but quite often the government sets up areas where others may not compete, either by law or by their inability to get taxpayer money.

Thanks agian, you are really clarifying my thinking and I'm grateful.

With respect,
Charles1952

edit on 17-7-2012 by charles1952 because: correct a few errors

Incorrect...Private Security firms, UPS, private schools etc all exist with the permission of the government.

A government has no competition that it does not permit.

A government as a business is the Ultimate Monopoly.

When a government is a business, where profit is the goal...

Then the aim is to increase profits, decrease expenses.

When private entities are permitted to compete it is only when it is advantageous to governments or in reality, as history has shown, when it is advantageous to government leaders (Kickbacks, Corruption, Plutocracy)

When profits are the motive...revenues must be maximized.

To maximize revenues for both the government and those in charge of that government...taxes(revenues) must be raised, but not on the benefactors, contributors to political campaigns, friendly corporations etc.


Government is not a business...it is a zero-sum pooling of resources to do things that people can not do on thier own...

In many countries in Africa they have governments that are run as businesses. Very profitable for those in government and utter hell for the rest of the population.

If a government is a business then Taxes are revenues to maximized and expenses are services to be cut and thier is no free choice amongst products...complete monopoly.

What is a "CEO" ?

A CEO is a " Chief Executive Officer ".

A CEO is not an owner of the company but rather a manager of the company.

A CEO may delegate responsibility to a subordinate and abstain from actively managing the company for specified reasons.

Mitt, as a CEO, delegated his position and left the company. He went off to save the Olympics.

While gone from the company, he had no command activity. Now, the president and communist in chief cannot understand that because he never ran or owned a business. He never created or saved jobs. He never invetsed his time in any corporation of any kind.

This red herring is going to backfire. If I were Mitt, I would let them continue to spend money on this because it has no effect on the people. The people are concerned about the economy and jobs. The only question in the minds of people is this...

Why should Obama deserve another four years ? And on this the people will cast their vote, not on Bain Capital, which btw is not a bad word.

Originally posted by Fromabove

What is a "CEO" ?

A CEO is a " Chief Executive Officer ".

What is a "President"?...Romney was also "President" of Bain.

Originally posted by Fromabove
may delegate responsibility to a subordinate and abstain from actively managing the company for specified reasons.............he had no command activity.

Thanks for clarifying what a Romney Presidencey would look like.

Originally posted by FromaboveNow, the president and communist in chief cannot understand that because he never ran or owned a business. He never created or saved jobs.

Unless you count ...I don't know...the US Auto Industry? as saving jobs? And even Romney would acknowledge that 4 Million jobs have been created since the crisis bottomed out....but given that you apparently don't know what a "Communist" is I won't hold my breath expecting you to research the economic data.