jump to last post 1-21 of 21 discussions (198 posts)

When is Mitt Romney going to make public his tax returns?

  1. Credence2 profile image85
    Credence2posted 4 years ago

    In recent history, every presidential contender has had to show the American people that he or she conducts their affairs in an open and honest way. Mitt Romney is not the exception. His resistance to releasing these returns, as encouraged by many in his own party, creates a reason to believe that he is hiding something. Lack of transparency and disclosure is not to his advantage and augments a negative image that he needs to shake off. This is going to have an adverse affect on his campaign and will be scrutinized heavily by the democrats as part of the debate process. What could Romney be thinking?

    1. undermyhat profile image60
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I hope NEVER!  It is not a legal requirement, in fact it is only a custom and a silly one at that.  The mechanisms of the IRS are available to review Romney's tax returns at any time and I bet have already done so.  He made millions and so has Obama.  In America this is not a crime nor exactly unfair since Oprah has made more money that both of them, put together.

    2. Wayne Brown profile image85
      Wayne Brownposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think you mispoke a bit...no one has "had to show" anything.  What they did they did voluntarily and most of them did not release more than two years in terms of tax returns. Maybe while you are beating to drum to continue the distractions of this stuff you can request that Mr. Obama release his library card which is probably sequestered with the rest of the stuff that he has hidden away.  Obama, like it or not, has set the bar very high in terms  of cooperative transparency.  Anyone supplying anything will have exceeded his lack of forthcoming. WB

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Welcome to the brawl, Wayne.
        "Have to show" may not be legal , but it is a political imperative for Romney. I heard that the minimum was 5 years of returns. Our side is not going to let this matter just pass by, you can count on it.

        The Right started all of this nonsense with asking the president to prove that he went to college, was an American citizen and was not of the Muslim faith. I and others on the left considered that to have been a "distraction". So now that MItt is under the same, why is it different. Whats good for the goose........

        Right now the heat is on Romney not the President. Sorry Wayne, you and the politcal right are going to just have to eat it. So, Romney needs to come across with the goods and soon.

  2. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    He is hiding something, and from what I have read he will not be able to release them. And in the end it doesn't matter. Who you going to vote for -
    Humpty or Dumpty?

  3. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    I've heard rumors on the Intertoobs that ol' Mittens committed voter fraud by claiming residency in his son's unfinished basement, and that this voter fraud will be revealed by his tax returns, which clearly show residence elsewhere.

    I know it's just a rumor, but hey, if he has nothing to hide, why doesn't he just put this rumor to rest by releasing his tax returns?

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hello, PP, my point exactly, if he has nothing to hide.....

    2. undermyhat profile image60
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Do you mean Kenyan or the Cherokee Reservation?

  4. Mitch Alan profile image86
    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago

    Were you asked for your tax returns for your job interview? There is no law that says any elected official must produce them for public inspection. Are you asking the same of those members of Congress that are seeking re-election? He released his 2010 and 2011 returns, which show he paid OVER $3 million in federal taxes in 2011 alone.  But, I guess that's not enough, right?
    Maybe we should subscribe to the logic used by Pelosi as she promoted Obamacare - "You'll have to pass it to see what's in it..."
    Are you as outraged at the lack of transparency with the current administration? Fast & Furious? Obamacare?

    1. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I was being a bit sarcastic.  Remember the demands for Obama to produce a birth certificate to dispel doubts about his place of birth?

  5. Mitch Alan profile image86
    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago

    Were you asked for your tax returns for your job interview? There is no law that says any elected official must produce them for public inspection. Are you asking the same of those members of Congress that are seeking re-election? He released his 2010 and 2011 returns, which show he paid OVER $3 million in federal taxes in 2011 alone.  But, I guess that's not enough, right?
    Maybe we should subscribe to the logic used by Pelosi as she promoted Obamacare - "You'll have to pass it to see what's in it..."
    Are you as outraged at the lack of transparency with the current administration? Fast & Furious? Obamacare?

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No there is no law, but there is aSTRONG CUSTOM, and Romney better have a convincing argument as to why he deviates from it. You can rest assured that the Dems will beat him over the head for what appears to be subterfuge on his part.  You can say what you like about Obama but I have lived through the nonsense of the rightwing opposition asking prooof  for everythng including Obama Boy Scout merit badge. You say his birth certificate is fake, when it has been authenticated by the State of Hawaii, and let me tell you, chum, that is good enough for me. Yet, you want me to take the word of Thurston Howell and Lovie that they have played the game fairly and are above board, hardly! He had better deliver or pay the consequences which could prove to destroy his credibility with the voting public.

      I hear what you say about Romney's overpayment, so the question is what does he have to hide and NO, what has been forthcoming from him to date is not good enough!

    2. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, though I was not asked for my tax returns when I was hired, I am required to be current on my taxes in the state where I work, or I will lose my job.  So, yes, my taxes are reviewed as a condition of my employment.

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Your OK, prettypanther, my expectations for the one that desires to be king are somewhat higher than what I would expect from the average employee.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          wink

  6. knolyourself profile image61
    knolyourselfposted 4 years ago

    This touches a bit on it - the text.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/1 … 87777.html

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ok... Romney donated to charity, and that's a bad thing?

  7. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    Conservatives are usually all over voter fraud, which is a felony.

  8. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    This is why Romney doesn't want to release more taxes.

    1 - He probably lost a lot of money around 2008, and the left would use that as ammo against him.

    2 - The left already makes attacks on his wealth and economic history, even when their attacks are contradictory to economic theory.(it's just that most American's don't understand that).

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hey, Jaxon, I am sure that his tax returns were in order according to the IRS or there would have been trouble. But if his actual tax liability was less than that of middle class Americans percentage wise, would that not be cause to ask a question or two? Will his proposals to fix the economy primarely benifit him and his "blue bloods'? We all can garnish a great deal from the tax returns that he refuses to provide. He is going to get a beating either way on his present course, so he just as well come clean now. Because this ain't going away..

