knapplc Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 George Will summed it up quite well - “The cost of not releasing the returns are clear. Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.” But that doesn't stop people from (rightly) asking Romney about them: The latest journalist to press Mitt Romney on his tax returns is the ultra-resourceful Josh Tyrangiel of Businessweek. Here’s how he cleverly posed the question in a recent interview: If you’re an investor and you’re looking at a company, and that company says that its great strength is wise management and fiscal know-how, wouldn’t you want to see the previous, say, five years’ worth of its financials? Alas, no dice. Romney’s response: I’m not a business. We have a process in this country, which was established by law, which provides for the transparency which candidates are required to meet. I have met with that requirement with full financial disclosure of all my investments, but in addition have provided and will provide a full two years of tax returns. This happens to be exactly the same as with John McCain when he ran for office four years ago. And the Obama team had no difficulty with that circumstance. The difference between then and now is that President Obama has a failed economic record and is trying to find any issue he can to deflect from the failure of his record. Thanks, guys. Goodbye. If I applied for a job and my employer asked me for my employment history for the last ten years, I'd give it to them or I'd expect to be shown the door. Mitt is asked for his tax returns and says, "No." Why should we even consider hiring him then? Link to comment
ZRod Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 If I applied for a job and my employer asked me for my employment history for the last ten years, I'd give it to them or I'd expect to be shown the door. Mitt is asked for his tax returns and says, "No." Why should we even consider hiring him then? Because he's not Obama... Link to comment
VA Husker Fan Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Employment history isn't the same as tax records, nor are personal returns the same as financial know-how. I wonder if he didn't give a full 10% to the Mormon church? Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 10, 2012 Author Share Posted August 10, 2012 Employment history isn't the same as tax records, nor are personal returns the same as financial know-how. Absolutely true. But they are a key puzzle piece for someone who is telling me I should vote for him based on his ability to handle finances. Accountants and financial types are required to give personal information for some high-level positions. My wife had to disclose some of our financials to a job she got a few years back. Asking the same of a man trying to earn the presidency isn't asking for too much. It's entirely reasonable. 2 Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 10, 2012 Author Share Posted August 10, 2012 Jon Huntsman, Sr agrees with me, BTW: Jon Huntsman Sr., longtime Romney backer, calls on him to release tax returns Huntsman forcefully called on Romney to release his tax returns. This matters, because Huntsman is a longtime backer of Romney — he has long been close to Romney; he supported his early campaigns; he was the national finance chairman of Romney’s 2008 presidential campaign; and he has raised a lot of money for him over the years. (He backed his own son in the latest GOP primary.) “I feel very badly that Mitt won’t release his taxes and won’t be fair with the American people,” Huntsman told me. In a reference to Romney’s father, who pioneered the release of returns as a presidential candidate, Huntsman said: “I loved George. He always said, pay your taxes for at least 10 or 12 years.” (See update below.) “Mr. Romney ought to square with the American people and release his taxes like any other candidate,” Huntsman said. “I’ve supported Mitt all along. I wish him well. But I do think he should release his income taxes.” Link to comment
sd'sker Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 i know she is an extreme-radical-leftist-lesbian-liberal, but rachel maddow did a great job covering romney's long and arduous history with releasing his tax returns. i think it was on aug. 2nd (probably could find it online). he has been battling this since '94. it really makes you wonder, and he has to be hiding something. his dad, mitt is not. Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 It's not like it is a birth certificate or anything.....c'mon Romney. Link to comment
Comish Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 I confess that I have no idea why he isn’t releasing them. I think it’s a huge mistake. Whatever it is or whatever damage he thinks release would do, you’ve got to believe the failure to release is eclipsing. Folks are going to believe the worst. But having said that, think about how successful the Obama campaign has been by keeping the focus on this. It has sucked all the oxygen out of the Romney campaign by continually and constantly putting them on the defensive. With ALL the issues out there on which BO is vulnerable, this fascination with taxes should be so far down the discussion list it is laughable. Think about this: He has NOT broken any laws by not releasing them; He has done what many politicians routinely do and stonewalled. Again, I think it’s wrong, but it’s not illegal. How many of us attempt to pay as few taxes as possible? There is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Sure, it’s magnified by those who continually push the class card and it does appear unseemly. But so far, nothing has been proven illegal. So BO and his team keep the story alive and look what is NOT being discussed: Security leaks damaging our assets around the world; the economy; Solendra; Fast and Furious; changes to welfare/workfare; the scurrilous ads claiming Romney is responsible for the death of a women 6 years hence (even though she HAD her own insurance and her husband on the tube admitted Bain offered to buy out his job and even though Stephanie Cutter of team Obama was caught in an outright lie); None of this being discussed, let alone all the issues still awaiting solutions from the candidates. What this really tells me is that the Obama team will do/say/manufacture anything to win (Chicago style) and that MR and his team either don’t have the stomach for this level of campaigning or are naïve enough to think it wouldn’t get this bad. Either way, when you get down to this level of cutthroat politics, BO is kickin’ butt. Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 11, 2012 Author Share Posted August 11, 2012 Here's a fun question - where has this Obama ad saying "Romney killed a woman" aired? Which state? When? I'll give whomever gets the answer right first a +1. Super fun bonus question - has the Romney ad stating that "Obama has declared war on religion" actually aired? Another +1 to whomever gets that one right first. Link to comment
VA Husker Fan Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 What this really tells me is that the Obama team will do/say/manufacture anything to win (Chicago style) and that MR and his team either don’t have the stomach for this level of campaigning or are naïve enough to think it wouldn’t get this bad. Get real. Link to comment
knapplc Posted August 11, 2012 Author Share Posted August 11, 2012 By the way - here's a link to the actual ad. Note that this is not an Obama ad, and that the Obama campaign has stated categorically that they had nothing to do with this ad. That means nothing to the mainstream Fox Media, of course. The ad was created by Priorities USA Action, a SuperPAC that is not allowed to coordinate with Obama or his campaign. Hooray for Citizens United! 1 Link to comment
krill Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 What this really tells me is that the Obama team will do/say/manufacture anything to win (Chicago style) Well if the "Chicago" part is not looking like a clown shoes idiot flip flopper doing / saying / manufacturing anything to win, then I agree with you, because Romney sure doesn't do it very well. Link to comment
Comish Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 By the way - here's a link to the actual ad. Note that this is not an Obama ad, and that the Obama campaign has stated categorically that they had nothing to do with this ad. That means nothing to the mainstream Fox Media, of course. The ad was created by Priorities USA Action, a SuperPAC that is not allowed to coordinate with Obama or his campaign. Hooray for Citizens United! If you don't see the clear inference in that ad..............well...........? Link to comment
gobiggergoredder Posted August 11, 2012 Share Posted August 11, 2012 By the way - here's a link to the actual ad. Note that this is not an Obama ad, and that the Obama campaign has stated categorically that they had nothing to do with this ad. That means nothing to the mainstream Fox Media, of course. The ad was created by Priorities USA Action, a SuperPAC that is not allowed to coordinate with Obama or his campaign. Hooray for Citizens United! There are two things I hate about this ad: 1. Politics in general - Both sides are airing these adds with zero substance. I will admit that this one is about as worthless as any that I have seen. 2. Bain Capital & Lay-Offs - How many people kept jobs because of the efforts of Bain Capital? They bought companies that were losers (generalizing here). Would it have been better if every company that Bain bought closed on their own? Are there still thriving steel plants in the city or same general location of the gentleman in the video (I doubt it). Have any of you ever worked a place that has been mismanaged and or sold? Link to comment
Recommended Posts