jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (34 posts)

Should Candidate Romney release at least one year of tax filiings?

  1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image92
    Dr Billy Kiddposted 4 years ago

    Turns out that Romney showed the press a partial tax statement for 2010. It was discovered thereafter that a significan section of his tax form is missing. That part, by law, tells what the overseas investments do. For example, does Romney's company in the Cayman Island hold controllling stock in a major job outsource giant in India that takes away U.S. jobs. We don't know until Romney files the compete 2010 return.

    At this point, Romney has said he will not correct this omission. Worst case would be that the tax froms show Romney works for the Koch Brothers, who are contributing $300 million to his campaign. I realize that money and taxes don't matter to a lot of readers. That's why I ask, should there at least be one Romney tax statement available so that we know who are the kind of people and companies backing Romney, and who he'lll be doing favors for when elected?

    1. Wayne Brown profile image87
      Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Romney loses either way for the media will crucify him for not releasing the tax returnes and also use what he releases to create some other conjecture which only serves to detract from the real subject...Obama's pathetic record in office which should be our primary concern as voters.  Obama sidestepped proving his citizenship and birthright for the presidency, hid all his college transcripts and continues to do so, yet he, along with the media, can stand and criticize Romney for his tax returns.  It is no secret that Romeny is a wealthy person and there is certainly nothing wrong with that.  If earning money through investments, etc. is such a crime, why would he report it to the IRS in the first place.  As for critcizing the Koch Brothers, Obama has no leg to stand on as long as his "uncle" George Soros, is standing there with his checkbook out.  You might take a look at how many "favors" Obama has returned to Soros in his first term starting with the energy business,  off-shore drilling restrictions, investment in South American oil refining, and turning loose the EPA dogs on the coal-mining industry which is driving the small producer completely out of the business and allowing companies financed by Soros to lap up the coal for export and sale to China.  WB

    2. kartika damon profile image76
      kartika damonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Well, even though we may never see the part of his tax returns showing his overseas transactions, I think it is safe to assume that if we could follow the money, we'd see he is in bed with the corrupt players who dominate his political party.

      And yes, I think he should have to disclose that information.

    3. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Dodging taxes is the passtime of the rich and famous.  Hillary wrote off underwear she donated to charity.  Sheesh!  The bobbing and weaving of both candidates is what makes the election.  Should Romney disclose his tax returns?  I don't think so because it shows what he is willing to hide.  Remember if he loses he will have some "splaining to do" to the IRS.  What can be gained from this revelation of Romneys uncooperative attitude from is can he be trusted?  He loses either way.

  2. habee profile image92
    habeeposted 4 years ago

    I think Romney should release tax returns NOW. If he did anything illegal, I want to know before November. To be fair, I'd like to see more Obama records, too.

  3. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago

    I think this chart sums it up quite well!

    https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/ … 44/photo/1

    1. Quilligrapher profile image89
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Hollie. Thank you for this link.

      Taxhistory.org has a copy of Mitt Romney’s 2010 and 2011 tax returns which seem to be the only returns he has made public. In 2011, he reported no income from wages and $20.9 million adjusted gross income. (1)

      As you point out, President Obama has revealed his tax returns for every year since 2000.
      (1)http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.n … axReturns/

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image82
        Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        But...we don't know his university grades...that's just as bad lol wink

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Quill,

        I was reading an article, yesterday I think, where Mrs. Romney stated that in terms of her husbands tax returns "you people have got all you're going to get" I must say that I find this quite staggering, surely a man who claims to give such a significant amount to charity would want to make this information public, specifically during the Presidential campaign. Also, why is he so opposed to transparency of his tax affairs? Stinks a little me thinks. In contrast, Prez Obama has released all the information regarding his taxes and financial affairs currently and 8 years prior to his election for office. I was also reading the other day that Barclays Bank have donated to both camps, but have given 3 times more to Romney's campaign. Sorry, slightly off topic there. smile

  4. mperrottet profile image93
    mperrottetposted 4 years ago

    I absolutely think that he should.  In fact, I think that anyone who is currently in the congress and senate should also release their tax returns annually just to make sure that they don't have vested interest in anything that they are voting on.

