Democrats & Liberals Archives

Romney's Signature Problems

Retroactively retired. Hmm. That’s the new story from the Romney campaign. Wow. They certainly think they’re more clever than the rest of us, and unfortunately for them, they’re wrong. The problem for the Romney campaign is that you can only defy common sense on so much before you have to provide a good explanation to convince people.

Gillespie's argument goes as follows:

Crowley asked Gillespie how he could explain a 1999 news release from Bain that announced Romney had taken "a part-time leave of absence" from the company, but did not say that he had retired.

"He took a leave of absence from his company to go save the Olympics," Gillespie explained. "There may have been thought at the time that it could be part time. It was not part time. The Olympics was in a shambles. There was corruption."

So, what, it took him the better part of two years to figure this out? Forgiving that lapse, we still have a problem when we look at the record. He kept on signing legal documents relating to his duties. SEC filings, the very deals that this whole obfuscation is meant to obscure Mitt's participation in

This includes ChipPAC inc., which is one of the notorious outsourcing cases. This includes Stericycle, the medical waste company involved in disposal of medical waste, including fetuses, from abortion clinics. The very investments he's trying to convince people he had no knowledge of. Those are just a couple of the deals he helped close with a signature.

He also signed documents stating to the SEC as late as 2002 that he was CEO, sole Stockholder, and Chairman of the Board for Bain Capital.

No wonder he had to "retroactively retire" from Bain Capital. If I had Mitt's record in post 2008 America, I'd want to have been gone as early as possible from the Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate sector, too.

What people want to know, what the Obama Campaign is making use of, is the answer to the question of whether Romney's part of the solution, or part of the problem. Inconveniently enough, this firm, of which he was a founding member, and which he held a number of leadership roles in, has committed many of the sins for which the average American has not forgiven Wall Street. They've contributed to outsourcing, they've leverage-bought out companies, and made ridiculous profits running up huge debts that other investors and the companies themselves end up having to pay. His company's participated in the encouragement of outsourcing jobs, and were laying off people even before 1999.

This is the reality of what Mitt Romney's company did, and did with his signature authorizing and attesting to what they were doing.

But of course, admitting the common sense truth about what a firm like Bain Capital was doing is politically toxic, so Romney's team will do it's best to give Romney an alibi, to say nobody saw him around the office (nobody phones or e-mails these days?), to state that the documents he signed were just formalities, or crap like that.

Trouble is, regardless of how involved Romney was in the Olympics, or whatever else he was doing, he was pulling down a six figure income and attesting to his company's activity as it's leader. Either he was still leading his company part-time, or he wasn't giving his company anywhere near its money's worth for what it was paying him.

It doesn't get better if Romney was signing off on these deals and on SEC filings as a mere formality. A President who just signs what's put down in front of him, without any real discussion of what it means, what it could do is wielding power blindly at the behest of his advisors. According to Republicans, being an empty suit, a coached President who delegates even basic decision making and reporting to advisors is a bad thing. If the argument is, Romney isn't an empty suit, but a decision-maker, then we're not off to a good start.

The Republicans are running to avoid anvils, but plummeting into pitfalls that their antagonistic politics blinds them to.

Romney either is a man who can make decisions, and made deeply unpopular ones in this three year period he claims to have been retroactively retired for, or he's not, and instead he's a man who spent the better part of three years failing at his duties to be a leaders, to keep Bain Capital out of the kind of decision making he now claims he was averse to. Do we want either man to be President, the man who kills jobs and businesses by active commission, or the one who kills them by neglect and irresponsibility?

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at July 16, 2012 12:31 PM
Comments
Comment #348527

Yup.
Someone really needs to go interview Steve Schmidt on the topic of what is in Romney’s tax returns. Because Schmidt is a guy who was given a chance to study them very, very carefully.
Mitt “I-understand-the-economy” Romney gave the McCain campaign 23 years worth of his tax returns, yet the McCain campaign ultimately decided to choose Sarah Dimbulb Palin — and remember, this was happening right as the economy was crashing and burning as a result of 8 years of Bush policies!

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2012 2:25 PM
Comment #348529

Adrienne-
Honestly, I don’t know the strength of that attack (given that Romney was also white and male, and they wanted a game-changer like Obama or Hillary), but I will say this: Romney would have faced the same liability then as now: he is part of the culture most people feel took jobs, homes, and opportunities from them by dishonest means.

Something else came up in my readings, this from the Washington Monthly site: One big reason why 2010 gets to be the break point for Romney is that his retirement deal with Bain ended in 2009.

Here’s a by-the-numbers editorial on how companies did under Romney’s Bain Capital.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 16, 2012 2:47 PM
Comment #348531

Stephen, that link isn’t working. Btw, did you check out the article that phx8 put up in C&J’s thread? It’s a jaw-dropper.

You might be right that they really thought they needed the female game changer, yet someone in the media should still consider it a logical necessity to interview Schmidt on the subject of Romney’s tax returns — especially since he is now out there clumsily and embarrassingly trying to justify not releasing more than a year of them.

I mean, how come the McCain campaign was automatically allowed to see 23 years worth, but Romney thinks it’s only necessary for the American people to see only 1 year? What exactly is trying to hide? Steve Schmidt is a guy who knows the answer to those questions.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2012 3:14 PM
Comment #348548

The link should work now.

My guess is the Bain Capital proceeds. If you go any further in the past than 2010, people begin to see what kind of money you can make by being an aggressive arbitrage player.

Romney’s essentially running from his two strongest assets now, his time as governor, and now his time running Bain. He’s playing into Obama’s hands perfectly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 16, 2012 5:30 PM
Comment #348549

So here we go again. There’s not been enough propaganda about Bain and Romney; so the socialist idiot has to begin another post attempting to continue the Obama talking points. SD has said nothing new; just a continuation of the same old bullshit. And he has the little talking heads like the socialist, racist Adrienne parroting his points.

Great…. and boring.

Posted by: Billinflorida at July 16, 2012 5:36 PM
Comment #348550

This is all the left can do is attack Romney. They can’t write about all of Obama’s success’ because there are none. Dismal job creation, lousy economy, poor diplomatic relations, H.C. that a majority still dosen’t want and is loaded with TAX’s. Stephen and others still have the gaul to bi**h about Romney. Yet the RICH a******s on the left get a pass.

Posted by: KAP at July 16, 2012 5:54 PM
Comment #348551
There’s not been enough propaganda about Bain and Romney

The right can try to call this propaganda — but there are questions that Mitt Romney needs to answer if he wants to be considered presidential material. His answers so far have been inadequate or simply aren’t making sense, and he’s refusing to be transparent with his tax returns.
He can easily clear this up, and he really should.

And he has the little talking heads like the socialist, racist Adrienne

Complete Bullsh*t.

parroting his points.

Idiot. I was the first person to raise the issue in Watchblog!

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2012 5:58 PM
Comment #348553

“there are questions that Mitt Romney needs to answer if he wants to be considered presidential material.”

Obama has a ton more to answer than Romney. That lying SOB could not tell the truth if his life depended on it. He has lied to every group of citizens in this country.

Every charge that Obama and his cohorts make could be done against Obama and a whole lot more.

BTW if Condi is Romney’s running mate then Biden will be the meat and Condi will be the grinder. She will put him in a tube that will make tube steak look and smell like the crap that it is.

Posted by: tom humes at July 16, 2012 6:11 PM
Comment #348555
Obama has a ton more to answer than Romney. That lying SOB could not tell the truth if his life depended on it. He has lied to every group of citizens in this country.

Every charge that Obama and his cohorts make could be done against Obama and a whole lot more.

These kinds of oft-repeated statements are so vague.

BTW if Condi is Romney’s running mate

Condi is pro-choice. Not sure Romney can afford that.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 16, 2012 6:19 PM
Comment #348557

It would be useful for Romney to hit back a bit more. But the problem for Romney is that he should not get down into the gutter with Obama. Romney cannot beat Obama in the gutter.

We have to keep on coming back to what really matters. We need to talk about the economy and how to get Americans back to work.

We could debate why Obama failed.

Obama folks will say that it was not his fault and it could have been worse. They say he will do better in the next four years, even though the conditions that created the failure will not have changed.

Romney folks will say that it was the Obama policies themselves that slowed the economy and have spiked the recovery.

We can find evidence for both points of view. But the Obama teams is terrified of this debate.

Posted by: C&J at July 16, 2012 6:32 PM
Comment #348564

“If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own” obama quote.

Really? Obviously what obama is saying is that government had a hand in helping those who succeed. I recall SD and other libs arguing that because government provides schools, roads, police, etc. that we all are indebted to gov for our success to some degree. Is that really true?

Well, did gov provide more stuff to those who succeed and less stuff to those who didn’t? Do those who didn’t succeed owe money to the gov for not using resources well and failing?

obama didn’t qualify “success” in this quote so I don’t know what yardstick he is using. I will provide my own measuring stick and define success as one who is able to provide food, clothing, shelter and life needs for himself and family and one who receives no government handouts. Some may argue that our entitlement programs are handouts but I will stick with “entitlement” as those receiving them have paid into them.

I would like to ask obama this question. If you are not successful did you get there on your own? Or, does obama have someone else to blame failure on? Why of course he does. He blames the successful for holding back those who don’t succeed. Gee…isn’t it nice to be so smart.

Some deny that obama is a socialist. I say he is a Marxist. Can there be any doubt of that when from obama’s own mouth he proudly states that there can be no success without government. One can also assume that obama believes that to achieve more success we need more government. Well…that’s logical if one is a Marxist. Does he advocate more government? Yes! Does he advocate more government involvement in our lives? Yes! Does he believe that government can solve our financial problems? Yes! Does he believe that government is smarter than us…more generous than us…more fair that us? Yes!

Romney is being criticized for being successful without giving enough credit to government for that success. Most businesses do not have government as a partner when they begin their business. For most, government is an impediment to their business with all the permits, regulations, reporting and such that is required. Yet, millions of Americans have started businesses on their own, with their own money and their own labor and become successful despite government. The Marxist is jealous of them and seeks to bring them to heel. The Marxist can’t have folks be successful without government help. It erodes the power of government if folks can succeed without their help. And, for the Marxist obama, everything is about power. The power to control and rule the people. The Marxist can not tolerate individualism, capitalism, self motivation, and a faith in any God higher than government.

