Where are the rest of Romney's Tax returns ?

[hohenfelsvol]

It's rich irony that Jay Carney is saying "all these questions could be answered easily if he would just release his tax records" a week or so after defending why the WH claimed executive privilege on F&F...

Dead on. Good post.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[vols4sure]

Kinda like Obamas college records.

Wouldn't it be great if Romney is just holding the tax returns waiting for the right opportunity in a debate to say: "I will release my tax returns if you will release your college transcripts."

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Then there is no reason to hide them as he has.

Self righteous pos

 

[lawgator1]

Oh I would be absolutely stunned if Romney did anything illegal. In fact, I'll say that's impossible. With all those accountants looking over them, there's no way.

I do suspect his income was WAY higher in years prior. Also, his campaign has been caught lying claiming he was divested from Bane at times it shipped jobs overseas and so there might be some issue there with lingering connections he doesn't want to have exposed.

 

[Gramps]

I don't care where Romney has his money nor do I care what he owns in the world.

We live in a global economy and Romney has the right to invest wherever he chooses.

Unless Romney has done something illegal , this is no ones business.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

I don't care where Romney has his money nor do I care what he owns in the world.

We live in a global economy and Romney has the right to invest wherever he chooses.

Unless Romney has done something illegal , this is no ones business.

Solid, his apparent nefarious action is being white and a repub.

 

[NEO]

Somewhere, somehow, I gotta get a better understanding of your beef with Paul. Wish we had Pm ability still.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Somewhere, somehow, I gotta get a better understanding of your beef with Paul. Wish we had Pm ability still.

Email?

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Polls Show Romney Outsmarted the Media

It's a trap.

You see, the outsourcing charge is a bald-faced lie and the offshore-account charge is nothing more than a smear. It was the Washington Post that started the outsourcing lie and it was an Occupy-supporter in Vanity Fair who started the offshore-account smear.

A lie is a lie is a lie.

And a lie can't gain much traction because, other than the false charge, there's nothing else for the corrupt media to talk about. But one way to extend a false narrative is to pressure the victim of the lie to respond. A response automatically gives the narrative another few days of life, but as a result only does more damage to the victim. Therefore… a trap.

By not responding, the Romney campaign played a nerve-wracking (for his supporters) game of chicken but ultimately made the wise decision not to feed this narrative fire -- to not be the ones who gave the lies artificial life through the pointless act of trying to prove a negative.

And today, polls show Romney made the exact right decision:

figured I put this here, and Romneys NAACP speech today was pretty impressive

 

[volprof]

The media is brilliant at creating a false reality that has nothing to do with what's happening out there in the world. If you watch CNN and MSNBC, you would think the roof was caving in on Romney over outsourcing and his personal wealth, but that's what the media wants us to believe in order to control the narrative and to get Romney to dance to their tune.

Thank heaven, Romney isn't falling for it.

Right now it's Obama who's acting erratic and panicked and like a loser, not Romney.

I like our chances and I love the discipline I'm seeing from Team Romney.

If this came from any source that wasn't all down-and-dirty-in-the-streets for "Team Romney," I might be more inclined to buy into its claims, particularly about liberals. Look, I don't know what Romney has done here. I honestly don't. Truthfully, it is his money, and he may have done nothing illegal. I recall, however, him stating the other day that he had put his money in a blind trust and didn't know what they had done with it basically, or something to that meaning. The effect of this particular statement, from Romney's point-of-view, was basically to excuse him from any culpability. On the contrary, it basically came across to me, at least, as "See no evil; hear no evil.... Just do something with my money, and I'll play ignorant." I would think if a man had political aspirations of being in solidarity with his common American brethren he would have more concern over exactly where his money ended up than that. But, then again, it's his money. Hell, make all the money you want, I guess. However, just don't necessarily expect the common voter to understand that perspective, whether that perspective is right or wrong.

 

[NEO]

Email?

I'll set up a personal email.

I dont have one right now and only have a @mybusiness.com email.