  5. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    He could give in to the media frenzy, of course the media is a never ending frenzy machine.  If he were to release his returns today, the buzz would last a few weeks and then there would be a demand for more disclosure, with Mitt running a defensive campaign.  This would be right up Obama's alley, he does not want the media focused on the economy!  He does not want the media to focus on HIM at all.  Media could focus on MItt and his wife owning horses and Obama would be chilled with that.  Anything but Obama's record!

    Ann Romney scares Democrats into pulling plug on ‘dancing horse’ ad campaign

    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8655 … paign.html

    Mitt's other choice is to remain on the offense and discuss actual issues affecting every American.  In the future he would have a card up his sleeve to call Obama's bluff.  The guy who promised the most transparent administration? There is plenty he could call Obama out to reveal himself.  When it comes time to put the cards on the table.  Mitt is better off to call then fold.  IMO

  6. Jean Bakula profile image98
    Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago

    Doesn't any Presidential candidate have to show a certain amount of tax returns anyway? Since Obama has been criticized for all these years to show his BC when people don't believe the truth anyway, I think Romney should show at least 5 years of tax returns. His reluctance to show his offshore accounts is suspicious. Yet nobody thinks this is Un Amercan? Odd.

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You can't play defensive politics. You will never get your message out about the issues that way.

      There are unfounded, misleading attacks on Romney all the time. If he releases, he will have to defend against all the new attacks(true or not) about his finances.

      It's just another distraction. The pro-Obama people are putting out anything they can get away with against Romney, and pulling back when the heat is too much.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image92
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Finally evening the playing field having learned that the high road goes nowhere but out of office.

        If you're going to pay against a dirty team you're gonna have to get down in the mud.
        What's the saying, turnabout is fair play?

        BTW, where is GOP presumptive nominee Romney on denouncing Michelle Bachmann's insanely racist call for investigation against Muslim Brotherhood infiltration?
        Seems to be an issue he'd want to weigh in on.
        Oh wait. The wind is just coming up on that.
        Hasn't yet changed direction to tell him where he stands on that.

      2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You can't play defensive politics. You will never get your message out about the issues that way.

        Really? from where I'm sitting the Repubs and Tea Party have done nothing but play defensive politics for the last four years. Can't remember any Repub politician or supporter during the last four years ever urging the electorate to think about the issues and not Obama's birth certificate.

    2. Dr Billy Kidd profile image92
      Dr Billy Kiddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, why isn't it un-American to hide secret corporations off-shore and then submit a partial 2010 tax return that tired to hide it? My guess Romney was working for Bain until 2008.

      I'd still like to know what records Obama is hiding. We've got flilms of him at Harvard. He won an election there and became president of the Harvard Law Review. You've have to have nearly striaght A's to get into that spot.

      1. Jean Bakula profile image98
        Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't know about Obama's grades in school, but he seems to be a disciplined person, I would venture a guess they were good. I have to agree with MM, since the R's have been slinging the mud about Obama being Muslim, pretending he doesn't know "American" customs, or that now he's the head of the Muslim Brotherhood, they better be prepared to get ridiculous accusations aimed at them. If you can't take it, you shouldn't dish it out in the first place. In defense of some Republicans out there, John McCain and Lindsey Grahmn have spoken out about mud slinging. Of course, it's after they had their turn slinging.

      2. Mighty Mom profile image92
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Because John Sununu defines who is and is not American in this country.
        Or didn't you get the memo, Dr. Billy Kidd and Jean Bakula?

        The former New Hampshire governor and White House chief of staff was speaking as a Mitt Romney surrogate.“This guy is not really one of us. He’s someone and something else.” Got it. Heard it. Sure we’ll hear it again and again. Birth certificates are no longer enough. From now on, one must pass the Sununu citizenship test.
        Sununu, who was born in Havana, Cuba, has looked at the president’s background and decided it doesn’t fit, all irony apparently lost amid the bluster.

        His guy Romney, whose father was born in Mexico, mostly stood back looking sheepish.

        This whole Muslim Brotherhood thing is yet another Koch-backed distraction aimed at painting in a slightly different but more subversive way Barack HUSSEIN Obama's non-American, un-American background.
        Do you think they are getting desperate?

        1. Dr Billy Kidd profile image92
          Dr Billy Kiddposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think there's a little desperation when Romney has to have his wife speak for him. This is the second time, her saying "We've shown you enough." I can't recall the issue in the primaries when she had to talk for him.

          That sure is weird about Sununu...born in Cuba by a Palestinian father and a Greek mother. And he's going to define what is American? Thank you for the irony.