In November, Americans will get to choose the naked Marxist or a capitalists, a man who never held a job that wasn’t government related or a man who has held both government jobs and private jobs. We can choose between the Marxist who believes that all good emanates from government or a man who believes in self determination.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2012 7:33 PM
Comment #348567

RF,

“Really? Obviously what obama is saying is that government had a hand in helping those who succeed.”

What a bunch of crap. Is possible for you to not just take one sentence out of context and actually tell the truth?

Perhaps you heard this and took the lazy way out and didn’t bother to dig any deeper.

Here is a link to a video of what he actually said, and a portion of the transcript;

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/15/obama_if_youve_got_a_business_you_didnt_build_that_someone_else_made_that_happen.html

“There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me — because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t — look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires…”

Not quite the same facts as yours, are they?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 16, 2012 7:54 PM
Comment #348568

Not quite the same facts as yours, are they?

Rocky

Exactly the same Rocky. The Marxist never gives credit to anyone or anything without demanding that they had a hand in it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 16, 2012 7:59 PM
Comment #348571

Royal,

“The Marxist never gives credit to anyone or anything without demanding that they had a hand in it.”

Sorry I have to call bullshit on that.

If Ike hadn’t created the Interstate system America wouldn’t be half of what it is today.
If the Defence Dept hadn’t created the Internet we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

Please, don’t waste bandwidth and all of our time talking about Marxists.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 16, 2012 8:09 PM
Comment #348575

BS, the internet would still have happened, as would a system of roads. What they needed was simply an idea and people working towards them. An ‘internet’ has been in science fiction for decades before Arpanet, but contrary to the desires of the pro-government, the current internet is NOT the same as what Arpanet was.

The lunacy of your suggestion ignores so much human history it must have from the government school system…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 16, 2012 8:45 PM
Comment #348577

Rhinehold,

“but contrary to the desires of the pro-government, the current internet is NOT the same as what Arpanet was.”

Gee, ya think?

“The lunacy of your suggestion ignores so much human history it must have from the government school system…”

And what charm school did you graduate from?

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 16, 2012 9:14 PM
Comment #348581

What great American said these words:

“They have to listen to a president run around and talk about how it’s not possible because all that’s been stolen from them and his job is to take whatever he can from all these thieves and redistribute it and give it back to ‘em. So they’re sitting around essentially with their hand out, hoping and praying that Master Obama will find a way to put some pittance in their hand to get even with all the stuff that was stolen from them their whole life. Other people are not waiting around for that. They’re simply using their ambition, their desire, their intelligence, and their freedom to improve their quality of life. And those people become the targets of the Democrat Party and the Obama administration.

You succeed; you’re a target. You achieve; you need to be punished. You succeed, you achieve, you then are said to be essentially a thief. You didn’t do it on your own. Nameless, faceless, hardworking people. They’re the ones that made it possible for you, and you couldn’t pay ‘em, and you couldn’t thank ‘em. You just stepped on ‘em on your way up. So here’s Obama to make all that good now, make it all even. And somehow taking money away from the people who invest it and put it at risk and put it at play to grow a business will lead to new jobs, somehow those people are the problem, and those people, we’re gonna take their money away so there is less activity, less job creation, less business expansion, and less risk.

How can there be improved or increased risk when Obama’s taking money out of people’s pockets who would otherwise spend it that way? This is hideous what’s happening here. And it’s frustrating to have to sit there and explain this to people, after 230 years. But, the education system in this country has been so perverted and corrupted that every day they turn out brand-new brainwashed little angry victims who think, if not for the guy that owns the dry cleaner down the corner, I’d be something. The guy that owns the dry cleaner, he owes me. I built the sidewalk in front of his dry cleaner shop. He wouldn’t have that if I hadn’t built that sidewalk. Then you say, “Well, yeah, when were you out there building it?”

“Well, I paid for it.”

“You did? Really?” Well, who is it paying the lion’s share of taxes in this country today? The top 1% are paying 70% of all taxes. Where is it that these nameless, faceless people are paying all this to make it possible for the rich to succeed. I’ve never understood the math. The rich got rich by stealing from the poor? It doesn’t add up to me. I’ve never understood the math on that. But, if you’re sitting out there and you think your life is worthless and has no meaning, somebody comes along and says you coulda been something if not for the guy that owns the dry cleaner store. Okay, that’s good for me. I’ll latch onto that. Yeah, I coulda been something if it weren’t for that guy. I coulda been something if it weren’t for the guy that owns the car dealership out there. I coulda been somebody. I coulda been a contender. But the car dealership guy, he has what was mine, or he has what should have been mine. And how do I know? ‘Cause Obama’s telling me every day.

This guy cannot possibly like or respect this country. He cannot have any respect or admiration at all for the way this country was founded; the way it grew; the way it’s exceptional; the way it became a world superpower because he’s trying to dismantle it brick by brick, doorjamb by doorjamb. If the American dream is a giant mansion, Obama’s going at it door by door and ripping it apart. And there are too many doors being torn apart in this mansion for this to be accidental or circumstantial or coincidental. And it’s been going on for too long now, three-and-a-half years, for it to be just somebody who doesn’t get it and who’s wrong.

No other way to put this now. He was indoctrinated as a child. His father was a communist. He was raised by a communist. His mother was a leftist. He was sent to prep in Ivy League schools where his contempt for the country was reinforced by the professorate, the faculty lounge. Moves to Chicago. Oh, yeah, that’s a great environment to grow up in. Home of the radical left movement, hooks up with Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Rashid Khalidi, Tony Rezko. He’s out there claiming that Romney’s a felon, when Romney doesn’t even know any, and half of Obama’s inner circle are felons.”

Posted by: Billinflorida at July 16, 2012 9:45 PM
Comment #348587

Well, a new revelation. Ike was a Marxist. His interstate highway system was an unnecessary and costly government interference with the free market system which would have created a national highway system someday, somehow. You just needed the idea, a huge private investment pool, cooperation of all mainland states, coordination of traffic regulations and building criteria, routes, etc.

Posted by: Rich at July 16, 2012 10:24 PM
Comment #348591

Amazing, the only defense against Stevens viewpoints and in support of Romney is to childishly refer to his opponent as a Marxist and a Socialist. As if declaring the other guy a Marxist or Socialist somehow evens the score in a discussion that basically challenges Romney’s credibility. If this sort of Avenue is all you folks have to support Romney’s credibility as a standup business man then he is in some deep shit.

I seem to remember a short while back some discussion and polling with regard to the effectiveness of the label game that the right so dearly cherishes. Seems like the majority of Americans in general had grown tired of the ridiculously absurd and petty nature of such over the top time wasting banter. The process may make you feel better somehow, but it certainly won’t sit well with reasonable people and it will not win Romney an election.

Posted by: Rickil at July 16, 2012 10:55 PM
Comment #348594

Rich,

“Well, a new revelation. Ike was a Marxist.”

Believe it or not, Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, suggested that Ike was a communist stooge.

The truth is stranger than fiction.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 16, 2012 11:16 PM
Comment #348654

Rocky Marks

“Believe it or not, Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch Society, suggested that Ike was a communist stooge.”

He also gave 2 other options of Ike’s background and allowed the reader to opt for whichever choice they saw fit to believe.

Maranatha


Posted by: tom humes at July 17, 2012 11:26 AM
Comment #348655

Tom Humes,

“He also gave 2 other options of Ike’s background and allowed the reader to opt for whichever choice they saw fit to believe.”

He also accused Eisenhower of being a traitor and of committing treason.

Gee, what conclusions are we supposed to make?

Rocky


Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 17, 2012 11:40 AM
Comment #348658

“If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own” obama quote.

Libs above are fond of pointing out all the government services and projects that contributed to the successful business person or worker. Things like the Internet, roads, police, etc.

Really? In fact, it was the working American taxpayer who hired government to do these things. Government can’t do anything without the tax dollars generated by those who work, those who are successful.

I will once more ask the smart ass libs above who is responsible for those who fail despite being given all those same resources provided by government at taxpayer expense.

Is it not logical to say that it is governments fault for failure if it is government that gets credit for success?

Only a Marxist would disconnect the two and only take credit for success and deny any fault for lack of success.

Is my dry-cleaner, my dentist, my doctor, my car dealership owner, my grocer responsible for the failure of others? One would think so if they follow the lib/Marxist line. Government takes no responsibility for the failure of millions of Americans so it must be the fault of those who succeed. The failures have access to the same roads, police, teachers, and other government provided services as do the successful. If this is true, why have they failed? Apparently government has done all they can and in spite of this millions fail to be independent of government.

The successful man or woman must shoulder the responsibility for the failure of others as there simply is no one else at which to point the finger. And, obama does not hesitate to tell us this is so. It is the Romney’s of the world who cause millions to fail.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 17, 2012 1:53 PM
Comment #348659

“No one can predict the number of firms, the size of each firm, the pricing policies, etc., of any future market in any service or commodity. We just know — by economic theory and by historical insight — that such a free market will do the job infinitely better than the compulsory monopoly of bureaucratic government.”

Kevin Craig writing in “Political Outcast”

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 17, 2012 2:08 PM
Comment #348660

Here’s the full quote:

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for president — because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.”

Personally, I liked the speech, and I figure that even if some enraged and angry righties are going continue lying about it, it’s necessary to provide the full context.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 17, 2012 2:31 PM
Comment #348661

Billinflorida-
Look, it’s not just a matter of propaganda. Propaganda can be false, sure enough, but that all depends on the claim in question. It can be narrowly true, or it can be absolutely true, despite the fact that somebody’s trying to deliberately sway people with it.

You choose to refute it on the basis that my argument is similar to others other Democrats have offered. Ridiculous to expect me not to share arguments or information from my own political group, though. The life or death of my point should depend on the evidence.

So, it boils down to evidence. SEC filings have him legally responsible for the company on multiple levels, and anybody hearing that Mitt Romney was considered CEO, President, Chairman of the Board, and sole stockholder in Bain Capital in 2002 is going to find it very hard to believe that the man had nothing to do with his own company, or if they can be convinced of that, that such an absence isn’t problematic in its own right.