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Let's say that Romney lost $2 million in 08. The only thing the anti-Romney camp would say would be

        "ROMNEY PAID NO TAXES IN 2008!!!"

        No middle-class Americans pay a higher rate than Romney. None of them.

        I don't expect someone who didn't make any money in a year to pay taxes, but that's not what people will be saying about him. I honestly think, with the dishonesty on both sides of the aisle, that it would be worse for him to release than otherwise.

    2. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Aw, poor Mitt can't handle a little scrutiny and criticism.  Presidential material?

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It's not a matter of 'handling it'. It's a matter of what effect it will have on the voters. Elections are about getting elected.

        The media, a large population of voters, and the other side of the aisle isn't interested in having an honest discussion. They are interested in the sensational stories.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, I know, that's why so many conservatives also want Mitt to release his tax returns:

          20 Prominent Republicans Who Want Romney to Release More Tax Returns Right Now

          Besides, I don't consider a candidate's tax returns to be a "sensational story," certainly no more sensational than repeated demands for Obama to release his birth certificate.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Eh, with as much as was put out about him paying 15%, can't you imagine the news stories if he paid 0% one year?

            1. PrettyPanther profile image86
              PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So what?  He should be able to deal with it.  If he can't, then maybe he shouldn't be president.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Again, it's not about dealing with it. It's about the effect it will have on voters.

                If I can put up the SEC filing for GE on these forums, and people still contend that GE didn't pay any taxes, how is Romney going to explain his extremely complicated returns to voters who will just hear 'Romney doesn't pay his fair share'?

                If the voting base was more educated about finances, taxes, and economics, and if the voting base had the time to dissect that kind of information, it probably wouldn't hurt him at all to release them.

                But, that's not the world we live in. We have people like knol who apparently are criticizing him for donating money to charity.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Voters need to wise up, for sure.  Again, so what? 

                  There must be something extraordinary on those tax returns.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The best guess is that he sustained large losses, so he probably had a very low, or no tax liability at all.

                    The way it would be presented, would be as Mitt being a tax-evader, tax-looper.

              2. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Face it. There is little transparency in politics. Obama has broken a dozen promises about his own transparency... why just target Mitt?

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I'm targeting Mitt because Obama has been targeted.  Why just target Obama?  Besides, I don't consider asking a candidate to release his tax returns as has been customary in recent elections to be "targeting" him.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    See, that's the problem. The other people did it to my people.

                    Mitt released his tax returns, and got attacked for paying a higher rate than 98% of Americans. It simply wouldn't make sense to give Obamites a reason to put out headlines saying 'Mitt didn't pay taxes!'.

        2. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          This is a democracy, Jaxson, and what most voters think certainly does matter. What does the media and all that stuff rightwingers whine about have to do with this? If you have a whipping coming you just as well take it now and I will respect you a lot more later. What is there to discuss, release the tax data and the controversy goes away, it's Mitt's call.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The question is, will it cause more voters to not vote for him by releasing them, or not. There's no easy answer, either way he will take flak. It just seems they feel they would lose more voters by releasing them, due to what the media and Obama's camp would put out about them.

            The media matters. Everyone still believes that GE didn't pay taxes because of a stupid reporter at the NY Times. Everyone would believe Romney doesn't pay his fair share.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              You're absolutely right on this one, Jaxson.
              The people will believe whatever the MEDIA put out there again and again and again for them to believe.
              Hence there is STILL media coverage of Sheriff Joe and who knows what other BIRTHER buttheads out there crying about Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate.

              In the court of public opinion, it's not about being right or wrong.
              It's really about creating that SHADOW OF A DOUBT about the other guy.
              Once the doubt is cast, it's really, really hard to remove it.

              The phrase turnabout is fair play keeps coming to mind here. What's good for the goose (Obama) is good for the gander (Romney).
              And sorry to mix my bird metaphors, but can't resist.
              Gobble, gobble, Mitt.
              lol

      2. undermyhat profile image60
        undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I am trying to remember if Romney ever whined about people talking about his big ears?

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Did Obama?

          1. undermyhat profile image60
            undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this
            1. PrettyPanther profile image86
              PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Is that all you have?  roll

              1. undermyhat profile image60
                undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You asked I answered.

  9. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    For the record, I would like to see his returns. I'm just explaining the reasons his campaign has given for not doing so, and I understand them.

  10. Mitch Alan profile image86
    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago

    Credence2...No, we are not a democracy. We are a Rebuplic. We have a representative form of government. And, we have laws and a Constitution. None of which support a mandate to release tax forms. If there were illegalities on his returns, then the IRS would have been after him. What do you "want" to find on them?

    1. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ok, Mitch we are a republic. But the last time I checked the votes of the majority of the people(electoral college the glaring inconsistency) is what wins the day. I want him to make them available, he is not the exception to STRONG CUSTOM of disclosure of this information. Just put it out and let public opinion be the judge of whether it is appropriate or not. If he cannot handle tha,t perhaps he needs to just return to his country club If he does not his opposition will eat him alive!!

      1. Mitch Alan profile image86
        Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I don't think ANY candidate should have to share their tax returns...why should they? Other than the fact that for a few decades they have, why should they?

        1. Credence2 profile image85
          Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Great ,that is your opinion Mitch, but lets see how that plays in the court of public opinion, huh?

        2. Mighty Mom profile image90
          Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Other than the fact that for a few decades they have, I can think of no valid reason.
          But they have.
          And that is now precedent.

          1. 0
            SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            No, they've released current returns, which Romney did. He released 2010 and 2011. There is absolutely no precedent for releasing returns from years and years ago, and he shouldn't have to. I'd like to see Obama's tax returns from his "community organizer" days. Where are those? It amounts to the same request.

            1. Mighty Mom profile image90
              Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Not so.
              According to FactCheck.org, McCain is the first major-party presidential candidate since 1980 to release fewer than five tax returns. During that period, Republican Robert Dole set the high mark with 30 in 1996; the low was five released by Democrat Michael Dukakis in 1988.