          New Jersey thug Chris Christe is kicking off the Tampa convention ...guy makes Nixon look clean...again, a thug defining who should be qualified for president.

          1. habee profile image92
            habeeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Mitt needs to grow a pair...or two!

  7. Jean Bakula profile image98
    Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago

    I didn't realize Sununu was the God of the Democratic party, I haven't heard anything of him since the Clinton era. I live in NJ, don't even get me started about Chris Christie. He's environmentally ruined our state. Despite what people think, it's not all strip malls and highways, we have lots of greenery. It's just in danger of greedy developers who make deals with thugs like Christie. Dr. Kidd is right when she says he makes Nixon look clean, good one. I think the R's are desperate, let's face it, they don't like Romney, and now they are stuck. I've watched the few times his wife has spoken, and he stands there and gazes at her as though he really adores her--whether real or fake. Kind of like Nancy Reagan's "gaze." Romney has no personality, and if you listen to his statements, they never reveal any thoughts or opinions. I'd rather have four more years of Obama. He could have done more, and had more experience, but I do believe he is sincere and that he is trying. Bush got our country in this economic mess. And I'm sick of hearing R's clap at speeches where they hear that sick people or staving children won't be getting any more "handouts." They are beneath contempt. Is there no human decency left in that party?  Helping people who need it is not socialism.

  8. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    This is an interesting discussion.

    If Romney is guilty, or even a reasonable suspicion of any wrongdoing?  Why doesn't the omnipotent IRS investigate, they do have authority over these kinds of issues?

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I would hope that they should have reasonable cause to investigate and denying public demand for disclosure probably isn't in their arsenal. Basically the returns are already filed and accepted and taxes have been paid.

      Now in the slimy business of politics there is the phoniness of propriety that rules.  If he were so positive that nothing is wrong why would he not disclose more than two years?  Especially when the two years disclosed are taylored to fit a candidate seeking the presidency?  The phoniness of maybe slanted records are the ones offered and maybe there is more going back 7 or 10 years and especially the ones that Bain Capital come into question.

      His best bet is to ignore this and attack Obama with whatever distracts the media.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image93
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        True, like I posted earlier, if he is going to release them, he is better off waiting until it is mentioned in a debate.  In that way he can call out Obama as well.  It does not even matter if it is relevant, it will put the President on the defensive. The candidate that remains on offense usually wins.

        If the only evidence of wrongdoing on Romney's part is accusation, I think he holds the winning hand.  Too much lack of transparency vs promises made by the current Administration.

        In the grand scheme of things, it matters not to me who wins.

  9. readytoescape profile image60
    readytoescapeposted 4 years ago

    Seems to me that the “forcing” of the release of taxation documents is nothing more than a noisy fishing expedition, do you really care?

    We all know the people that are running for the office of the presidency are wealthy or at least well off.  This kind of garbage does nothing but offer fodder to be tainted and twisted by the campaigns to muddle decision making paradigms of the voting citizenry.

    What is unique about this particular presidential election, compared to many in the past is that the decision cannot be clearer. Either you support a system of government and an Administration that believes that the government is in place to serve its constituency or you want a government that rules its peoples and believes the citizenry is to serve government.

    The President’s statements the other day and the subsequent attempts to spin that statement into an acceptable notion clearly distinguish the difference between the two candidates.
    Do tax returns really matter? It appears to me they only matter to the Obama Supporters and staffers that are trying to distance the President’s statement into a fading and continually shallow voter memory before November.

    The problem is they know this one is going to stick, like nasty underwear to the wall.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      But is the difference between pro government and anti government ideals the problem?  I don't know as neither one has any specifics that are not muddy to say the least.  Both candidates have stated they want to shrink government but both have plans contrary to that ends.  Obama wants to expand the government through bigger buearocracy with healthcare and IRS facilitators with no cut in taxes available.  Romney wants a strong military with bigger weapons and troop numbers and says he can reduce taxes through this?  Romney wants the military escallation and continue the cuts to give the investors a high return while the taxpayer foots the bill.

      Both are stupid methods to carry any of this out.

      1. readytoescape profile image60
        readytoescapeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What most fail or refuse to comprehend with limited and lower taxation and regulation, is that it creates an atmosphere that induces consumer and business spending. When businesses invest in expansion they typically create more jobs. More jobs means more consumers and more taxpayers. More consumers means more business revenue and there by increased tax revenue.