As for that excerpt? Rush Limbaugh. Don’t be shocked I got that so quickly, I only needed one phrase to fingerprint that man’s material on Google. The entertainer. You know why he calls himself that? Because journalists are held to higher standards.

Like so many people in the conservative movement nowadays, he is allergic to being held accountable for what he’s said. In a way, he’s every bit the coward and the false conservative that Romney is. The problem has become that as people like him have redefined conservatism down to the level of being simply contrarian to whatever liberals think or want, Conservatism has lost its grasp of it intellectual roots.

For all intents and purposes, modern conservatism is dead, and people like him killed it by turning it into mindless resistance to liberal policy. There’s no pragmatism to the party, no courage to do the right thing, even if it has to be explained to others later.

As for who’s paying the taxes? If you’re in the top one percent, you’re You’re making at least $386,000 a year. Hell, even if you were taxed at 50% for your whole income, you’d still have $193,000. And nobody is taxed just at their top rate. The graduated, progressive income tax actually taxes people at a smaller rate for everything below their top bracket. These are the people we’re supposed to feel sorry for.

The average for the top 1% is $1.3 million, after taxes. That is more than many people are going to make in their entire lifetimes, yet you want people to feel they’re getting a raw deal.

Finally, take a look at this. Wealth and ownership of stock are where this inequality really makes itself obvious. The bottom 90% only control 28.5% of the wealth, and 9.8% of the stocks and bonds.

This is the terrible situation you want to make better for these people. They’re doing better than anybody else, seeing their incomes recover faster than anybody else’s, yet people like you are screaming about the unfairness of the system, and blasting those who call the current inequality unfair.

I guess if there’s somebody out there to defend the fat and wealthy, it’d have to be “oh he of the goldplated mic”.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 17, 2012 2:39 PM
Comment #348663

KAP-
We can write of the successful salvaging of the United States Car industry. We can talk about the success of the stimulus, and show real numbers concerning that, not just vain claims built mostly on the last conservative commentator’s rhetoric.

You, and your people? All YOU can do is attack. That, and try and offer Mitt Romney’s record as a businessman as an alternative. But what is that alternative, really, from a public policy perspective? It’s not like America can replicate Romney’s business model, say by debt financing the taking over of other countries, the looting of them by debt, and then the selling of that country’s parts in a bankruptcy fire sale.

No, Romney represents a time when finance became more important as a business than the buaindesses it was supposed to support, where business leaders tried to defy economic gravity by loading more and more burdens on the middle class, yet fail to pay them what was necessary to fulfill those burdents.

He represents a philosophy that casts the rich as the necessary elite, without which the rest of us would be lost. I believe Americans are perfectly able to govern themselves wisely, given the chance and the experience.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 17, 2012 3:12 PM
Comment #348665

And what have YOUR PEOPLE been doing to the Romney campaign? Stephen, nothing but gutter campaigning. Why isn’t Obama running on his accomplishments then Stephen, If his record is so great. You and other liberals are jealous of success, that is why you can’t stand someone who has had great success. Why aren’t you hammering those left wing RICH people. Me and my people, all we can do is attack, is one of the stupidest statements you have written especially when YOUR post is nothing but an attack and your followers follow suit.

Posted by: KAP at July 17, 2012 3:42 PM
Comment #348666

I’m not going to waste time going through all the other arguments. I think it boils down to this: Republicans want Congress back and the White House.

They will ignore what they have to ignore, a successful long term solution to the crisis with the domestic car industry, the as-designed performance of the Stimulus, the return to consistent job growth (consistently positive since Fall 2010), all of which done against their concerted, uncompromising resistance.

Then they will return to their old claims, that what the rich need is more riches, that what the markets need is a more libertarian, laissez faire policy, despite the abject failure of market discipline, and that the rest of need to suck it up, and wait for the folks who have consistently failed to match our wage growth to their salary increase, who have taken to mass layoffs as a regular means of increasing shareholder value, who have reduced benefits, raided pension funds and much, much more, before we can one day hope to be more prosperous.

Really, I’m tired of that joke. We were lied to, so a few could return to the gilded age of their great grandparents, so a few could make more money doing nothing much more than being parasites on the economy. They call what they do capitalism, but central to the idea of capitalism was that we were paying for productive work, not merely speculative wins at the games of chance.

Laws are what keep people on task when the perverse incentives to cheat are too strong, and competitive pressures likely to promote, rather than halt the bad behavior. If it should be equally a crime for a rich man or a poor man to sleep under a bridge, then it should be equally wrong for people to make money by deception and abject disregard for professional behavior towards the client.

The pursuit of profit doesn’t always encourage the best behavior, any more than the pursuit of a livelihood always means a legal, legitimate job.

We should stop being so naive about the powers of the market. The market is nothing more or nothing less than society’s economic interactions, and like all other human interactions, it runs the gamut between the good, the bad, and sometimes even the psychopathic. It will not always support virtue. All systems will encounter variation. The question for us, is what kind of weaknesses will misfortune be able to exploit. What is it that, by Murphy’s law, can go wrong, and so will go wrong?

Human society doesn’t need to be squeezed within the fist of a totalitarian tyrant or set of oligarchs, but it does need to be managed somewhat. There is a legitimate debate as to how it should be managed, not whether it should be managed at all. No sector of society can remain good soil for good behavior, if it has no rule of law.

The question here is what rules we are willing and able to set, not so much to prevent every injustice or every problem, but to prevent and manage the kinds of problems that the market does not succeed in managing on its own, and which it cannot endure in consistent prosperity. **** happens, I accept that. But sometimes things get worse because we didn’t put the right firewalls in place, or because we let too many systems become entangled, such that they couldn’t right themselves like a gyroscope knocked off balance.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 17, 2012 3:45 PM
Comment #348667

KAP-
We can walk and chew gum at the same time, run on Obama’s successes, and Romney’s problematic financial issues at the same time.

Meanwhile, you haven’t refuted those issues, only gotten angry that we’ve chosen to bring them up. Can you do more than just sling more rhetoric and capital letters my way?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 17, 2012 3:53 PM
Comment #348669

I asked you a question Stephen, Why isn’t Obama running on his success? If you can walk and chew gum at the same time answer the question. Why does he have to resort to gutter campaining if his success is so great? Answer the question and don’t side tract the answer like you usually do.

Posted by: KAP at July 17, 2012 4:41 PM
Comment #348670

KAP-
He’s run on GM, on the stimulus bringing back jobs. He has something positive to show for his effort, with millions back to work under him, and positive job growth unbroken since Oct. 2010, despite everything.

You’re running on the talking points of the people you claim to be independent from, and all you can do is criticize Obama for his campaign, not refute the charges.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 17, 2012 4:44 PM
Comment #348671

But really, can you explain this item to me?

PROVIDENCE JOURNAL BULLETIN (RI) August 26, 2001 Biz Bits & Quips Romney to venture back into politics

W. Mitt Romney, the Republican businessman who failed to unseat U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., in 1994, is quitting Bain Capital, the Boston-based investment firm he owns, to get back into politics. Romney, 54, said he wants to run for office in either Massachusetts or Utah, where he is helping to organize next year’s Salt Lake City Winter Olympics. Romney is giving up 100-percent control of Bain Capital to 26 managing directors. The company he started with $35 million in 1984 has grown into a $13-billion venture and buyout firm that has invested in a broad mix of businesses, such as Domino’s Pizza, Staples and the Sports Authority

So, how long does it take a man to leave a company, or to realize just what he wants to do with himself?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 17, 2012 4:54 PM
Comment #348674
how long does it take a man to leave a company

It depends, but a company of that size it can be several years. Finding the right buyers, negotiating the terms, paperwork, etc. I’ve already explained a situation I was in that was very similar in another thread. People who have been involved in large businesses at a level higher than lower level management understands all of this.

There is no evidence that Romney had anything to do with Bain after leaving in 1999 other than signing legal forms he needed to sign in order to fulfill SEC requirements. Factcheck, Fortune’s Dan Primack, Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler, Columbia Journal Review, ABC News, et al have made this quite clear, yet you persist on pushing it. I understand Adrienne doing this, but I had thought you would have had a little more even-handedness to this.

Of course, we are now told that Factcheck is now a Republican Shill source… I guess that is why today they wrote about John Sununu’s Outer Space Outsourcing claim about Obama, Republicans can be free to ignore it now, right?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 17, 2012 5:15 PM
Comment #348678

Stephen,Ruinning on GM and a failed stimulus, if job creation was so good with the stimulous then why is unemployment still above 8%? Stephen your the one who is running on Obama talking points. With all the sources refutting your claims that have been put up on this blog, you still resort to Obama and his gutter campaiging for your source.

Posted by: KAP at July 17, 2012 5:35 PM
Comment #348685

Stephen, so you Googled and found it was Rush.

Tell me Stephen, since your side wants to make accusations of a felony, why hasn’t he been arrested and charged. If you don’t have the evidence Stephen, and you can’t charge him, then your comments are nothing but bullshit lies.

“Like so many people in the conservative movement nowadays, he is allergic to being held accountable for what he’s said.”

Stephen, you are one arrogant lying SOB; you can talk about accountability when you spend your life defending Obama and his lying accusations? What about holding Obama accountable. He is lying and making accusations and he’s doing it for the sole purpose of changing the topic of the conversation. Stephen, you are a joke…

“As for who’s paying the taxes? If you’re in the top one percent, you’re You’re making at least $386,000 a year. Hell, even if you were taxed at 50% for your whole income, you’d still have $193,000.”

You arrogant socialist pig; what gives you the right to determine how much money we are allowed to keep.

“The average for the top 1% is $1.3 million, after taxes. That is more than many people are going to make in their entire lifetimes, yet you want people to feel they’re getting a raw deal.”

Who cares Stephen?

“Finally, take a look at this. Wealth and ownership of stock are where this inequality really makes itself obvious. The bottom 90% only control 28.5% of the wealth, and 9.8% of the stocks and bonds.”

Again, who cares Stephen? All you are showing us is your anger and hatred toward people who make money. Who gives a shit how much they make, I certainly don’t care. This is right in line with Obama’s socialist comments about business being started with the government’s help.

“This is the terrible situation you want to make better for these people. They’re doing better than anybody else, seeing their incomes recover faster than anybody else’s, yet people like you are screaming about the unfairness of the system, and blasting those who call the current inequality unfair.”