            2. Credence2 profile image85
              Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              SS, Obama had been vetted in 2008, now it is Mitt's turn and he had better come through or there is going to be hell to pay. While the GOP die hards and Dem diehards already have their candidates selected, the independents and the undecideds who will tip this election one way or the other are not going to take kindly to Mitt's secretive nature regarding this matter add on to all his other faults. The Right sounds like cry babies, they can sure dish it out but they cant take it, well this time they are going take it or pay the consequence with the press, public opinion and a great deal of undecided voters.

              Mighty Mom is right, what Mitt is trying to get away with is unprecedented and he will be held accountable for it.

              1. AJReissig profile image85
                AJReissigposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Obama was NOT vetted in 2008....at least not by anyone who would listen.  This was THE media's candidate, and they were going to make sure that there was nothing that made him look bad.  And anytime anyone asked a qustion that might lead to an answer that would make Obama look bad (or even questionable), that person was accused of being a racist.  Not that John McCain was much better; I would consider him a "socialist lite", but he is still a big government guy at heart.

                Let's face it folks, the American people elected the biggest socialist since FDR, and we are paying the price for it.  Had it not been for the fight put up in Congress, we may very well be in the second Great Depression right now.

              2. 0
                SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                @Credence I don't know why. They've ignored President Obama's secretive nature for the last 3 1/2 years. And just exactly what makes you say he was vetted? by whom? The double standard cry babies are not the GOP. It was just horrible that people wanted to see Obama's birth certificate, but it's okay to want Romney's tax returns. Do you see the weirdness here? One is to verify that he was natural born, not really that far out there considering his father was a native of Kenya and then was out of the picture and one must be native born to be President.. One is just to ...what? See what he paid in taxes? Personally, I don't care if any of them release tax returns of any nature. If there was anything illegal in them then the IRS would have dealt with it by now.  All this "ooohhhh he only paid 15%" when the President only paid 20%. Wow. Big difference.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Sorry, it was the crybaby GOP who started with the birth certificate fiasco, a request that had not been made of any other president.  In contrast, releasing tax returns, while not required, has been a precedent followed in recent years by every major candidate. 

                  I personally don't believe that Mitt has to release his tax returns.  However, if he doesn't, he cannot complain about the negative coverage he will receive from the media, and the criticism he will receive from his fellow conservatives as well as others, without appearing to be a wimpy whiner incapable of dealing with the scrutiny that comes with being president.

                  1. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I haven't heard him once complain about it. I've only heard the Obama camp trying to imply there is something sinister about it. And you're wrong. No other Presidential candidate was asked to provide a birth certificate because no other candidate had a foreign born father, was educated in foreign schools as a child, lived abroad as a child (other than military bases), had another country claiming he was born there (they actually have what they call his "birthplace" as a monument in Kenya). You DO have to be natural born to be President. Given all those things going on it really is not beyond the pale to request a birth certificate. It isn't whining. It's called the law. In contrast, there is absolutely no law that says any candidate is required to release any tax returns. He's released 2010 and 2011. All this "concern" from the Obama camp about taxes paid when the First Lady is taking elaborate vacations on your dime in the middle of an economic crisis and not a word said from any of you. But I do remember an outcry about Bush and his golf outings, which he stopped during the war. No one has yet answered the question of what they think to find in these tax returns either.

  11. AJReissig profile image85
    AJReissigposted 4 years ago

    Let's be honest, the Democrat party will use the returns against him.  Whatever tax rate Mitt paid will be too low, and it will be claimed that he can't relate to the average citizen because of his wealth.  Personally, I don't much like Mitt; as far as I am concerned, he is just another East Coast liberal.  But he is a far, far better choice than Obama.  What botters me the most is we now like in a nation where Mitt is lambasted for his wealth and success.  To me it is something to be proud of.

    1. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's not that he is wealthy, we all know that, and there is nothing wrong with it but perhaps there is for leadership particularly at this time in history, so many people are doing it tough, people are out of work, struggling to make ends meet etc. perhaps it would be better to have a leader who has some sort of idea what that is like or at least knows someone who does... Otherwise we are looking at a leader with a complete disconnect to the plight of "his people" not that Obama is much better.

      People forget how terrible Crassus was as a leader.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image90
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And Bush Sr. didn't know how much a gallon of milk cost.

    2. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wealth is a bad thing... employers are bad people... it's stupid.

      People claim the middle class pays a higher rate than the rich, but it's just not true. The average American doesn't understand taxes(which is why they go to H&R Block to do their 1-page return).

      1. Mitch Alan profile image86
        Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The bottom half of wage earners pay little to no federal taxes at ALL...NONE!

        1. gmwilliams profile image86
          gmwilliamsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          This is true!

      2. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        "Wealth is a bad thing... employers are bad people... it's stupid."

        I haven't seen that argument here.  Where did you see it?

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Hyperbole.

          You yourself said he doesn't pay his fair share, but he pays more in dollars into federal taxes than 99% of Americans, and he pays more in % into federal taxes than 90% of Americans.

          Are the people who pay nothing paying their fair share?

          Are the people who get money back paying their fair share?

          It's a ridiculous argument, and your viewpoint is exactly what I'm talking about.

          1. Mighty Mom profile image90
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I for one am not saying he didn't pay his fair share.
            I assume someone with Romney's wealth manipulates his tax liability.
            It's not my place to say what his "fair share" is. If the IRS was satisfied, then that's that.
            But if the IRS was satisfied then there should be no issue with releasing the records.
            They speak for themselves, do they not?
            roll

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              If he didn't pay his fair share, the IRS would have come after him. It's not up to taxpayers to audit tax returns.

              I already explained the reasons, and so did Romney. Nobody can honestly say that if Romney didn't pay taxes in 08, that nobody would make a big deal out of it. They would. His returns would probably dominate the news for a month.

              It's not an issue that relates directly to the presidency. Romney is trying to focus on Obama's record, on the economy. Everyone on the left is pushing the focus away from that to less important things.

              But clearly, Romney's tax returns, which are already under the authority of the IRS to audit, are more important than double-digit unemployment and slowing growth in the economy.

              It's just a distraction game.

          2. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Did I say that?  Please show me where I said that.