 

[volprof]

And, furthermore, this is the second time today I've seen something about CNN being liberal-biased media. I don't know if anyone has ever actually watched Fox News and MSNBC both, then watched CNN, but to call CNN a platform of liberalism is highly misleading. I watch Fox News and MSNBC, and they basically watch like conservative and liberal, respectively, sounding-boards. In fact, neither one of those media outlets should be classified as "news" or "journalism" at all. Instead, they should just be listed under "Entertainment" or at least understood as mere channels for political sounding-off. CNN, on the other hand, is much different. True, I admit that it may have some liberal leanings. However, I think this is due, more often than not, to simply keeping up with the times, which tend to be far more progressive than previous eras. CNN, in my opinion, is the closest you can hope for impartiality as far as TV "news" media is concerned. Anyhow, that's just my opinion, so if anyone thinks it is a platform for the Democratic party or George Soros, or whoever, or whatever, then, by all means, go ahead and let it be known.

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

CNN is referred to as the Clinton News Network and I guess you change the channel when Piers Morgan or Sanjay come on

 

[volinbham]

If this came from any source that wasn't all down-and-dirty-in-the-streets for "Team Romney," I might be more inclined to buy into its claims, particularly about liberals. Look, I don't know what Romney has done here. I honestly don't. Truthfully, it is his money, and he may have done nothing illegal. I recall, however, him stating the other day that he had put his money in a blind trust and didn't know what they had done with it basically, or something to that meaning. The effect of this particular statement, from Romney's point-of-view, was basically to excuse him from any culpability. On the contrary, it basically came across to me, at least, as "See no evil; hear no evil.... Just do something with my money, and I'll play ignorant." I would think if a man had political aspirations of being in solidarity with his common American brethren he would have more concern over exactly where his money ended up than that. But, then again, it's his money. Hell, make all the money you want, I guess. However, just don't necessarily expect the common voter to understand that perspective, whether that perspective is right or wrong.

"May have done nothing illegal" - is that the point you start from that he should prove he did nothing illegal?

 

[bamawriter]

"May have done nothing illegal" - is that the point you start from that he should prove he did nothing illegal?

Did Romney pay to have children, puppies, and pandas murdered? Probably not, and I'm certainly not suggesting that he did. But since he won't release more than two years of tax returns, how can we know for sure?

 

[dreVol]

Did Romney pay to have children, puppies, and pandas murdered? Probably not, and I'm certainly not suggesting that he did. But since he won't release more than two years of tax returns, how can we know for sure?

Romney may not be a chicken fu****, but how can I be sure until he releases his tax returns?

 

[volinbham]

Did Romney pay to have children, puppies, and pandas murdered? Probably not, and I'm certainly not suggesting that he did. But since he won't release more than two years of tax returns, how can we know for sure?

He's rich; he must be breaking the law.

 

[lawgator1]

He's rich; he must be breaking the law.

I love how you and Fox News set the standard at illegality. Just because he never jaywalked in his life doesn't mean he's a good choice for president.

He is a choir boy as far as I am concerned when it comes to morality and being successful. I think that's all great.

On the other hand, I think we do better with presidents that can relate to more common problems. Clinton, for example. Even Reagan was a down to Earth guy despite his acting career. And they both did well and took the steps necessary to improve the lot of the middle class, which is the real strength of this country.

Bush I was startled by a grocery scanner and was a one term guy who, while compassionate, was stiff as a board. Bush II coddled the wealthy and his tax breaks for them and deregulation all played a major role in the current economic downturn. I won't say solely caused it, but I will say nudged it pretty hard.

Bottom line is that we've seen what happens in the last couple of decades when we elect presidents that think that everyone worth helping is already rich. We all do better when we elect presidents that start by imagining ways to help the bottom, up.

 

[golfballs]

I love how you and Fox News set the standard at illegality. Just because he never jaywalked in his life doesn't mean he's a good choice for president.

He is a choir boy as far as I am concerned when it comes to morality and being successful. I think that's all great.

On the other hand, I think we do better with presidents that can relate to more common problems. Clinton, for example. Even Reagan was a down to Earth guy despite his acting career. And they both did well and took the steps necessary to improve the lot of the middle class, which is the real strength of this country.