I am not saying anything about unfair; it is people like you on the left who are concerned about fairness. I am saying enough…enough of your class warfare. You seek to divide America; to create class warfare.

“I guess if there’s somebody out there to defend the fat and wealthy, it’d have to be “oh he of the goldplated mic”.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 17, 2012 2:39 PM

You fear Rush too, don’t you Stephen?

“KAP-
We can write of the successful salvaging of the United States Car industry. We can talk about the success of the stimulus, and show real numbers concerning that, not just vain claims built mostly on the last conservative commentator’s rhetoric.”

No we can’t; but we can write of the successful salvaging of the union pensions; at the cost of tax payers’ dollars. Tell me something Stephen; why are democrat city mayors all over the country declaring bankruptcy? Why are they letting the courts renegotiate union contracts and pensions? Then answer me why we didn’t let the courts renegotiate auto union contracts and pensions. The difference is Obama had his grubby, thieving hands on the stimulus tax dollars and could bail out the unions; but he doesn’t have control of the money to bail out the socialist cities. He would do it if he could, and this is why he is calling for more stimuli.

“You, and your people? All YOU can do is attack.”

Am I the only one who reads stupid all over SD’s comments? Again Stephen, would you like to tell us what Obama has been doing ever since he figured he would be running against Romney? I can’t believe you would even make such a stupid statement. For the past week on WB, the left and the right has been in complete agreement that Obama is attacking Romney. The left says he is justified and the right says he’s not. Stephen, did you just get on line and start reading; did you fail to get the Obama memo; you come on here making an idiotic statement that “you”, whoever you is, are attacking. What a joke.

“He represents a philosophy that casts the rich as the necessary elite,”

No Stephen, it is your side that has the philosophy that the rich are elite.

“KAP-
He’s run on GM, on the stimulus bringing back jobs. He has something positive to show for his effort, with millions back to work under him, and positive job growth unbroken since Oct. 2010, despite everything.”
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 17, 2012 4:44 PM

Stephen, you are full of crap; if Obama was successful, why is our economy still in a freefall? Why is he wasting his time attacking Romney, with false claims, if he is so successful.

Stephen, you’re going to be in a deep depression after the November elections.

Posted by: Billinflorida at July 17, 2012 6:32 PM
Comment #348693

SD’s success claim for GM:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/seton-motley/2012/07/17/media-fail-chevy-volt-makes-gm-no-money-costs-taxpayers-hundreds-thous

Posted by: Billinflorida at July 17, 2012 7:50 PM
Comment #348698

Now we know just how dishonest and un american Romney Bain and the people that support him really are and it’s on display for the American people. Do you think when he vet’s his v.p will he expect more then two years of tax returns? We know that the republican don’t know how to vet a v.p.[see palin] And why is he lying about when he left bain? Do we really need more of our jobs sent to china Thanks mitt.

Posted by: Jeff at July 17, 2012 8:34 PM
Comment #348706

Rhinehold:

There is no evidence that Romney had anything to do with Bain after leaving in 1999 other than signing legal forms he needed to sign in order to fulfill SEC requirements.

Horsesh*t. Mitt Romney was collecting a hefty six figure salary (100K and likely more) from Bain until 2002. He signed documents as the Owner, CEO and Managing Director and was therefore NOT retired. “Retroactive Retirement” is an extraordinarily crap excuse for transparent dishonesty.

Is there an explanation? Fine. Stop being such a sniveling coward and provide the American people with the proof of your claims, Mitt. Stop trying to lie about John Kerry — who provided the American people with a full 20 years of his tax returns. Show us yours from 1999 forward — a mere 13 years worth. That’s a lot less than you gave John McCain when they were considering you for Vice President.

Let’s see them — otherwise, you’ve clearly got a whole lot to hide — and I’m afraid that excuse making rightwingers (such as Rhinehold) aren’t going to cut the mustard and/or save your sorry ass.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 17, 2012 10:58 PM
Comment #348707

Billinflorida-
You should have checked the sources. The source on the claim that GM makes no money on the vehicle is from Dec. 2010, and it’s source is from Nov. 2010. The sales figures and subsidies used to calculate taxpayer cost are no newer.

His sources for the failure are Breitbart’s site, and a conservative outfit called less government. Hmm. Incestuous amplification, anybody?

As for his technical commentary? He doesn’t know ****. The gasoline engine in the Volt is strictly there as a generator. The powertrain is electric. The Cruze has nothing like that. In a hybrid like mine, the most unconventional thing beside the electric motor inside the engine block is the transmission, which is a Continuous Variable Transmission or CVT, but it’s still mechanical, just like any Automatic or Manual transmission out there, and the gasoline part of the engine does most of the work. His tone on matters seem to be one of contempt. This is a guy looking to tear apart the vehicle’s reputation, not fairly determine where it should stand.

GM itself is posting record profits, but I assume you have an explanation for why that shouldn’t matter, either.

It’s a hatchet job by an ignorant political operative.

And that should be what alarms people about your sources. You want to talk about them being an antidote to liberal bias, but in fact they are a fount of conservative bias, and not only that, but they’re unself-consciously wallowing in it, smugly treating the rest of us as ignorant morons.

But you know what? For all their arrogance, these sources are often fairly unreliable.

Rush Limbaugh isn’t the only thing I can look up with google. I can look and see the sudden broad distribution of a talking point like yours. I can trace that talking point back to sources, or find others who have examined the talking point for its reliability. Like I said, that something is a talking point doesn’t make it automatically wrong, even if it’s yours. So what I do is examine the sources. And when I do, little things often jump out at me, such as the dates for your article’s sources. The claim about the taxpayer cost per vehicle jumps out, too, and I find articles debunking that as being based on outdated sales figures. The cost per car is bound to be going down fairly quickly, since the subsidies don’t necessarily get repeated and the cars are selling more.

To put this in perspective, understand that your source’s claim depends on sales of 6000 dividing all the subsidies, breaks, and supports. But there have been another 8000 cars sold this year, so the ratio is bound to change, and if the trend continues, change pretty dramatically in the other direction. That is, if we take his estimates to be legitimately construed from costs and assistance in the first place.

Long story short, you don’t know enough about the premises of your own argument to succeed with it. You’re simply playing the rhetorical game, hoping to be seen as the revealers of the truth. However, if your people can’t even keep a solid grasp of the facts like this, why should we grant you this status as the preferred know-it-alls on policy?

As for the other comment?
You don’t know how many times I feel like responding in kind. But you know what? I find it much more relaxing to approach things from the calm reserve of fact-based argumentation. I know you, in your naivete, assume that when the Republicans and the Tea Party candidates win, big government will get out of everybody’s lives.

Didn’t happen before, won’t happen now. What were you fighting, mister, when you fought the changes in Medicare? You were fighting to save subsidies to the Medicare Advantage Program! How many Tea Partiers actually realized this? Not many.

You would think they would at least take the position that the subsidies simply needed to be ended outright, but they didn’t do their thinking for themselves, so they never gave themselves the chance to reconcile what they were looking at to their own politics. Instead, they were fed a line of bull about Obama trying to get rid of their Medicare, and they bought it.

It’s not that they’re stupid, but if you don’t stop a second, and actually look at the facts as they are, you can’t really use your intelligence to form smarter theories and ideas, can you?

You sing the praises of being a dittohead, but what’s the point of being a human copy machine for right wing propaganda? You’re taking pride in the crippling of your own faculty to reason independently.

I have my beliefs, and they aren’t softspoken. But I don’t wait for somebody to tell me what I can say to develop my own thoughts.

You say I fear Rush? No, your leaders fear him. He and his friends have taken advantage of the market created by the hyping of liberal bias to create a captive audience of credulous listeners, who they can send ranting and raving to the Congress Critter’s doorstep on short notice.

The trouble for the GOP is that people like Rush are keeping the Party in its fossil form, forcing the party to embrace even more extremity and delusion in the name of defeating the liberals.

Your party, for all its talk of rugged individualism, can’t long stick together without relying on folks like Rush to get them yelling at Democrats instead of arguing amongs themselves. Too many differences have been papered over for too long, and the current attempts at a renaissance have only created a more strained sitguation than ever.

The GOP’s heading for a reckoning. If not now, then later, but you can’t have folks this lacking in original political thought and not have things go wrong eventually.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 17, 2012 10:59 PM
Comment #348710
Horsesh*t. Mitt Romney was collecting a hefty six figure salary (100K and likely more) from Bain until 2002.

And is irrelevant. There is no evidence that Romney had any interaction with Bain in a managerial sense after 1999. I know you WANT it to be there, but so far it hasn’t come to light.

None of the SEC filings show that Romney was anything but a passive, absentee owner during that time, as both Romney and Bain have long said. It should not surprise anyone that Romney retained certain titles while he was working out the final disposition of his ownership, for example. We see nothing to contradict the statement that a Bain spokesman issued in response to the Globe article:


Bain Capital, July 12: Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney’s departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999. Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period.

Jill E. Fisch, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and co-director of the Institute for Law and Economics, said Romney would not have committed a felony by listing himself as managing director — even if he now claims he had no role in running the company after February 1999. There is no legal obligation to describe how active one is in the day-to-day management of the company, she said. And just because he held title of managing director doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s responsible for decisions like layoffs or outsourcing.

“If that really mattered to investors, they might consider that a civil liability, but we wouldn’t be talking about a felony,” she said.

We would reassess our judgment should somebody come up with evidence that Romney took part in specific management decisions or had any active role (not just a title) at Bain after he left to head the Olympics. But nothing we’ve seen directly contradicts Romney’s statements — which he has certified as true under pain of federal prosecution — that he “has not had any active role” with Bain or “been involved in the operations” of Bain since then.

BTW, Adrienne, tell me something. Would you consider Thomas Jefferson a ‘rightwinger’? Do you think a ‘rightwinger’ is someone who is a member of the ACLU, for free speech for all, pro-choice, for gay marriage, against drug laws and anti-war?