            I have not personally commented on whether or not I believe Poor Mitt is paying his fair share.  All I'm saying is, if he can't stand the scrutiny that comes with being a presidential candidate, including continuing a recent precedent of releasing his tax returns, then he's pretty wimpy and probably not cut out to be President of the United States.

            1. 0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, when you said most people don't think he pays his fair share, I thought you were speaking about yourself as well.

              I don't think, as I've said before, that he can't take the scrutiny. I think it's simply a matter of 'what will damage my campaign more?'.

            2. Mitch Alan profile image86
              Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, because Obama has been so forthcoming...(sarcasm)

      3. AJReissig profile image85
        AJReissigposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree.  Most have no idea how to take advantage of the tax deductions they are eligable for, and then moan about how much lower a rate others pay because they do take advantage of the deductions.

  12. MountainManJake profile image88
    MountainManJakeposted 4 years ago

    Why should he have to?  Where was Obama's birth certificate when he was running?

  13. Xenonlit profile image60
    Xenonlitposted 4 years ago

    He will give up his tax returns when he has nothing to hide...which will be never.

  14. 0
    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago

    Why does he have to? His tax returns have as much to do with what kind of President he'd make as say, I don't know, perhaps President Obama's college records, which are sealed. Mitt Romney will become transparent when our President feels the need to do the same.

  15. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    Several Republicans are calling for Romney to release his tax records.

    That sign in Kenya is for Barack Obama Senior...

    The First Lady does not take elaborate vacations paid for by tax payers, unless you consider Secret Service Protection.

    So much of this stuff is easily found out by actually doing some research.

    1. 0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No, I would not count Secret Service. All families of President's need that. But, here you go, 17 day trip to Hawaii, and then, weeks later, Aspen trip with the girls.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … Aspen.html

      Yes, she IS taking vacations on our dime. And not just one or two. It's just fact. What job does she have? How do you think these vacations are being paid for? Like I said, if it was one or two, whatever. But it isn't.

      I wasn't even implying it was true (as far as the sign in Kenya and such) only saying that with all that going on, it was not an unreasonable request. Everyone likes to call everyone "cry babies" , most times something worse, for requesting it.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If you care about what is true or not, you can find out who paid for those vacations, and it wasn't the taxpayers.  Secret service and other protection excluded, of course.

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I know what both sides are saying, and I'm going with somewhere in the middle. Just because a left wing source says "this" and a right wing source says "that", it doesn't make the left wing source the truth, which is what you are implying. It also doesn't make the right wing source the truth. I question any source when information is denied, like the request for exactly how many civilians take a trip (Spain), one side claims they paid all their own expenses, another says they did not pay any of their own expenses, so I'm guessing they paid some, and we paid some.

          All that aside, let's say you're right. We're only footing the bill for Secret Service costs, oh and let's not forget the Air Force costs, do they really need ALL these vacations? Because, in the end, we're still footing the bill, and the average American right now can't afford to go out to the local river for a dip.

          "Last year the Obama's Christmas trip to Hawaii cost more than $1 million.

          He covered the cost of his family's accommodation, but the rest was covered by the taxpayers.

          The bill to house Secret Service agents and Navy Seals in beach front accommodation stretched to $16,800.

          A further hotel bill of $134,400 covered 24 White House staff staying in the Moana Hotel at a rate of $400 a day.

          The estimate, by the Hawaii Reporter, also included $250,000 for local police overtime, $1 million for the president's own round trip flight to Hawaii on Air Force One, and $10,000 for a local ambulance to accompany the presidential motorcade.

          ‘It is great to be home, great to feel that Aloha spirit,’ he said.

          It follows an 11-day stay in Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, earlier this year, which is also believed to have cost the U.S. taxpayer millions."

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I don't complain about vacations taken by the families of Presidents, regardless of who is in office.  I consider it to be small payment for the sacrifice their husbands and fathers are making by serving in the highest office of the land.

            I believe those who complain about it are being petty.

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Within reason, I'd agree. One or two, I'd agree. Different economic times, I'd agree. This is beyond the pale however.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Do you have evidence that her vacations are excessive compared to other presidents' families, or is it just your impression?

                1. Credence2 profile image85
                  Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  My problem with the right is that there is no real objective evidence to make or prove their point, If the Obama's vacations are excessive what is that relative to?
                  They are desparate and will do wihatever it takes to discredit Mr.Obama, even if it means egg on their own faces. You are correct concerning why the president's policies have not been more successsful "GOP Obstructionism. We need to keep Obama in his job and get rid of the rabid rightwing congress and perhaps then we can get some things done.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yeah, maybe if we get rid of the right-wing congress and keep Obama, he can finally get that tiny tax-cut for corporations that will create a million jobs!

                  2. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Really? You mean like all that we got done the first 2 years of Obama's term? That kind of "get things done"? Sorry, they had their chance, they did nothing but make it worse and give us a Health Care Law that is mostly about fees and taxes, not Health Care.

                    As for the vacations, the ones that the President actually takes himself are on a level with other Presidents. However, other President's wives and families, did not take separate and excessive vacations like the current First Lady has done.

  16. PrettyPanther profile image86
    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago

    I included a few quotes below.  Full quotes for all 20 are included here:  20 Prominent Republicans Who Want Romney to Release More Tax Returns Right Now

    1. George Will, a long-time conservative commentator and Washington Post columnist

    2. Bill Kristol. “Here’s what he should do,” said Kristol, another conservative commentator, on Fox News. “He should release the tax returns tomorrow. This is crazy… you’ve got to release 6, 8, 10 years of back tax returns. Take the hit for a day or two. Then give a serious speech on Thursday.”

    3. Ron Paul

    4. Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley.

    5. Michael Steele, former chair of the Republican National Committee

    6. Rep. Walter Jones, Republican Congressman from North Carolina

    7. Ana Navarro, the former adviser to John McCain

    8. Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) leads the National Republican Congressional Committee, and even he called Romney’s tax returns “fair game” and a “legitimate question.” In an interview with CNN, Sessions said that “[Romney's] personal finances, the way he does things, his record, are fair game.”

