I am astonished that people have put aside Mitt Romney's campaign simply because he had a better delivery style than Obama during the debate.
Maybe he's hiding the same thing that the President has hidden in his college transcripts! What could it be?
I'm more worried about Romney's flip flopping and misinformation than anything else. During the debate, Romney tells that our healthcare system was the best in the world when we actually rank #37! He's not getting my vote either way. Besides, I don't vote for Republicans.
Put it this way,
At least Romney had a style.
And his taxes? Again?
Even Satan has style. It doesn't change the fact that he's Satan.
If the President can't function without a teleprompter that does not make Mitt Romney Satan.
The man shouldn't need such a crutch and should be able to articulate his positions without anything at all but his mind.
No one is concerned about the mythological tax issue anymore.
They are concerned about a President who thinks the position is rhetorical.
Me, too. The time and format limitations don't permit thorough, honest debates. But they seem to influence some voters. In my opinion they are about as relevant for determining presidential qualifications as arm wrestling or a golf game.
He's hiding the real lyrics to Stairway to heaven! They cannot fall into the wrong hands.
Because of the 24/7 news cycle, we are bombarded with so much information that our short term memory is saturated with so much B.S. we can only recall from the last 24 hours. The right wing propaganda machine is relying on this to mask the real issues. They don't want you to think about his tax situation and for the most part, it works.
What's he hiding? Most likely nothing out of the ordinary for anyone with that kind of income.
Why have people quit asking? Because if he isn't filing fraudulent tax returns they don't care, and there's no indication that he is. Unless, of course, you are swayed by innuendos that there simply MUST be something there because the speaker doesn't like Romney in the first place...
The media desperately wants this to be a close race because they think it's better for their ratings. Hence, one debate has suddenly become a "game changer" when, if you really look at the polling and the numbers, that just isn't true.
Re Mitt's taxes, it must be pretty bad or he would have shared his tax returns by now. Perhaps he was one of those who took advantage of the 2009 Swiss bank account amnesty.
Do you think this is the same reason Obama will not be truthful concerning his status while attending college? Did he represent himself as a foreign exchange student to acquire financial assistance? This would probably be more revealing of a man's character than information contained on a tax return.
Obama does not need to release his college transcripts any more than Romney is obligated to reveal his tax returns. Do you give the president a pass while holding Mitt accountable? Seems to me to be similar requests from both sides. Do you think that both should reveal their records simultaneously as I do?
I'm not one of those clamoring for Mitt to release his tax returns. I'm just pointing out a possibility for why he hasn't, which would also be a reflection of character, just as much as if Obama had done what you suggested.
Yes, similar situations. I agree, neither man is obligated to disclose their personal information. In each instance, it will reveal quite a bit about each man.
It is possible that both documents are spic and span clean, but it is not right for either side to make a political point about either document without acknowledging their own reluctance to release the records.
But Obama did release all his tax records. His college transcripts have nothing to do with it.
I thought Romney released his college transcripts as well, though I have been unable to find them, so I am skeptical if they have actually been released.
His transcripts and Obama's college records are both classified documents, only to be revealed with the individual's consent. Mr. Obama has no obligation to release the records any more than Romney is obligated to release his tax returns. IMO, both requests are for the release of confidential documents so I do not see the difference between the requests. Of course, IF Romney lied on his tax returns, it is a crime which should be handled by the governments extortion agency (IRS)!
IF Obama claimed foreign exchange student status to acquire financial assistance, it is fraud! Either way it could have a very lasting effect on both campaigns. You cannot ask for one while claiming the other to be irrelevant though.
Romney's wife says when Mitt is debating or speaking he writes his father's name at the top of his note pad. If he respects his father so much why doesn't he follow daddy's example of releasing twelve years of tax returns? Obviously he has plenty to hide.
Ralph, should each son follow the footsteps of their father? Let's hope not! Because President Obama is more of a man then his father could ever hope to be!
Obama Snr turns out to have been little short of a monster. He sired at least five, possibly seven, children by four wives. He beat one wife (Ruth Baker, number three) viciously, and ordered her out of the marital bed to make way for a woman he had met out drinking.
As portrayed here, he was an inveterate liar, a sponger and a braggart obsessed with the sexual conquest of women. He drank heavily (he was nicknamed “Double Double” after the way he drank his preferred Johnnie Walker Black Label) and died when he slammed his truck into a tree.
The Other Barack by Sally H Jacobs
I'll stipulate that Romney was much luckier in his choice of a father than Obama. Actually, I voted for George Romney when he was elected governor of Michigan. He was a much more admirable person than his son Mitt. Just the reverse is true of Barack Obama and his father.