The same inability you have to evaluate the facts of the Bain issue is evident in your attempt to label me a ‘rightwinger’, even after my years of history in writing on this site, so you can just try to ‘ignore’ me without having to go through the effort of debate.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 17, 2012 11:41 PM
Comment #348714

Rhinehold, you and Jill E. Fisch (seriously? a lawyer named JellyFish? How apt.) obviously want to split hairs despite the fact that it is not just a few SEC documents, but also Bain documents that have surfaced bearing Romney’s signature after 1999. So, let’s see the tax returns — that’ll clear everything up good and proper, mmmkay?

It’s really no big deal — the McCain campaign already saw 23 years worth of them.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2012 12:33 AM
Comment #348716
obviously want to split hairs

Not just me and Jill, but several other non-partisan observers. The only ones who are carrying the torch for this thing are the partisan sources (Mother Jones, TPM, Boston Globe) and even democrats are begging the administration to back off.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/229013-democrats-balk-at-obama-campaigns-sustained-attack-on-bain-capital

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76602.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/05/25/northeastern-democrats-jump-ship-as-obama-blasts-bain-capital.html

And Adrienne, there is nothing to clear up, unless you have some evidence that suggests otherwise (which hasn’t been produced yet). When defending against another attack on him by Democrats while running for governor, he had to prove he was active in the state recently, documents were presented to the election board at the time that detailed visits to meetings at Staples. It makes sense that if he was still involved in Bain, he would have listed that as well as it would have bolstered his claim. But there is no mention of any meetings or visits with Bain. Everything that has presented confirms that he was not actively managing Bain from when he left in February 1999 to the time he sold off his ownership. As he stated under oath in SEC filings.

Romney has complied with all legal requirements concerning his income in regards to the financial disclosure documentation, so I’m personally not too worried about it unless something of actual significance is released in the future. If he decides to, that’s his call. But not doing so is not proof of anything either, as you want to make it to be.

But I’m curious, what do you think is or isn’t in the tax returns that will satisfy you? We already know he earned income from Bain during the time he was still the owner, I’m not really sure what asking for his tax returns will provide, maybe you can help me out here? If he decides to release his tax returns, and there is nothing other than income of 100,000 salary and profits on investments (and the 1 salary from the Olympics) would that be enough for you to admit you were wrong?

I am thinking that it wouldn’t be…

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2012 12:55 AM
Comment #348717
It makes sense that if he was still involved in Bain, he would have listed that as well as it would have bolstered his claim. But there is no mention of any meetings or visits with Bain. Everything that has presented confirms that he was not actively managing Bain from when he left in February 1999 to the time he sold off his ownership. As he stated under oath in SEC filings.

He was drawing a large salary — therefore he was not retired. He needs to explain what he was doing to earn that salary.

Romney has complied with all legal requirements concerning his income in regards to the financial disclosure documentation, so I’m personally not too worried about it unless something of actual significance is released in the future. If he decides to, that’s his call. But not doing so is not proof of anything either, as you want to make it to be.

It’s proof that Mitt Romney is a coward, who obviously has something serious to hide — and we all know that he would he’d have produced them by now if he didn’t. You can be “not too worried” all you like, but everyone on the left knows what the over-the-top-outraged reaction would have been on the right if this shoe was on the other foot and this was Obama being secretive about his tax returns. So, let’s see them, Mitt! They were good enough for John McCain to look at, so they’ve simply got to be good enough for the rest of the American people to see, too.

But I’m curious, what do you think is or isn’t in the tax returns

Who knows but Mitt “I understand the economy” Romney? so, quit all the stalling and grandstanding, and let’s see them.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2012 2:03 AM
Comment #348718
He was drawing a large salary — therefore he was not retired. He needs to explain what he was doing to earn that salary.

He was the owner of the company and the company decided to pay him 100,000 salary while he was on leave. That’s pretty simple, what about that do you have a problem with understanding? Private companies can pay whoever they want whatever they want for any reason they want as long as it is legal, last time I checked… And yes, this does happen, I’ve already explained at least one instance I was personally involved in where this occurred.

It’s proof that Mitt Romney is a coward, who obviously has something serious to hide

Ah, so Obama was a coward who obviously had something to hide when he didn’t release his full birth certificate for three years? And Debbie Wasserman Shultz was a coward who obviously had something to hide when her opponent asked her to release her taxes and she refused…

Just want to make sure we have the same rules being applied here.

but everyone on the left knows what the over-the-top-outraged reaction would have been on the right if this shoe was on the other foot and this was Obama being secretive about his tax returns.

At least you are admitting the reaction on the left is over-the-top-outraged…

However, it doesn’t really help your case when you do the same thing you rail at your opponents for doing… You just give them the ammunition to continue acting that same way in a bad self-feeding cycle of destruction and bile.

Who knows

Thanks for admitting it is just a fishing expedition.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2012 3:18 AM
Comment #348736

Truth is, if Romney gives 10 years worth, leftists will want 15 years worth. If he gives 15 years worth, leftists will want 20 years worth. On and on and on.
The conspiracies will go from assumptions of what the evil rich white guy is hiding, to the evil rich “1%” controlling the government and a cover-up to protect one of their own.

Birthers and now Bainers.

Posted by: kctim at July 18, 2012 12:08 PM
Comment #348737
He was the owner of the company and the company decided to pay him 100,000 salary while he was on leave. That’s pretty simple, what about that do you have a problem with understanding?

That sounds like a lie. And since Mitt Romney has done nothing but run away from every question surrounding Bain he has only reinforced that impression.

Private companies can pay whoever they want whatever they want for any reason they want as long as it is legal, last time I checked… And yes, this does happen, I’ve already explained at least one instance I was personally involved in where this occurred.

That sounds pretty implausible because Mitt’s has his own advisers saying that the retirement was “retroactive.”
I’m not taking your anecdote as proof of anything.

Ah, so Obama was a coward who obviously had something to hide when he didn’t release his full birth certificate for three years?

Obama released his birth certificate before he was elected. That wasn’t considered good enough for the racist, insane birthers — and obviously that wasn’t good enough for you either.
After writing to Hawaii to finally placate the insane birther mob, they release his long form birth certificate. It’s still not good enough for these brain-dead racist freaks. Yesterday we heard John Sununu giving a speech for Mitt Romney where he announced that the president needs to “learn to be an American.” And today, racist Sherrif Joe Arpaio announced that Obama’s long form birth certificate is “undoubtedly fraudulent” in defiance of what everyone at the Hawaii State Department of Health has said.
There will be no pleasing of these racists — their outraged, burning hatred of a Black man in the White House won’t allow for that.

And Debbie Wasserman Shultz was a coward who obviously had something to hide when her opponent asked her to release her taxes and she refused…

Debbie Wasserman Shultz isn’t running for president of the United States. Mitt Romney is.

Just want to make sure we have the same rules being applied here.

The problem appears to be that Mitt Romney wasn’t following the rules, although he can easily prove he was by releasing 13 years of his tax returns. That’s a lot less than the 23 years he gave to John McCain, but he refuses. Now, he’s also refusing to discuss Bain at all — even though Bain is the corporation he started and is the basis of his claim
that he’s a businessman who “understands the economy.” It’s incredibly ridiculous.

At least you are admitting the reaction on the left is over-the-top-outraged…

A lot of people on the right have now called for him to release his tax returns too. It’s completely bizarre for him to keep refusing when he’s been running for president for years and years on end!

However, it doesn’t really help your case when you do the same thing you rail at your opponents for doing… You just give them the ammunition to continue acting that same way in a bad self-feeding cycle of destruction and bile.

It was Romney’s GOP opponents who fired this ammunition on Romney first.

Rick Perry on Romney:

“There’s a real difference between venture capitalism and vulture capitalism. I don’t believe that capitalism is making a buck under any circumstances.”

Gingrich on Romney and Bain: “rich people figuring out clever, legal ways to loot out a company.”

Gingrich SuperPAC: “A story of greed. Playing the system for a quick buck. A group of corporate raiders, led by Mitt Romney. More ruthless than Wall Street. For tens of thousands of Americans, the suffering began when Mitt Romney came to town.”

These two got firmly smacked around by the GOP establishment for saying such things — because being critical of any kind of corporate greed was considered a betrayal of conservative values and tantamount to being an anti-capitalist. But both of them were right about Mitt and Bain. Following up on what they started should have been expected — because being a “good businessman” is supposed to be Mitt Romney’s calling card for the presidency.

Thanks for admitting it is just a fishing expedition.
The entire country smells a fish. But Romney has the power to put an end to all the speculation by releasing his tax returns, rather than hiding them, and trying to distance himself from his own business. It’s as simple as that. Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2012 12:18 PM
Comment #348741

Sorry to tell the left; but the Bain/Romney attack is losing steam. In another week, it will be history. Thank you Obama for going off teleprompter and saying what liberals really think.

Posted by: Billinflorida at July 18, 2012 12:55 PM
Comment #348744
He was the owner of the company and the company decided to pay him 100,000 salary while he was on leave. That’s pretty simple, what about that do you have a problem with understanding?

That sounds like a lie.

How do you figure? Don’t you think his salary before this was greater than 100,000? That’s a pretty low amount for an active CEO of such a large company.

Private companies can pay whoever they want whatever they want for any reason they want as long as it is legal, last time I checked… And yes, this does happen, I’ve already explained at least one instance I was personally involved in where this occurred.
That sounds pretty implausible because Mitt’s has his own advisers saying that the retirement was “retroactive.” I’m not taking your anecdote as proof of anything.

Apparently you don’t understand the difference between a leave of absence and retirement… You see, when one takes a leave of absence, it is because they are thinking they will return. When it was clear that Romney no longer wanted to return, he sold and left the company completely. There is nothing there to suggest that while he was on leave of absence he was still involved in the company other than legally required SEC filings.

Ah, so Obama was a coward who obviously had something to hide when he didn’t release his full birth certificate for three years?
Obama released his birth certificate before he was elected.

No, he released the SHORT form of the birth certificate. Just as Romney has released his financial disclosure forms that he was required to release. Because of questions surrounding that document calls were made by many on the right to release the full document, that was rejected by the president for 3 years.

That wasn’t considered good enough for the racist, insane birthers — and obviously that wasn’t good enough for you either.

Again, you display your complete lack of any grasp of reality with this statement. As was stated in the comments of my post Who’s Job Is It Anyway I stated clearly: “I never said that I thought that Obama wasn’t a citizen, personally. In fact, I said “I am not saying at all that these are all true and Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii”.