    9. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour.

    10. Matthew Dowd. This conservative commentator called it “arrogance” that Romney was not releasing his returns. Joining forced with Bill Kristol, Dowd spoke candidly about his doubts around Romney’s tax returns: “There is obviously something because if there was nothing there he would say have it…But I think the bigger thing is, it’s arrogance. Many of these politicians think I can do this, I can get away with this.”

    11. Rick Tyler, Republican strategist and former adviser to Newt Gingrich’s campaign

    12. John Weaver. This Republican strategist had a straightforward message that got picked up as a quote-of-the day. In regard to Romney releasing his returns, he said, “There is no whining in politics. …Stop demanding an apology, release your tax returns.”

    13. Brit Hume, conservative Fox News commentator

    14. Conservative journalist David Frum.

    15. John Feehery, Republican strategist

    16. Texas Gov. Rick Perry Texas

    17. Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley

    18. Sen. Dick Lugar

    19. Wayne MacDonald, chair of the New Hampshire GOP

    20. Mike Murphy, long-time GOP consultant and former Romney employee

    1. 0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So what is the point? That he should kowtow to these other GOP members? Sorry, once again, you've got your parties mixed up. The GOP does not suffer from "idol worship" syndrome or the need to bow to the wishes of someone just because they are a fellow member of the GOP. Those traits are for the Dems.

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Like I said, I don't believe Poor Mitt has to release his tax returns, but if he doesn't then he should stop whining about speculation about what might be in them.

        "There is no whining in politics. Stop demanding an apology, release your tax returns."

        -- GOP strategist John Weaver, quoted by the AP, calling on Mitt Romney to disclose his tax returns.

        1. 0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh great twisting of words!

          He was not requesting an apology for requesting the returns. It was for implying he was a felon. Major difference there. If Romney tried to imply the President was a possible felon, because he DID lie about ever using another name (he was adopted by his step-father and registered as Barry Sorenteno in school) and he told that same lie to the powers that be, it's a felony) there would be an outcry and you know it. But everything's okay when the Obama camp does it.
          He was not demanding anything in regards to his tax returns. It was the possible felon remark he demanded an apology for.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            "He was not requesting an apology for requesting the returns. It was for implying he was a felon."

            Duh, we know all that.  So?

            1. 0
              SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              So let me get this straight, he demands an apology for someone implying he's a felon with no proof, and you consider that whining?
              Obviously we've gone from "innocent until proven guilty" to "prove you're innocent or you're guilty" or does that only apply to GOP candidates?
              He was accused of being a criminal. I do not consider it whining to demand an apology for that and honestly, if it were me, I'd probably refuse to release them at that point even if I had been considering it. Just on principle. Back in the day, making such a claim with no proof was called "slander".

              1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                LOL, you're so funny.  No, if you care about accuracy, he was not actually accused of being a felon.  But, based upon what I've seen here, you don't really care about that.  You just care about Poor Ol' Mitt appearing to be a victim of the big, bad liberals.

                LOL

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  SassySue reminds me of Ladylove.

    2. Credence2 profile image85
      Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hey, Pretty Panther, you rock, lets give them what for. I am glad that you dropped by.

      Banner Headline London Times:  MITT IS A TWIT!

      1. PrettyPanther profile image86
        PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        http://obamadiary.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/article-2179630-143c5ca2000005dc-69_306x417.jpg?w=655

  17. 0
    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago

    "Axelrod: We Never Called Romney A Felon, Just Said He Might Have Committed A Felony"
    Um...yeah...really?
    Now you're downright hysterical.
    "he may have committed a felony" is "he's a possible felon"
    You can't commit a felony, and not be a felon.
    And I never said they called him a felon, I said they implied he was a felon. Which is exactly what they did. "he may have committed a felony" is implying he is a felon.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Again, so what?  Whiny Mitt can't handle it?  Can he handle being President?  Based on his performance during the last few days abroad, plus his apparent inability to deal with politics as usual, I'd say NO.

      We could argue semantics, but does it really matter?

      1. 0
        SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Oh the London remarks. Well Mr. "I believe in accuracy" did you read the remarks in full? Or are you just going by the headlines? I read what he said. He talked about a threatened strike, about the security saying they were understaffed and said these things were "disconcerting". At no point did he say they couldn't handle it, only that those things were a concern. Could he have worded it better? Yep. And what are you referring to about the politics? Obama just seals everything and refuses to comment, or claims Executive Privilege. But because Mitt won't release his tax returns, and wants an apology for implying he's a criminal he can't take the scrutiny? Really? LMAO! Careful, you're double standard is showing.

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Was it wise of Mitt to criticize the country that was hosting him?  NO.  Was it wise to  broadcast that he met with MI6?  NO.  He is now a laughingstock in Britain; they are saying he is worse than Sarah Palin.  It doesn't matter whether or not what he said was accurate (and that is debatable); it matters that he was stupid enough to say it.  It also matters greatly how he comports himself while visiting other countries.

          1. 0
            SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            PP Once again, READ IT! He did not ever criticize them. That is how the "media" brainwashes you. I read the entire thing. Nowhere did he say they couldn't handle it. Yes, he should have said it differently but he never said "they can't handle it" . He mentioned some things going on that were a concern and the media took it, distorted it, and ran with it. It's one country, one visit, and he misspoke. I guess he should have bowed down like Obama on his trips. Oh wait! I'm sorry! Obama does NO wrong! I will say...nice way to dodge the secrecy of this President that vowed to have a "transparent" government and just ignore that part.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image86
              PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Sure, I read it.  It is not up to me to say whether it was offensive.  The fact is, the British found it offensive.  That, combined with other missteps, has resulted in Poor Ol' Mitt becoming a laughingstock during his oversees visit.

              1. 0
                SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I've asked before from someone else, didn't get an answer then either, what other missteps? Please elaborate.
                Quite frankly, it's just another dodge on the real issue of concern right now. Economy and jobs. Obama has failed miserably on both and anything that can detract attention from that is what the Obama camp focuses on.
                "You don't have a job? You've been unemployed for over a year?" Oh, wait....look at that Mitt! Isn't he funny?"
                That's the tactic.