As an outsider, it quite astounds me that this debate about release of information is taking place at all. The US is not only the most powerful nation on earth militarily, it also has the most sophisticated information-gathering system on earth. For example, are you guys SERIOUS in doubting Pres. Obama's place of birth? US information resources cannot resolve this issue in a heartbeat? If that issue is still in limbo--which seems to be the case--it's in limbo because powerful people WANT it to be there. Another example--it took US information-gathering resources YEARS to "find" Osama bin Laden. Uh-huh. Pretty good disappearing act in the rocks and caves of the wilderness, safe from resources of the most technologically sophisticated country in the world? I have difficulty swallowing that one, as well. I guess my bottom line in all this is: the entire planet and everyone on it, has a vested interest in the occupant of the White House, so I just hope you Americans (VOTERS) can get back to issues and realizeable promises and intelligent policies and moral imperatives of abiding impact, rather than this foolish sniping about little stuff that smokescreens the realities that really matter.
Why should Romney toss red meat to an already biased media bent on keeping the focus on anything but Obama's miserable record and performance? Anything arising from those publications will simply make it that much harder to stay on the subject matter that benefits the American people the most....economy and jobs. The clock is running down...there are no time left for distractions. If the tax returns are so all fire important then have Obama pony up those transcripts. I don't care how much money Romney made or how much he paid in taxes but I deplore the idea that Obama may be telling one story with regard to his educational journey while the official register tells another...that's called conscious lying and if he will do it at that petty level, it will not be a problem on anything else to lie when his butt is in a squeeze. The American people deserve better. ~WB
Americans have forgotten that when Bush (Republican) was in power, there were negative jobs being created. In fact, hundreds of thousands of jobs were being lost per month. Just last week the jobs report was released, and several hundred thousand jobs were created in the month of September. If you have forgotten how to do basic math with negative numbers, let me remind you.
On a number line, the distance from -100,000 to 200,000 is 300,000. So, for those of you who keep putting down Obama's record, you obviously have no clue how numbers work. At least while he has been in power, JOBS ARE BEING CREATED.
The next refuge of the no ideas crowd. Blame Bush.
Perfect example of a Republican skipping over relevant details.
Just a quick note on how numbers work. When Obama took office there were 111.9 million people working, today there are 111 million people working. A net loss of nearly 1 million people.
Also irrelevant, job losses ocourring before Obama policies can take effect are obviously not relevant in an assessment of Obama performance.
It would be nice if you backed up that statement with some relevant data. Let's pretend that you are correct. Had Mitt Romney's idea of letting the car companies go down been implemented, that job loss would have been greater.
Obama = jobs for the middle class.
Romney = more money for the wealthy.
Romney said the auto industry should go through a restructuring bankruptcy. Not liquidation.
Guess what happened? GM and Chrysler went through restructuring bankruptcy. THEY DID GO BANKRUPT.
Yes, they did, and it was successful because of the government bailout and supervision, including replacing the CEO, Rick Waggoner, who had participated in too many of the bad decisions which led to GM's decline. Before the Obama administration came in he tried unsuccessfully to find private financing to avoid liquidation and achieve a structured bankruptcy. No private financing was available. Without help from the Obama administration chaos for all three auto companies would have ensued. Romney has repeatedly said he opposed the assistance provided by Obama which saved the companies and jobs at suppliers, dealers, etc. Romney knows better. He is dissembling. His position is purely political. But it's not helping him in Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin.
Why do you give Obama and Biden a free pass on this? They continue to lie, acting like they saved GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy?
You are spinning as usual. They saved GM and Chrysler from oblivion and a million jobs. Romney would have let them die. Those are the facts.
No, you're the one spinning.
Obama said he refused to let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt. Did he succeed?
It appears that he did. The playing field in the U.S. auto industry is much more level than it was before Obama's intervention. It may be too early to tell. The world auto industry is quite competitive.
In what respect am I spinning? Romney has repeated his opposition to the Obama bailout repeatedly. Perhaps he'll etch-a-sketch around to a more realistic position before November 7.
Obama saved GM and Chrysler from having to go through bankruptcy? You really want to say that?
I don't believe I said that. Obama put GM, its employees, the retirees, the UAW, the management and the former stockholders through the ringer and provided the support required to continue and succeed in business. As he's said many times Romney opposes Obama's support. You are correct that GM and Chrysler went through bankruptcy, but not the way Romney advocated.
Ralph. I asked if Obama succeeded in keeping GM and Chrysler from going through bankruptcy. You said "It appears that he did.". Now you are saying you don't believe you said that?
This is the whole issue. I'm not talking about the viability of Romney's plan. I'm talking about Obama pretending GM and Chrysler avoided bankruptcy, when they simply didn't.
So, let's get this straight.
Did Obama keep GM and Chrysler from bankruptcy? So far you have said yes and no. Can we get one answer?
Of course he didn't. But his action saved the industry and an estimated million jobs. That was obviously what he meant. His use of the term bankruptcy was imprecise or even incorrect, but his intent was clear, and calling whatever he said a lie is itself a niggling misrepresentation.
Haha, that's amazing Ralph.
It's false. It's a lie. Do you give the same consideration to things Romney says?
No. You quote Romney out of context to make it seem like he said something that he didn't say.
If you want me to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, then will you also give Romney the same consideration from here on out?
Here's what Romney said in November 2008:
"If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won't go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed. Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself .... Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check."
[As I pointed out above, Detroit was drastically restructured as the price of the Obama bailout.]