        Imagine if the government taxation and regulations that drove manufacturing and other businesses overseas or limits business expansion were repealed. How much more spending would there be here in the US?  Government spending and increased taxes are not the answer to our economic woes, the answer is to re-cultivate American business on American soil and limit idiotic government spending.

        1. rhamson profile image76
          rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Your statement is one that is perveyed by popular economic theories that lower taxes spurs the manufacturers to hire people, grow the economy and keep jobs here in the US.  What I have a problem is that it overlooks the exorbitant profits modern business want to clear over their expenses to pay their stockholders and executive staffs.  You would probably retort that business is privately owned and therefore has a right to pay it's people what ever they deem pertinant.  I agree that to be the case except when they do it through squashing the wages of the local workforce and then expect unrestrained trade options to do it on a foreign workforce thereby making 200 to 300 times more than the average foreign worker they have employed.

          The thing is that no manufacturer will expand his workforce or incur more risk through hiring if they do not have the sales to support it. I am a business owner and I refuse to hire one more employee until the economy warrants it.  I am swamped with work now and it's not the taxes that worry me to not hire but it is the uncertain future even if Romney wins. If my employee taxes go up I will accordingly pass the increased cost onto the consumer as everybody does.  What is not fair is a foreign employer does not have the same obligation.

          1. readytoescape profile image60
            readytoescapeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Your last paragraph illustrates my point, take away or reduce taxation and regulation leveling the playing feild, and you're hiring and expanding. Now throw competition into the mix not only pricing for fair profit but for obtaining and keeping quality employees and you get good wages.

            1. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              One thing that you don't take into consideration with that is that we would be trading one standard of living for the lesser.  Is that how this should play out with the foreign wages dictating what should be the standard to base business on?  Because believe you me the CEOs' and owners of the business profiting from this will not take any less.  Why should they.  The unbalance is still a cart before the horse theory that always ends up the same, the US worker gets screwed.

            2. rhamson profile image76
              rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Your last paragraph illustrates my point, take away or reduce taxation and regulation leveling the playing feild, and you're hiring and expanding. Now throw competition into the mix not only pricing for fair profit but for obtaining and keeping quality employees and you get good wages.

              The other problem I have with your assertion that reducing taxation and regulation will level the playing field is that somehow manufacturing will increase and cheaper labor from overseas will help generate the job increase. Fair profit regulated by what? Pricing?  It is already a know fact that corporate management rapes companies through their extravagant salaries and bonuses let alone severence packages.  How will they get paid on a fair profit margin?  Nothing will level the playing field on an international basis unless the wages are the same for all whether they be Chinese workers or US workers.

  10. Reality Bytes profile image93
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    Both candidates will produce identical results.  Until this nation decides it is time to take on the subject of a sound currency, all else is merely distraction.  Continuing to accept debt as holding value is, well, insane.

    Wars cannot be fought, government cannot be expanded, if we stop our currency from being a counterfeit representation of wealth, with the ability to create it out of nothing.

  11. readytoescape profile image60
    readytoescapeposted 4 years ago

    You’re not seeing the entire picture and fixated on a perception of greed. The free market will set the price as it will set the labor standard. Another offset by bringing back manufacturing is a substantial reduction in cost overhead, consider just shipping and assembly. International shipping of whole unit or components would be eliminated, overseas management and infrastructure would be eliminated, redundant overseas work forces would be eliminated. All going to reducing cost and therefore price and still allowing for continued profit margins. Margins that may even be higher even with lower consumer pricing, given taxation, regulation and overhead are all reduced expenses.

    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So what you are saying is if the taxes to pay for the military, healthcare, government operations were reduced and that if the regulations to protect the enviornment, worker safety, product contamination etc...... would be lessened, it would be enough to compensate for wage differences and profit margins to therefore bring jobs back to the US? 

      This is too much of a stretch for anybody to buy as the system is already in place and the changes will always be countered to keep it the same.  The Chinese are major polluters and will be even more so to protect their position let alone the money shifting that would take place.  A real risk that no one wants to talk about is the services such as plane maintenance and military parts programs that are more and more reliant on far eastern companies.  We will and are already losing our grasp on how to make and maintain the technology being produced overseas.

      You are asking for a change comparable to a third party shift to align procedures in congress. The old guard is too entrenched and the confidence in the theory very skeptical.