I have never once stated that I thought Obama wasn’t an American. Yet you have no trouble with libelous accusations against me simply because of your hatred.

After writing to Hawaii to finally placate the insane birther mob, they release his long form birth certificate. It’s still not good enough for these brain-dead racist freaks. Yesterday we heard John Sununu giving a speech for Mitt Romney where he announced that the president needs to “learn to be an American.” And today, racist Sherrif Joe Arpaio announced that Obama’s long form birth certificate is “undoubtedly fraudulent” in defiance of what everyone at the Hawaii State Department of Health has said. There will be no pleasing of these racists — their outraged, burning hatred of a Black man in the White House won’t allow for that.

As there is no pleasing the insane bainers who have bought into a conspiracy that isn’t there with Bain, no matter what is done it will not be enough. Do you like being in the same camp as the birthers?

And Debbie Wasserman Shultz was a coward who obviously had something to hide when her opponent asked her to release her taxes and she refused…
Debbie Wasserman Shultz isn’t running for president of the United States. Mitt Romney is.

No, she was running for Senate when she refused to release her tax returns. Apparently it’s ok to not have to release your tax returns on demand for US Senate, just for president? I just want to make sure I get all of your Progressive rules in order so I can maneuver through them…

Just want to make sure we have the same rules being applied here.
The problem appears to be that Mitt Romney wasn’t following the rules, although he can easily prove he was by releasing 13 years of his tax returns.

Now it’s 13? I thought you wanted 10? And since you can’t even list a single thing that you are looking for, how can you suggest that releasing them would prove anything to you?

It was Romney’s GOP opponents who fired this ammunition on Romney first.

Just as it was a Democrat who first brought up the notion of Obama not being an American. Your point? Does the fact that someone from your own party brought something up make it more factual? If so, are not the birthers just following along the same course of logic?

I would suggest you stop associating with the Bainers, but I have a feeling that my suggestion is just going to fall on deaf ears.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2012 1:04 PM
Comment #348751

Rhinehold:

Apparently you don’t understand the difference between a leave of absence and retirement… You see, when one takes a leave of absence, it is because they are thinking they will return. When it was clear that Romney no longer wanted to return, he sold and left the company completely. There is nothing there to suggest that while he was on leave of absence he was still involved in the company other than legally required SEC filings.

Apparently you don’t understand that an adviser to the Romney campaign was sent out to call the years from 1999 to 2002 a “retroactive retirement.”

As there is no pleasing the insane bainers who have bought into a conspiracy that isn’t there with Bain, no matter what is done it will not be enough. Do you like being in the same camp as the birthers?

Hey check this out — you’re gonna love this!

Now it’s 13? I thought you wanted 10?

Well, I’d be willing to settle for all the years since 1999, but it would be interesting to be able to see what his tax returns looked like just prior to those “retroactive retirement years.”

Frank:

Sorry to tell the left; but the Bain/Romney attack is losing steam. In another week, it will be history.

Wishful thinking.

Thank you Obama for going off teleprompter and saying what liberals really think.

LOL! That out of context distortion trick isn’t working too well. But no doubt Faux News has a loop going of just that one sentence though!

Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2012 3:57 PM
Comment #348752

Rhinehold-
CEO, President, Chairman of the Board, Sole Stockholder.

Long story short, titles that carry great legal responsibility with them regardless of whether somebody’s claiming to be on a leave of absence or not. We’ve got his signature on multiple documents including deals he wasn’t supposed to be aware of or responsible for.

The Daily Beast article is old news, from back in May. So is the Politico article. And so is the Hill’s article.

Nobody’s arguing with the logic of going after Bain now, because they see what kind of traction it’s getting.

And it’s getting traction because it nails Romney and those like him for what they are: people who made money less off the success of other companies they helped return to health, and more off the reckless debt leveraging and financial trickery that would have been illegal in a more civilized time.

You can excuse a great deal, because you’ve committed yourself to seeing the light at the end of this tunnel. For others, though, they know what it’s like to have companies bought out, factories shut down, and to see only people like Romney benefitting from it.

If you want to sell leaving government’s hands off of business, you have to do it with people with less recent memories of being tossed out of having a job.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2012 4:12 PM
Comment #348753
Apparently you don’t understand that an adviser to the Romney campaign was sent out to call the years from 1999 to 2002 a “retroactive retirement.”

I don’t really care if a Romney spokesman came out to cluck like a chicken for 15 minutes on live TV, it doesn’t change facts…

but it would be interesting to be able to see what his tax returns looked like just prior to those “retroactive retirement years.”

You still can’t tell me WHY. You seem to want them released in the hopes that you can find something you can twist to make appear Romney is ‘an evil bastard’. I can’t imagine why he would not want to release them…

Hey check this out — you’re gonna love this!

I saw that, satire is very good stuff. Been a fan of Stewart since before he took over the desk from Kilborn when he was doing Short Attention Span Theater (and Lara Kightlinger).

If you liked that you’ll probably love this too!

Obama Pledges to Repeal Health Care Law if Reelected

There is a lot of good political satire going on in the world today.

What that has to do with debating the facts of the issue, I’m not sure… I’m guessing you are just conceding the point now?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2012 4:20 PM
Comment #348755
If you want to sell leaving government’s hands off of business, you have to do it with people with less recent memories of being tossed out of having a job.

Romney has no interest in leaving government’s hands off of business (which I’m not trying to sell anyway, though it’s nice to now that no matter how many times I explain that to you you can’t quite grasp that). It’s one of the many ways that he and Obama (and Bush) are really not that much different from one another at all. They all want to ‘drive the ship’ as it were, they just want to go in very slightly different directions.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2012 4:23 PM
Comment #348756
titles that carry great legal responsibility with them regardless of whether somebody’s claiming to be on a leave of absence or not. We’ve got his signature on multiple documents including deals he wasn’t supposed to be aware of or responsible for.

Yep, and in legal terms he was exposed by not being there, it could have come back to bite him had the company done something illegal.

But that doesn’t mean he was ‘actively managing’ Bain, which was the original claim, you remember (and Factcheck points out clearly).

BTW, do you know who WAS the acting manager at the time in question? Does the name Matt Levin ring a bell? A bundler for Obama was the one who was for the offshoring of jobs that you are upset about? Even Glen Greenwald acknowledges that Bain donated more to Democrat candidates than Republican…

Not sure if it is true or not, just something I read. Apparently that’s all we need anymore, right? Supposition and innuendo?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2012 4:29 PM
Comment #348757

Even if people accept the Obama apologists re-interpretation of what Obama “really” meant, yet again, he is still saying you can’t do anything on your own. That your idea, hardwork and success were only the result of people other than yourself. That your no smarter than the next guy. That it was all luck.
That you can’t be successful without government.

Way to boost morale and instill confidence Mr. President.

Posted by: kctim at July 18, 2012 4:37 PM
Comment #348758
What that has to do with debating the facts of the issue, I’m not sure… I’m guessing you are just conceding the point now?

I said what I wanted to say and I’m done arguing with you over it because I don’t agree with you. Just thought I’d put up something hilarious as a send-off. Personally I loved how Stewart used that old clip of Romney explaining for the camera how a Blind Trust is just a ruse, and isn’t at all blind!

Even if people accept the Obama apologists re-interpretation of what Obama “really” meant, yet again, he is still saying you can’t do anything on your own.

Nope — he isn’t saying that at all. To sum it up, he began by talking about how our American system and it’s infrastructure is something we’ve all paid for with our tax dollars, and how people who have built businesses have hugely benefited from that fact. And that they couldn’t have built that all by themselves, which is of course, obviously true. Then he goes on to talk about how America has built a lot of things that benefit everyone this way — by our all pulling together. And that in doing so, we ended up making a country that was greater than the sum of it’s parts.

That your idea, hardwork and success were only the result of people other than yourself.

Nope — that people needed to have all of that AND they also needed to use the system and the infrastructure that every American has contributed toward with our tax dollars.

That your no smarter than the next guy. That it was all luck.

Nope. Actually his line was: “when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.”

That you can’t be successful without government.

The definition of no government is anarchy. It would be impossible to run a business successfully if everything was anarchy.

Way to boost morale and instill confidence Mr. President.

Oh, it was — for everyone with enough sense not to try to distort all of his words for transparent propaganda purposes.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2012 5:07 PM
Comment #348760

Mitt Romney Taxes For 2010 Not Fully Disclosed

Romney released his 2010 tax return in January of this year, a document that first informed voters about the existence of his Swiss bank account and financial activities in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. But people who own foreign bank accounts are required to file a separate document with the IRS that provides additional details on such overseas bank holdings, and Romney has not released that form to the public.


Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2012 5:49 PM
Comment #348761

Also interesting:

Massive Romney IRA Still Sparks Unanswered Questions

Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2012 5:58 PM
Comment #348762

Sorry, link isn’t working. Here it is again:
Massive Romney IRA Still Sparks Unanswered Questions

Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2012 6:01 PM
Comment #348764

There is no need to “distort” anything Adrienne, his message is that people cannot succeed on their own. It’s the same tired garbage Warren spews to condemn individualism in order to glorify a BS collective utopia.

I especially love how you all condemn people who have “hugely benefited from” taxpayer things, but totally ignore the fact that they also “hugely” fund those things.
It’s also funny how you ignore those who contribute nothing in order to demonize those who contribute most. No pandering for votes there. LOL.

“Nope. Actually his line was: “when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.””

Um, nope. His line was: “You didn’t get there on your own,” the president said. “I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something – there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

I thought we were going by what he actually said Adrienne? Instead of just picking parts to prove what we wanted to hear? Come on now, if you are going to ask others to do that, you should too.

“If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business – you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

No matter how it is interpreted or how you all explain the many different things he “really” meant by what he said, the fact is that he was demeaning and disparaging the individual in order to promote the collective.
Well, that’s how it is for people with enough sense not intent on defending his every screw-up.

Posted by: kctim at July 18, 2012 6:05 PM
Comment #348765

Swiss Bank Account Questions.

While I’m not on board with this being conclusive material just yet, I’d say this: Romney’s problem is that the label of “perfectly legal” or “legal” doesn’t mean nice and tasteful to others.