GM/Chrysler tried to restructure as a result of the Bush/Obama bailouts. They didn't work. That's why the bankruptcy followed.
What you posted has nothing to do with what I posted(although, Romney was right... he said the bailouts wouldn't save them, and they didn't.)
I'm asking, if you expect us to give so much consideration to what Obama says, why won't you give as much consideration to what Romney says?
What are you talking about? Obama saved the auto industry. Two actions were required a financial bailout and major restructuring. Romney opposed what Obama did. I don't think you have your facts straight. The bailout financing was from the beginning contingent on major changes which brought in new management, re-negotiated the labor agreements, clipped the retirees, and wiped out the original stockholders.
No doubt before November 6 Mitt will be trying to take credit for putting the industry back on its feet, as you are apparently trying to do. Good luck! White is black, up is down in your mind.
So we gave GM billions of dollars so that they could file bankruptcy?
Heck, if you're going to just say the bailout funds saved GM, then shouldn't you be thanking Bush?
"So we gave GM billions of dollars so that they could file bankruptcy?"
No, as you well know so that they could be successfully restructured and come out of bankruptcy as a viable, competitive company. And not screw up Ford because of common supplier relationships.
"Heck, if you're going to just say the bailout funds saved GM, then shouldn't you be thanking Bush?"
I didn't "just say the bailout funds saved GM." Moreover I'm willing to give Bush credit for some of his actions after the meltdown (as well as for some of his (and many others) actions and in-actions which led up to the financial meltdown
You are quibbling in your usual fashion about what was possibly Obama's imprecise or technically incorrect use of the word bankruptcy. I am a GM retiree and former stockholder, so I'm quite familiar with how the situation played out. You are correct that Chrysler and GM were put through bankruptcy by Obama and were restructured upon the insistence and with the financial assistance of the Obama administration. The industry was not saved from bankruptcy. It was saved, as I said, from oblivion.
Yes they did, but the result of Romney's proposal would have been liquidation.
Ralph, if you can't even admit that Obama lied about a clear fact, what point is there?
BYE BYE. You are a pesky little troll with whom it's impossible to have a rational, honest discussion.
Lol, I'm sorry Ralph, but that's just pathetic behavior. If I ask you to be honest about the actions of a politician you support, it's just trolling, right?
It would do you some good to admit that Obama and Biden aren't perfect, instead of trying to defend their lies.
Also, I'm sorry to see you go, because unlike our previous discussions, you actually specifically addressed many of the things I said this time.
We actually were starting to have an honest discussion... for once.
I honestly don't care that much. He thinks rich guys should get tax breaks, so I am sure he exploited the ones available to him. Time to move on.
Why shouldn't rich guys get tax breaks? They are after all the only ones paying taxes.
Where do you get that crap? Plenty of people who aren't rich, however you want to define it, are paying taxes--federal, state and local. Apparently you agree with Romney's and Ryans comments that 47 percent of Americans are irresponsible "takers."
The vast majority of presidential candidates have never offered more than a couple of years of tax returns...yet you think Romney should give up ten? Why doesn't he just throw raw red meat into the arena...don't we already have enough distractions coming out of the Obama Camp. How can you talk relevant issues when Obama and the Press want to pick apart Romney's tax returns....absurd! By the way, I wouldn't mind looking through Obama's college records but where are they....guess they hold some level of embarrassment for the "Magna Cum Laude Savior of the World"....it's a two way street in that regard. Obama brought more questions and less answers into his presidency that any before him yet all the media and the liberal left can do is scream, "persecution! persecution!" when the subject comes up. I don't give a tinker's damn how much money Romney has. You want to condemn people for their curiosity about Obama's transcripts yet if Romney elects to limit his tax returns, then he is "hiding something". We have name for that down Texas way...it's "hypocrite". ~WB
Ralph. GM filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy June 1, 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Mo … ganization
Chrysler filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy April 30, 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_C … ganization
So how does it 'appear' that Obama saved them from filing bankruptcy?
Beside Ralph, you're not answering an important question.
If you want us to give so much consideration to the things Obama says, why won't you give that same consideration to what Romney says?
by Credence25 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...
by Dr Billy Kidd5 years ago
The Senator from Nevada, Reid, says a Bain Capital employee told him Mitt Romney did not pay taxes for 10 years. If this proves to be true, does this change anything? Won't some people simply regard Romney as more of a...
by Dr Billy Kidd5 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...
by TMMason6 years ago
Could this be true? If it is he, is out and should be arrested... and given a long sentence. Not to mention every law with his signiture on it is null and void."Registration transcript states ~ Name: Barry Soetoro...
by Holle Abee5 years ago
McCain released two years of tax returns. Reagan released one. Romney has released two. It wasn't a big deal with McCain and Reagan. Why is it now?http://factcheck.org/2012/07/romney-and … precedent/
by Sychophantastic15 months ago
Do you care?This would be the first time in modern American history that a candidate for President hasn't released his tax returns. Is this a big deal or not? If it is a big deal, what do you think Donald Trump is...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.