Bush I was startled by a grocery scanner and was a one term guy who, while compassionate, was stiff as a board. Bush II coddled the wealthy and his tax breaks for them and deregulation all played a major role in the current economic downturn. I won't say solely caused it, but I will say nudged it pretty hard.

Bottom line is that we've seen what happens in the last couple of decades when we elect presidents that think that everyone worth helping is already rich. We all do better when we elect presidents that start by imagining ways to help the bottom, up.

LOL

Carter was as close to a man of the people as one can get

 

[volinbham]

I love how you and Fox News set the standard at illegality. Just because he never jaywalked in his life doesn't mean he's a good choice for president.

He is a choir boy as far as I am concerned when it comes to morality and being successful. I think that's all great.

On the other hand, I think we do better with presidents that can relate to more common problems. Clinton, for example. Even Reagan was a down to Earth guy despite his acting career. And they both did well and took the steps necessary to improve the lot of the middle class, which is the real strength of this country.

Bush I was startled by a grocery scanner and was a one term guy who, while compassionate, was stiff as a board. Bush II coddled the wealthy and his tax breaks for them and deregulation all played a major role in the current economic downturn. I won't say solely caused it, but I will say nudged it pretty hard.

Bottom line is that we've seen what happens in the last couple of decades when we elect presidents that think that everyone worth helping is already rich. We all do better when we elect presidents that start by imagining ways to help the bottom, up.

Oh for God's sake man - I was sarcastically responding to Volprof's comment that indicates Romney "may not have done something illegal".

 

[myrobbins7]

And, furthermore, this is the second time today I've seen something about CNN being liberal-biased media. I don't know if anyone has ever actually watched Fox News and MSNBC both, then watched CNN, but to call CNN a platform of liberalism is highly misleading. I watch Fox News and MSNBC, and they basically watch like conservative and liberal, respectively, sounding-boards. In fact, neither one of those media outlets should be classified as "news" or "journalism" at all. Instead, they should just be listed under "Entertainment" or at least understood as mere channels for political sounding-off. CNN, on the other hand, is much different. True, I admit that it may have some liberal leanings. However, I think this is due, more often than not, to simply keeping up with the times, which tend to be far more progressive than previous eras. CNN, in my opinion, is the closest you can hope for impartiality as far as TV "news" media is concerned. Anyhow, that's just my opinion, so if anyone thinks it is a platform for the Democratic party or George Soros, or whoever, or whatever, then, by all means, go ahead and let it be known.

Speaking of the media..Americans' Confidence in Television News Drops to New Low

 

[volprof]

"May have done nothing illegal" - is that the point you start from that he should prove he did nothing illegal?

I know you said you were being sarcastic in another post, so I'm not picking a fight with you (and you might even agree with me on the matter for all I know), but can't we all agree that anyone running for the office of President should be as candid as they possibly can with the American public? Of course candidates either lie or renege on their statements later on, but if we're being honest with ourselves, shouldn't the President be square and honest with the public? If he has nothing to hide, then show the records. His hand might be forced, but he's running for president for crying out loud. When isn't his hand forced? Any president or would-be president is obligated to the American people. I know they don't always act accordingly, but they are. And maybe Romney will do this eventually. I'm not saying he has done anything wrong.

Furthermore, if the President is our chief leader, then he is also our chief promoter, so to speak. I know some of you have expressed no concern over his records, even if his accounts are avoiding the American tax rate: his money; he can do whatever sort of thing. However, if he is our chief promoter, and if he can't pay our tax rate on all his accounts; in other words, he can't completely "invest" in America, then why should we invest in him? Why should we, any one us, even the everyday man, invest in America?

In closing, I'm not saying Romney did anything illegal or necessarily has anything to hide. He may come forward soon and put all the liberal claims otherwise to hush. Also, spin my comments about investing in America all you want, but I think the philosophic/moral principle is still there.

 

[bamawriter]

Prof,

It's impossible for Romney to produce anything that would convince someone who already assumes he's doing something wrong. It's no different than Obama's birth certificate. Obama could produce video of himself being born in front of the Honolulu city hall, and there are those who will still be convinced that he's not a natural born citizen.