Romney is free not to release his tax returns, to conceal him from the potential attacks of his opponents. He’s also free to signal to everybody else that he’s vulnerable to such an attack by doing that. This isn’t something so brainlessly simple as a birth certificate, these are hundred page tax returns. What Tax Shelters, Foreign accounts and other monsters lurk here?

And if y’all are thinking of going negative… Well, when were you ever truly positive? I think there’s a bit of fatigue with anti-Obama negativity. You really can’t get the people who are already angry about Obama any more ticked off than they already are, and your exaggerations about him have essentially made it next to impossible to escalate the accusations without self-parody.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 18, 2012 6:41 PM
Comment #348777
While I’m not on board with this being conclusive material just yet, I’d say this: Romney’s problem is that the label of “perfectly legal” or “legal” doesn’t mean nice and tasteful to others.

Yes. Or could be even worse. Unless we see them we won’t know. And, I think it’s pretty clear by now after all the calls to release them, even from extremely prominent members of his own party, that Romney has absolutely no intention of doing so.

Romney is free not to release his tax returns, to conceal him from the potential attacks of his opponents. He’s also free to signal to everybody else that he’s vulnerable to such an attack by doing that. This isn’t something so brainlessly simple as a birth certificate, these are hundred page tax returns. What Tax Shelters, Foreign accounts and other monsters lurk here?

Indeed. Not exactly a promise for “A Better America” to have a billionaire president with Swiss Bank Accounts and Foreign Shell Companies galore, who may well have lied to the SEC, and who has done everything he could do to not pay taxes — even as tax rates have been rigged especially low for billionaires just like him — far, far lower than the rates that most Americans must pay.

And if y’all are thinking of going negative… Well, when were you ever truly positive?

They haven’t been during my lifetime. They’re just freaking out now because they’ve got such a weak candidate with so much to hide. I was stunned by what McCain said yesterday when they asked him about his viewing of Romney’s tax returns. He claimed it had nothing to do with not picking him for VP, it’s just that he thought Palin was the stronger candidate! Ouch.

And if y’all are thinking of going negative… Well, when were you ever truly positive? I think there’s a bit of fatigue with anti-Obama negativity. You really can’t get the people who are already angry about Obama any more ticked off than they already are, and your exaggerations about him have essentially made it next to impossible to escalate the accusations without self-parody.

I totally agree with this. Look at what kctim wrote — sounds like parody all the way through. So much spinning to suit his own particular viewpoint of Obama, rather than what his speech actually said, it’s simply not worth replying to.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 18, 2012 8:50 PM
Comment #348780

Well, since you guys are on that topic…

http://reason.com/blog/2012/07/18/how-you-didnt-build-that-became-he-didn’t

What do you do when everybody’s claiming your president said something, and you just know he didn’t really say it, but all the video and all the audio and all the transcripts show that he did say it?
The president’s supporters have a multipronged counterargument: Either he didn’t make those comments or they were taken out of context or even if they are in context they don’t matter because we should be reading between the lines.
The popularization of Derridaian post-modernism since the 1990s has generally been a lot of fun, turning mainstream Americans into sharp observers of signs and meaning who are sure that either there’s nothing outside the text or everything is outside the text or both. But at some point it helps to look at that thing above the subtext, which is generally known as “the text.” Up to this point the presidential election has been Obama vs. Obama Junior. With “You didn’t build that,” which his campaign has made no effort to clarify or redirect, the president has drawn a line in the sand.

There is no nebulousness here. Beyond the paragraph quoted above, Obama calls government spending “the investments that grow our economy.” He ridicules the tendency of Americans to brag about being hard workers with a variant of “So’s your old man.” (“Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.”) He instinctively names “a great teacher” when looking for somebody to credit for causing success in the working world. The president has boldly presented his view on how an economy works. His supporters should give him the respect of taking his words seriously.

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 18, 2012 9:04 PM
Comment #348853

Wow!
This article writer thinks that Mitt Romney is going to be asked to step aside — because anyone who has received amnesty for a serious crime, such as tax evasion, cannot become the president.

Quote from the link below:

Why would he have closed only the Swiss Account when the Cayman/Bermuda accounts are also abusive tax havens, and he left those alone? Why would Romney have bothered to close the Swiss account at all? I deduced that what was special about his Swiss Account was the amnesty program allowed by the IRS. I also surmised that it was amnesty, more than anything else, that would keep him from releasing earlier tax returns.

Now, through investigative reporting, there is highly suggestive evidence that the logic was not wrong. Romney failed to disclose the documents he filed with the IRS in 2010, the year he has already released, that detail his Swiss Account holdings.

Prediction: Romney Will Not be the Republican Nominee

Posted by: Adrienne at July 19, 2012 3:07 AM
Comment #348866

Possibly some of the worst ‘reporting’ I’ve ever read. Not only does he get his ‘facts’ about amnesty wrong, the prediction is about as naïve of an assumption as I’ve heard in a long time.

I remember when the birthers predicted that Obama would be replaced in 2008 too, it’s interesting to see the bainers heading down that same track…


Posted by: Rhinehold at July 19, 2012 6:11 AM
Comment #348867

“I totally agree with this. Look at what kctim wrote — sounds like parody all the way through. So much spinning to suit his own particular viewpoint of Obama, rather than what his speech actually said, it’s simply not worth replying to”

LOL.
You have been saying we have to look at his whole speech in order to take it in proper context. You then intentionally leave out parts of his speech to help support the theory that he “really” meant business owners didn’t build roads and bridges. That he didn’t say one person is no smarter than another. That one person does not work harder than another.
Sorry Adrienne, but intentionally omitting words so you can claim he didn’t say them is a much better representation of “spinning to suit you own particular viewpoint.”

Hell, I even gave all the apologists proclaiming “what he really meant to say” the benefit of a doubt and narrowed it down to one simple little fact: he was demeaning and disparaging the idea of individualism in order to promote the greatness of the collective.
You cannot refute that fact so you fall back on dismissing it as spin? parody? or just ignoring it? What a nice little progressive box you have created for yourselves, no wonder you think everybody who dare disagree with your opinions are inferior. No wonder you are almost always wrong.

Posted by: kctim at July 19, 2012 9:32 AM
Comment #348868

“What Tax Shelters, Foreign accounts and other monsters lurk here?”

So, guilty until proven innocent, right Stephen? Give us a break. The ONLY reason you guys have judged him guilty is because he is on the wrong side of your politics. This is about votes, not right or wrong. And you guys know that even the illusion of being guilty is likely to garner votes.
It’s politics. It’s how the game is played. Fine. Just stop pretending this is about anything other than votes.

And the Bainers are exactly like the birthers. You both have found an issue that you believe to be a winner whether it is true or not and you both “justify” your mission with theories and what ifs. Although you do have me stumped as to how the legally “hiding” money theory is somehow a worse crime than the “non-citizen President” and “fraudulent college money” theories.

ANY Bainer or birther conspiracy theory could be right, who knows. But known facts, not the quest for votes, should determine guilt.

Posted by: kctim at July 19, 2012 10:25 AM
Comment #348869

kctim-
It’s remarkably easy to figure out what he was trying to say, if you take the more plausible side of the ambiguous phrase.

Would Obama really say “entrepreneurs built nothing?” Thing is, he said plenty before and after about infrastructure, which in fact those entrepreneurs did not build. This is also consistent with past statements.

Really, you’re just jumping on a bit of phrasing, not a consistent expression of policy. You’re like the immature little boys who snicker at the phrase “don we now our gay apparel” when folks sing “Deck the Halls.” Sure, you can interpret things that way, but it’s not consistent with other things he’s said on the same subject.

You guys simply want something to bitch about, and if it’s only a turn of phrase, you’ll jump at it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 19, 2012 11:23 AM
Comment #348871

Stephen
Fine, what he “really” meant this time was about infrastructure, not the individual entrepreneurs themselves. So why all the attacks on the individual? Why tell people they could not have done anything successful without taxpayer money and government?

Thing is, he said plenty about those two things and it too is VERY consistent with his past statements. So why do you pretend that is not what he meant? Why spout childish references about “little boys” in order to avoid answering why rhetoric always seems to talk down the individual and praise the collective?

You used to try to defend your position by meeting questions head on with at least some facts. Now you use opinion and name-calling to ignore them? Have you gone full out progressive now?

Hate to say this, but WatchBlog has become a joke. No wonder it only has four or five writers and ignores all emails.

Posted by: kctim at July 19, 2012 12:16 PM
Comment #348872

Rhinehold:

Possibly some of the worst ‘reporting’ I’ve ever read. Not only does he get his ‘facts’ about amnesty wrong, the prediction is about as naïve of an assumption as I’ve heard in a long time.

Of course you’d consider yourself the only “expert” whose opinion matters. Did you happen to look at Stephen’s link, Rhinehold? That’s Matt Yglesias, Slate’s business and economics correspondent wondering the same thing. And my earlier Huffington Post link also had Daniel Shaviro, an NYU professor, tossing out the exact same question.

I remember when the birthers predicted that Obama would be replaced in 2008 too, it’s interesting to see the bainers heading down that same track…

What’s funny to me is that you’re actually trying to act like it’s ridiculous for anyone to question why Romney is being so secretive and evasive about his tax returns. The fact is, practically everyone has started to wonder why he would be so insistent on not releasing them, and thinking that they must contain something so damaging that he’s actually better off taking nothing but heat for doing so.

You may wish to scoff at all the speculation that has begun, but when you do you’re also discounting a growing number of prominent Republicans who keep telling Romney to simply release the returns and try to put whatever is in them behind him quickly — because this issue can definitely cripple him politically.

Here’s a guy who ran in 2008 and is now running in 2012 — and he didn’t make sure every bit of his finances would appear squeaky clean and presentable for public scrutiny? Is he so stupid and clueless that it seriously never occurred to him as a man who is a poster child for Wall Street was going be put under the microscope — after Wall Street melted down the economy?

Sorry, but that makes no bloody sense at all.
Something must indeed be VERY wrong.

It could be any number of things, including that he took the IRS tax amnesty that was extended to 4000 super-rich Americans who had UBS Swiss Bank Accounts and had been tax evading like crazy, or it could be something else. But it’s got to be BAD or he wouldn’t keep refusing.