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Telegraph commentary:   "Mitt Romney is perhaps the only politician who could start a trip that was supposed to be a charm offensive by being utterly devoid of charm and mildly offensive."

                  "Charles Krauthammer, the right-wing commentator who usually finds every excuse to attack Barack Obama—he took Obama’s blinking during a tête-à-tête with Vladimir Putin as a sign of appeasement—pronounced himself befuddled by the GOP candidate’s flare of incompetence.

                  These sorts of trips, Krauthammer said on Fox News Thursday night, are easy. You express solidarity with the allies, listen, nod your head, and say nice things or nothing at all. Instead, Romney questioned his hosts’ ability to run the Olympics, raised doubts about Londoners’ community spirit, and violated protocol by publicly mentioning a meeting with the head of MI-6. “It’s unbelievable, it’s beyond human understanding, it’s incomprehensible,” Krauthammer, normally a paragon of self-confidence, sputtered. “I’m out of adjectives … I don’t get it.”

                  1. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    PP That's the same one. You said "other" missteps.

                2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes you did. Go read the thread, or read a paper.

  18. 0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Obama's camp can't do anything wrong. Seriously, suggesting that your opponent might be a felon with no proof is really way outside what you should expect from the presidential team. Romney wasn't whining, he was asking the POTUS to act like a grown up.

    It's hilarious to watch. Obama(yeah, it wasn't Obama, but it was his camp, and libs are constantly calling on Romney to call out every Republican for any slightings of the POTUS) says Romney might be a felon with no proof. Romney says he should apologize and stick to the topics. Libs say Romney is the loser in that scenario, lol.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image86
      PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Like I keep saying, the GOP can dish it out but they cannot take it.  I for one am happy to see the Obama campaign fighting back.  The GOP had top-tier presidential candidates implying that Obama is not a natural born citizen and demanding to see proof that he is; now they're whining because they're being treated likewise.

      What a joke.

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Romney has been focusing on the economy. Why do you say 'well some GOP people in the past have treated Obama poorly, so why can Romney dish it but not take it?'

        Romney is only dishing out attacks about the economy, which sucks btw. He's not whining, he just asked for an apology, because the POTUS should act better than that.

        "Well, I know we have tens of millions of unemployed people, and it's not getting any better... but, but... look at Romney. Maybe he's a felon! Maybe he kicks kittens when nobody is looking!"

        Who is behaving immaturely? The one who is sticking to the facts, or the one who is just making stuff up?

        Remember when everyone was calling on Romney to 'call out' every single Republican for any remarks about Obama? Why aren't they calling on Obama to 'call out' his own staff for baselessly suggesting Romney could be a felon?

        1. PrettyPanther profile image86
          PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If the Romney campaign is not capable of keeping the political conversation focused to their advantage, then they have only themselves to blame.  Politics is a game; we all know it.  Stop trying to make it sound like Romney is more "noble" for wanting to focus on the economy when it's all just a game to see who can drive the media coverage the best.  Right now, Romney and his folks are losing and whining about it.

          1. 0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Lol, no double standards there.

            You make it sound like Romney is just sitting there going 'He should apologize, it's not fair, boo-hoo'. How many times did Romney mention it?

            If you're ok with the POTUS focusing on tabloid-quality conjecture, rather than, oh, I don't know... the United States of America, then I don't know what to say to you. I'm glad to see a candidate sticking to the issues, rather than personal attacks.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image86
              PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, I am not okay with it, but that is how it works these days and if you don't play the game you lose.  I can guarantee you if Romney can find some distraction that works to his advantage he will run with it. 

              But you know that, don't you?  Lil' Susie is already trying it with Michelle's vacations, which she undoubtedly found out from some conservative TV show, radio show, or website.  If you're going to play the game, you can't complain when the other side plays it better.

              1. 0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Romney isn't playing that game, but you are criticizing him for asking the POTUS to act maturely as well.

                If you're not ok with it, why aren't you criticizing Obama instead of Romney? You just keep switching to how 'other GOPers' are or have been playing the game.

                There is no logic there. You don't like it, but you criticize the one person who isn't doing it...

                1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                  PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If you think that Romney is not playing the political game, then you are seriously naive.  He is just playing it very, very poorly.  His campaign is a mess and he is a terrible candidate.  If he wants to win, he and his campaign staff had better get their act together.

                  Maybe, just maybe, his attempts to blame the economy on Obama aren't working because enough people don't buy it because they've been paying attention. 

                  Maybe, just maybe, enough people see the GOP congress as obstructionist and intent on blocking Obama at every turn, which is why it's hard to make the blame "stick" to Obama.

                  Maybe, just maybe, some people are smarter than you think, and can see through Romney's fake concern for the middle class.

                  Maybe.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No matter who you think is at fault for the economy, at least Romney is sticking to it. He's not suggesting Obama might be a felon, or a muslim, or a racist, or a Rev. Wrightest.

                    As for how well he's doing... he's been climbing in the polls all year, where Obama has been falling. Time will tell how effective his campaign is.

                    And maybe, just maybe, Americans are starting to realize that government spending isn't the answer to our problems.

                  2. 0
                    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    And maybe people are smarter than YOU think PP. Perhaps, they've taken those blinders off and realize the blame game doesn't float when you had 2 years where you could do whatever you wanted.

                    Just here in PA, where Obama led by over 10 pts, he is now down to a 5 pt lead. Down 2 pts in Wisconsin. 10 key states have a virtual dead heat or Romney leading. That is only counting swing states, not the states they figure to go one way or the other definitively. All that while Romney is being a horrible candidate and running a terrible campaign.

                2. Mighty Mom profile image90
                  Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  The one person who isn't doing it? Really???

                  All the king's horses and all the king's men count in the blitzkreig offensive.
                  That includes the millions and millions of dollars being spent on attack ads in swing states by super PACS on behalf of Romney.
                  Don't tell me Romney's "not doing it."