In the end, Romney cannot gain anything by engaging the media or the blogosphere on this. He could produce every tax return he's ever filed, every bank statement he's ever received, and copies of every check he's ever written, and you'd be insisting that he produce receipts. Engaging only gives the media and the blogs reason to keep it going, and it's already received more attention than it deserves.

 

[volprof]

Prof,

It's impossible for Romney to produce anything that would convince someone who already assumes he's doing something wrong. It's no different than Obama's birth certificate. Obama could produce video of himself being born in front of the Honolulu city hall, and there are those who will still be convinced that he's not a natural born citizen.

In the end, Romney cannot gain anything by engaging the media or the blogosphere on this. He could produce every tax return he's ever filed, every bank statement he's ever received, and copies of every check he's ever written, and you'd be insisting that he produce receipts. Engaging only gives the media and the blogs reason to keep it going, and it's already received more attention than it deserves.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph; I don't know that I do with the second though. I still think there's a place for such disclosure. From a pragmatic standpoint (which is not the only standpoint here), if he delays further, he could risk losing potential middle and working-class voters. However, if he continues to delay, and it doesn't appear he will lose any votes, according to the pollsters, then, heck, I guess it wouldn't do him any good then to disclose them. That doesn't necessarily mean that the refusal to disclose was ever right though, if there were indeed halfway credible concerns about his record in the first place (and not just mere liberal blogosphere banter.)

It's a public office; it's the most public of all public offices. Everything is scrutinized and expected to be scrutinized. When you fill in the paperwork for your candidacy, you ostensibly give your self over to full scrutiny and full disclosure (although that doesn't end up being the case all the time in reality). This goes for Obama and Romney.

I think some of you are getting the wrong impression about me. And I'm not necessarily referring to you, Bamawriter. I'm an equal-opportunity criticizer. I don't claim that Obama has handled his situations correctly either. The conversation at hand, however, was Romney and his tax returns.

 

[volinbham]

I know you said you were being sarcastic in another post, so I'm not picking a fight with you (and you might even agree with me on the matter for all I know), but can't we all agree that anyone running for the office of President should be as candid as they possibly can with the American public? Of course candidates either lie or renege on their statements later on, but if we're being honest with ourselves, shouldn't the President be square and honest with the public? If he has nothing to hide, then show the records. His hand might be forced, but he's running for president for crying out loud. When isn't his hand forced? Any president or would-be president is obligated to the American people. I know they don't always act accordingly, but they are. And maybe Romney will do this eventually. I'm not saying he has done anything wrong.

Furthermore, if the President is our chief leader, then he is also our chief promoter, so to speak. I know some of you have expressed no concern over his records, even if his accounts are avoiding the American tax rate: his money; he can do whatever sort of thing. However, if he is our chief promoter, and if he can't pay our tax rate on all his accounts; in other words, he can't completely "invest" in America, then why should we invest in him? Why should we, any one us, even the everyday man, invest in America?

In closing, I'm not saying Romney did anything illegal or necessarily has anything to hide. He may come forward soon and put all the liberal claims otherwise to hush. Also, spin my comments about investing in America all you want, but I think the philosophic/moral principle is still there.

Well you did suggest that he needs to release them to show he didn't do something illegal. On that note I'm sure the IRS would have been the arbiter if he did something illegal so that point is moot.

As to the "full disclosure" I can see that people want to know everything about a candidate but on a scale of 1 - 10 I'd rate Romney's tax returns as about a 1 or 2 on the need to know scale.

The truth is that the Obama campaign is using this as a character assassination ploy implying that he is hiding some nefarious activities and the weekend shows are clear evidence that these are the talking points along with the "off shore" accounts which means he's also up to no good.

None of this is important in the end. What did you learn from the tax returns Romney released? Did you parse them to learn of his character, his connections, his motives, etc.? Could you learn any of this from his past tax returns?

I'm not one that has called for Obama's college transcripts - what would they tell me? Maybe he's not the smartest POTUS ever? Maybe he took some left wing classes? His actions/policies/statements are much more direct evidence of what he wants to do.

Bottomline, the call for tax returns is a political tactic more than a serious vetting need.