What does he think — that American people just hand their trust over blindly to rich politicians? Romney doesn’t seem to understand the very simple fact that we don’t. And how weird is that?

Take a look at what Ann Romney just said:

‘We’ve Given All You People Need To Know’ About Family Finances

Uh, NO you haven’t, Ann. Your husband hasn’t even given out ONE complete tax return yet. And “YOU PEOPLE”?!!! My how incredibly touchy, belligerent and defensive you’re being towards all of America, Ann! I’m sure that will to endear you to everyone!

As for you Rhinehold — go ahead and laugh and call everyone who mentions Mitt’s obviously terrified secrecy a “Bainer” but it’s clear there’s something really Rotten with Romney. Something in those tax returns that has him so scared he’s willing to look like a crook and a coward.

To all: Does anyone believe for a moment that people on the right would be taking this position if Mitt Romney were a Democrat?

Posted by: Adrienne at July 19, 2012 1:58 PM
Comment #348873

Two other things that just occurred to me.

1. Mitt Romney seems to have placed himself in a position that is similar to that of John Edwards in 2008. Edward’s secrecy was about his extramarital affair and impregnation of that woman as his wife was sick with fatal cancer, and Mitt’s secrecy has to do with his obviously crooked finances, and also a lack of sound judgement. Both men’s incredible hubris and ego somehow allowed them to discount all of the people in their party, and endanger that party’s chances to win the election in November. Democrats had the good sense to dump Edwards and immediately denounce what he did. Some Republicans seem willing to do the same with Romney, although many others are not — at least at this time. But personally, I hope the GOP will find the collective sense not to nominate Romney at their convention. It simply isn’t right for one man’s arrogance and lust for power to discount all the hard work of the many people who work for an election campaign, or all of the volunteers and people who donate money, or all of the party’s voters.

2. Romney is asking the voters of this nation to do something that his own company Bain would never, ever have done. Bain would have never bought a company based on a review of just two years of some bits and pieces of financial information, and only one incomplete tax return — so why should the American people be expected to pick a president who is only willing to provide that and nothing more?

Posted by: Adrienne at July 19, 2012 2:36 PM
Comment #348874
Did you happen to look at Stephen’s link, Rhinehold? That’s Matt Yglesias, Slate’s business and economics correspondent wondering the same thing.

Yes, which is a much better report of the issues involved and NO, he is not wondering the same thing, ie that this will eliminate Romney from being eligible to run for president and therefore be thrown off the ticket at the convention.

You routinely make assumptions about what I have said, reading things into it, and then acting indignant about those internal perceptions.

I agree with Stephen that right now we have nothing to go on regarding this, which is obviously different than your view that it is already pretty much proven.

Uh, NO you haven’t, Ann

Now you are giving YOUR opinion, expert as you think it is. But yes, legally they have. They are under no requirement to give any more information and if I were in the position, even having done nothing wrong, I would probably refuse as well.

Remember, this started because it was going to prove something about Bain. Then the number of years expanded. Now it’s about ‘amnesty’.

go ahead and laugh and call everyone who mentions Mitt’s obviously terrified secrecy a “Bainer”

Thanks, I will. Let me know when you get some actual evidence or proof of ANYTHING instead of supposition and innuendo.

To All: Does anyone believe for a moment that people on the left would be taking this position if Mitt Romney were a Democrat?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 19, 2012 2:38 PM
Comment #348875
But yes, legally they have.

No, legally they have not. When Romney only released his 2010 tax return, he did not release a separate document which is required by the IRS — the ‘Report on Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts’ also called a FBAR. Romney needed to file that document for his foreign accounts, because if he didn’t he would have incurred a huge fine. If he had other foreign accounts that were just for executing transactions they wouldn’t show up on the tax return — but they would show up on that FBAR document. Giving an incomplete tax return means he has NOT yet complied legally with what is expected from a person running for president.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 19, 2012 2:59 PM
Comment #348877

Interesting, can you show me where the requirement exists for a president to release any tax returns at all? Last I remember checking, and it wasn’t that long ago, they needed to fill out financial disclosure documentation, but were under no legal requirement to have their tax returns released to the public. Since you say he is not complying with the law, you should have it readily available, right?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/dec/16/democratic-national-committee/dnc-says-presidential-candidates-usually-release-t/

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/should-presidential-candidates-be-expected-to-release-their-tax-returns/

As I’ve noted, there is no legal requirement that Presidential candidates release those records and, for a long time, no candidate ever did. According to some reports, the first candidate for President to do so voluntarily was George Romney in 1968, who released nearly more than a decades worth of tax returns as part of an effort to answer questions about the wealth he’d accumulated as the head of American Motors and in other business ventures. Despite that precedent, though, there are several prominent Presidential candidates over the past 44 years who have refused to release their tax returns. None of them have actually won their party’s nomination, but they did stand against the precedent.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/01/19/Romney-Voyeurs-Digging-for-Tax-Return-Porn.aspx

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 19, 2012 3:19 PM
Comment #348880
Last I remember checking, and it wasn’t that long ago, they needed to fill out financial disclosure documentation, but were under no legal requirement to have their tax returns released to the public.

I had been assuming that having to provide financial disclosure information meant candidates having to provide at least a single tax return, so I just looked it up and see you are correct about that. It is not considered a legal requirement even if it should be. And, it is also correct that every president that has been elected to the office since 1964 has provided the American people with their tax returns as proof of being financially honest and transparent.

So, if Mitt Romney refuses to provide one full tax return to the American people and wins the election, it will break with a very long precedent.

Funny how it’s been considered just fine for people on the right to demand and expect not one but two birth certificates of Obama, and fine for numerous court cases regarding that certificate to be launched, but asking for Mitt Romney’s tax returns is now considered to be an outrage.

Funny how Republicans have also been passing laws like crazy that give the government the right to make people produce their papers, but don’t feel that papers should be expected or given by the man who wants to hold the nations highest office. GOP lawmakers have enacted voter ID laws in over half the states requiring citizens to produce some form of government-issued ID in order to vote. And without that ID they are striped of their right to vote. The GOP in both Alabama and Arizona have also passed strict immigration laws requiring anyone suspected of being illegal immigrants to show their papers as well.

Yet, when it comes to billionaire Mitt Romney asking him to produce his papers — his tax returns — is somehow a terrible insult and something he and his supporters think he should adamantly refuse to do.

Well, lots of luck righties — because I don’t think it will sit too well with most Americans that Obama was expected to prove exactly who and what he is, and all of us are legally expected to provide proof of exactly who and what we are in order to vote, yet when it comes the super-rich and secretive white guy who wants to be this nation’s president you think he should be considered exempt.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 19, 2012 4:28 PM
Comment #348897

What’s out there that can admonition me how to lose weight? No amount what I did, I just could not assume to lose weight and accumulate it off. I didn’t like the way getting ample fabricated me attending or feel. I saw added humans that were thin, but why couldn’t I be like them?What was so altered about me? What was the botheration I had with dieting? Did I accept a apathetic metabolism? Was there something amiss with my throid? Over and over I anticipation what was out there that could admonition me lose weight?

Posted by: To lose weight, what can you do? at July 19, 2012 8:55 PM
Comment #348901

Well, the sh*t is really hitting the Mitt fan today! Despite the fact that he and Lovey… uh I mean, Ann, think that all YOU PEOPLE don’t need his tax returns to know what kind of people they are or lifestyle they lead:

Olympics Documents, Intro Described Romney As Bain CEO

Uh oh, I guess that title has got to be considered “retroactively” incorrect?

Also there’s this:
Mitt Romney, Offshore Tax Accounts Entangled Since Bain Capital’s Founding

Mitt Romney’s involvement with anonymous accounts in offshore tax havens goes back to the 1984 founding of Bain Capital, which raised millions of dollars from wealthy foreigners through shell corporations in Panama, a nation notorious for tax avoidance schemes and money laundering, according to a report by The Los Angeles Times.

The Times story follows on Romney’s recent acknowledgement to the National Review that he established funds in the Cayman Islands for the explicit purpose of helping wealthy investors avoid paying American taxes. Bain currently operates at least 138 shell companies headquartered in the Cayman Islands, which, like Panama, has long been associated with both legal and illegal tax machinations and money laundering.

Looks to me like Mitt Romney needs to “learn how to be a Real American.”

Or if I may paraphrase Romney’s own remarks today:

I just don’t think Mitt Romney, by his business decisions, suggests an understanding of what it is that used to make America such a unique nation. Why, people have come here for hundreds of years. It’s because this used to be the land of opportunity — but then people like him thought they could get rich by robbing and cheating America by becoming corporate raiders who bankrupt lot of our companies for money, and move the operations of many others overseas for the cheap labor, putting legions of Americans out of work. We used to welcome people here with dreams and say to them, ‘Come build it.’ Not, ‘Come here because you can always offshore your accounts to Panama and the Caymans, and not pay any taxes, and then lie to the government about it — and then have a whole lot of really duped people try to defend you as a “good businessman” who can’t even explain his tax returns but claims he can bring “A Better America.”

Posted by: Adrienne at July 19, 2012 9:09 PM
Comment #349021

To most females, they love famous designer products, especially designer handbags. They love the unique design, high quality, perfect as well as the craft. But most normal people cannot afford the designer handbags, so the wholesale cheap knock off designer handbags online start to play an important role in the market.
If you have bag sense, you possibly possess a Prada within of your bag collection. That suggests you recognize just how excellent a Prada is. numerous of us are new to Prada, but how about every solo one of us reveal about why Prada is amid possibly probably the most effective bag labels you’ll really buy?
Wholesale Prada handbags online profit is fit for just about every solo occasion. It’s really a one-stop store for bags. Pursuing you acquire in to some Prada shop, you’ll obtain a daily bag, your evening clutch, along collectively with your holiday add-ons all in one place. That produces it even very much a whole lot more trendy - which you can possess a distinctive Prada bag for just about every solo occasion.
Nowadays, more and more people start to pay attention on another brand that is Miu Miu, a branch brand of Prada. The design of Miu Miu is much more suitable for young females, and it is very famous among young ladies recently, especially the cheap Miu Miu handbags on sale online.

Posted by: joycetan at July 21, 2012 11:18 AM
Post a comment