                  If he wants the focus to be on the US economy, then he should not be traipsing around Europe implying that he knows more about putting on the olympic than his hosts.
                  If he wants to talk about the economy, I can think of a few other countries in that continent (Greece, Spain come to mind) who might love to talk about that.

                  1. 0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The economy isn't the only issue. It's just the most important issue.

                    Romney isn't in charge of PACs. I'm talking about him and his team, vs. Obama and his team. Obama's team baselessly claimed that Romney was either a liar or a felon. They were wrong. They didn't apologize. Nobody called on Obama to 'speak out' against his advisors for doing so.

                    It was defamation, pure and simple.

                  2. undermyhat profile image60
                    undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I think you are just angry because he beat Obama to the narcissistic punch, so to speak.  Barrack Obama isn't he an expert in every thing - just ask his teleprompter.

              2. 0
                SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                PP, those vacations are real, and the tax dollars they are costing us are real. Even if they are only Air Force expenditures and Secret Service fees, hey, I was generous and gave you that, even though we both know that isn't the whole truth. Do they really need all those 2,3,4 week vacations? How many vacations did you get this year? Either way, the taxpayers are footing the bill for all those vacations to some extent, during an economic downturn where the average citizen can't even afford to drive downtown.  And it was only mentioned to prove your double standard and complete blindness where Obama is concerned.

    2. Mitch Alan profile image86
      Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Jaxon, That's because Obama doesn't have a record to run on...

      1. 0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly. He has to try to distract people from the fact that we have double-digit unemployment, and it's not getting any better. Unemployment will probably tick up with the next report, so we'll see even more distraction.

        1. Mitch Alan profile image86
          Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Higher taxes, higher unemployment, higher fuel prices, from AAA to AA rating, Larger federal government, Drones, Porous borders, Push for Amnesty, Lower work participation etc etc etc....

  19. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    1. Re felon remark by Obama team. Either Romney is lying to the American people about the date he left Bain or he lied on his SEC filings.
    Answer: He lied to the people. He is a liar, not a felon.
    Bottom line: He tried to play it both ways on his Bain job creation record. And he got outed.

    2. Re: London gaffes. If you saw the news footage of Romney being interviewed by Brian Williams, who really gave him a "softball" question, you couldn't help but wince. It was awkward and I even felt bad watching Romney stick his foot in his mouth.

    Here's a hint, Mitt: Just because you THINKI it doesn't mean you should SAY it.
    But finding things about the Olympics preparedness "disconcerting"  was just one gaffe.
    He also mangled titles of London leades. He broke protocol by admitting to meeting with MI6. He had a photo opp with Tony Blair. Even his awkward comments about his own horse being in the Olympics were lame.
    He looked like a buffoon.
    England is our ALLY and this should have been a cakewalk. He blew it.

    3. Re: We should ONLY be focusing on the economy. That's the ONLY issue that matters. Ok. If you believe that, please explain exactly what part of Romney's visits to London, Poland and Israel have diddly to do with the US economy?
    roll

  20. Mitch Alan profile image86
    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago

    Leaving active day to day control while maintaining some ownership is quite common. He took a leave of absence to head up the Olympics. Later he decided to leave permanently and the date goes retroactive to the begining of his leave of absence. This is also quite common. That is why there appears to be two dates.
    And, his comments about the Olympic preparedness was coming from someone who has "been there, done that" and in reference to a question he was asked...should he have not answered the question honestly?

    1. 0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It doesn't matter if a former chairman of the SEC said that there was no discrepancy. People will continue to say that Romney either lied or committed a felony, leaving out the awkward-for-them third choice of 'he told the truth and committed no crime'.

      1. Credence2 profile image85
        Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        At this rate, Mitt Romney, just being Mitt Romney is the all the tool the Obama campaign will need to defeat Mitt Romney next fall .

        Who ever is handling him need to reassert his or her grip and do it fast before he 'screws the pooch'  the next time

        Like I promised Jaxson, we of the progressive persuasion is going to put the heat on Romney over this tax return issue thing until only his family and some members of the rabid right will be comfortable voting for him

        1. 0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You do that. While unemployment ticks up, and tens  of millions of Americans continue to be jobless, you keep focusing on Romney's tax returns.

          Really, it's pretty much stupid to demand the returns of any candidate. Are you worried they cheated? The IRS will take care of that.

          The left wants his returns so they can point to his tax rate during the financial crisis.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image86
            PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Just curious, why does the right want his returns?

            1. undermyhat profile image60
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              They don't.  You cited 20 people many of whom are either squishy, RINO cowards like Freenery, Frum and Murphy or loser's and their supporters like Krystal and Lugar.  There are 55 million registered Republicans and you found 20.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Oh, I get it.  Sort of like when we hear "but he's not a true Christian" whenever a Christian does something that makes other Christians squirm.

                I don't know, if you spend your life saying you're a conservative, are registered as a Republican, and make a living cheerleading for Republicans, then maybe you're a Republican.  roll

                1. Mitch Alan profile image86
                  Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You can be a Republican without being a Conservative...many fall into that category...That's why McCain didn't get my vote. I vote policy and ideals, not party line.
                  If I call myself a turnip it does not make me a turnip any more than calling myself a Christian makes me a Christian. Being a Christian or a Conservative has to to with beliefs, not titles.

                  1. undermyhat profile image60
                    undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    There are people who claim the conservative label because they understand that it beings money and votes.  Arlen Spector was such a person but when things got rough he flipped parties.

                  2. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Undermyhat called them RINOs, Republican in Name Only.  Like I said, if they make their living as Republicans or cheerleading for Republicans, then they're probably Republicans.

                2. undermyhat profile image60
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  And as "conservatives"  their opinion matters?  Aren't they crazy, racist, morons?  Seems like the IRS would have pointed out to the Justice Department if an actual problem exists with Romney's tax returns.

              2. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Those 20 are pretty prominent representatives of GOP thought and ideology.

                If I were Romney, I would see their concern as a red flag or a shot across the bow as it were. Those 20 could represent many more that are trying to get Romney to avert a political faut pas having far greater implication  for his candidacy then his screw up in London this week.

          2. Credence2 profile image85
            Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Every candidate for the office has put them forward don't you think that suspicion is justifiable in Romney's case that NOW, this tradition is a problem?
            It is the responsiblity of Romney handlers to take the information that he is afraid to reveal and make it palatable for the voters, concealing it outright just aint gonna work. There is no wiggling out of and with his batting average there is no one to save him.  You can say that it is stupid but your making that revelation for the first time to help Romney save his hide is obvious. If he operated within the la,w OK. But there is a question as to the possibility of why wealthy people pay less,  capital gains over standard income ( the elephant in the room)Maybe instead of running from the question he would do better in attempting to explain it, I would respect him more, even if I disagree with him. This hiding behind momma's skirts thing does not cut it.

            You have explained why he is reluctant, but that is not good enough for either me or the independents and undecideds out there that will determine the outcome of the contest next fall. I want to know what rate of taxation that applies to him, is that unreasonable given the fact that he is out to screw the middle class in favor of his plutocrats. Let us see where he is and what his explanation will be.

            If you got nothing to hide, you should have nothing to fear. He will be held accountable if he continues on this course, that is as certain as the sunrise..

            1. undermyhat profile image60
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I fully support the demotion of Pluto - Plutocrats arise all you have to lose is your planetary designation.
              http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/25/scien … .html?_r=1

            2. Mitch Alan profile image86
              Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              "If you've got nothing to hide..."
              So, do you believe the use of drones across the US "just to see" is ok?
              What about searching your house without a proper warrant?
              I submit that NO candidate should have to turn them over, regardless of the side of the isle they reside.

              1. Credence2 profile image85
                Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Cmon, Mitch, you know what I am talking about...
                No, he does not have to turn them over, but there are consequences for that in regards to pulblic opinion, the press and the independent voter. If Romney want to risk an adverse response by these, FULL SPEED AHEAD, it is, as you say, his call

                1. undermyhat profile image60
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I wonder what those will be - if they are actually damaging to Romney shouldn't Democrats cheer Romeny's intransigence?  It doesn't seem to be working.  Just like the Bain Capital silliness it is falling flat.

                  To paraphrase Bill Clinton, no personal attack ever got a man a job.

                  1. Credence2 profile image85
                    Credence2posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Is it a personal attack to call out a man who is hiding something and when he is being asked for something that has been provided by every other presidential contender in recent history , regardless of whether you approve?
                    I say to the MITTWIT, COME CLEAN OR DIE!

  21. Hollie Thomas profile image61
    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago

    @ undermyhat.

    That's because they are the Muldivas, or should be. Britain has no right to those Islands, and it was Maggie that sent the Brits to die there, while her bedfellow Pinochet committed numerous atrocities in his own country. She also needed the political capital, she was about to lose an election.

    1. undermyhat profile image60
      undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That would be Malvinas( you are in good company Obama got that wrong, too) and Britain's claim has always been more legitimate than Argentina's since Britain had developed the formerly unpopulated islands 250 miles from Argentina and populated them with subjects of her Britanic Majesty since 1833 - sounds like it is British to me.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Apologies for my sloppy typos. Yes, otherwise known as colonialism. The British were good at that, doesn't make it legitimate, though.

        1. undermyhat profile image60
          undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          NOR illegitimate - the Islands were uninhabited - hardly an Imperialistic conquest.  But that is okay some reasons are total insufficient to change the mind of those who are certain that an evil has been committed.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image61
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Not evil, when did I say evil? You presume too much.  Nor did I state that the acquisition of the Malvinas was some glorious conquest. My point, which you have clearly missed, was the allocation of the rights of lands, occupied or not- even those yet to be discovered by European explorers, to the British. If, as you suggest, this type of acquisition is legitimate, then you would still be a British subject.

            1. undermyhat profile image60
              undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this



              The Falklands were UNINHABITED.  The Americas were not.  The political reasons for disolving the relationship between Britain and its 13 American colonies were clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence and a war for that independence fought and won by American colonists.

              There were no colonists in the Falklands and no independence movement.  Instead the Argentine government, needing its own distraction, invaded an island chain it had never ever populated or colonized and that was beyond the 200 international limit.

              But it is as you wish for it to be.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Didn't the Argentinians lay claim to the Malvinas, which at that time was a Spanish territory, when they gained independence from Spain?  And didn't Britain later evict the Argentinians and claim the islands to be their territory?

                Edited to add:  Does it really matter in the context of this discussion?  lol

                1. undermyhat profile image60
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  1833 British colonies already existed on an uninhabited island chain.  In 150 years the Brits developed and populated it.  One can claim anything, posessing is an entirely different idea.  Britain's claim predates Argentine independence by 130 years.  British colonization started with recognition by the Argentine government and the first colonists acknowledged British control of the Flaklands.

                2. undermyhat profile image60
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  reporting everything unrelated to a forum topic would put an end to virtually all forum discussions since they seem to be wide ranging and diverse.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image86
                    PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    True dat.  wink

              2. Hollie Thomas profile image61
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Did I add occupied or not? So, colonization and laying claim to lands that you may or may not have discovered yet is fine, just as long as they are uninhabited. And the justification for British rule of Las Malvinas lies in 16th century imperialism. Interesting analysis. As an aside, and putting your "they were uninhabited" argument to one side too. There are some historians, who believe, and after extensive research, that Las Malvinas were discovered in 1500, by the Portuguese, quite a while before the Brits laid claim to the Islands. Still,  if they hadn't settled there.....

                1. undermyhat profile image60
                  undermyhatposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Putting it on a map and claiming it are two different things, 1630 is 17th century - to pick the nit.  The British claim and development began and lasted beyond all other efforts to colonize, populate and develop an archeopelrgo of rocky islands that are suited for sheep and Scotsmen( Look at Skye - just a light hearted poke)

                  Only 250 miles from Argentina, few efforts and no successful efforts to develop them were undertaken by Argentina.  The successful efforts all depended on the British.

 
working