Poor Rombot.....A few days ago he mingled with us commoners by visiting a hardware store. Upon coming out with his purchases a reporter asked him the innocuous question "What did you buy"? Most people would have answered with the usual....saw,hammer,nails,paint,etc,you know,common everyday stuff. However Mittens must have thought that it must be a trick question and then sputtered out a term that I'm sure most of us have never heard used, 'Hardware stuff". Awkward!!!
Today he visited a family farm to see first hand the effects of the drought and the impact it was having on the average farmer. As we all know,Repubs are famous for waxing about "family farms" whenever they want to help millionaires avoid those pesky estate taxes. So what farm did he pick?
Mitt Romney has such a string of "out of touch" moments that there's a video list. He was at it again Wednesday. This time it was a visit with a corn and soy bean farmer in swing-state Iowa to discuss the impact of the drought that is characterized as "exceptional" or "extreme" in nearly 70 percent of the state. Crops are literally withering. It's been decades since anybody has seen anything close to this bad and, for many farmers, it was their grandparents who last saw something to equal this, three-quarters of a century ago.
Lemar Koethe greeted Romney by telling the GOP candidate that his presidency is needed "like oxygen." Koethe also said his corn crop is down about a third from normal. Which makes him a lucky fellow compared with some other farmers in Iowa and elsewhere in this overheated, extra-dry year. Lucky in more ways than one.
Koethe is not exactly an overalls and pick-up truck kind of guy who is out every day in the fields putting kernels on his tongue to test how moist they are. Not only does he own 54 farms, he's also a millionaire real estate developer and concert promoter for his 24,000 square-foot event center.
And then, Stephen Lacey writes, there's Koethe's house. It might not be big enough or meet Romney's conventional tastes in overdone, energy-gobbling monstrosities, and it doesn't have a car elevator, but it does have an underground car wash and its own recreation center.
Despite his wealth, Koethe has received $133,000 in federal payments for not growing crops on a few acres of his land. That's part of the government's worthy effort to conserve fragile ground. But the fact that wealthy guys like Koethe aren't means-tested out of such programs is a big part of the reason the farm bill is so bloated.
Overall, 10 percent of the nation's farmers received 74 percent of all farm subsidies between 1995 and 2009, a total of $183.25 billion. Of the 80 percent of farmers who received a subsidy, the average payout was $572. But 62 percent of farmers—vegetable growers, for instance—received no subsidy even though these mostly small operators suffer from the same droughts and weather vagaries as corn, wheat and soy bean farmers.
Mitt Romney could have chosen to visit one of those more typical farmers. Folks closer to the median farm income of $55,000 a year. Who don't live in spaceship houses, who work off-farm jobs at least part time and, when a drought becomes extreme, wonder how they will put food on their own table and keep a foothold in the ever-dwindling ranks of real family farms.
But to Romney, and apparently to his clueless advisers, Lemar Koethe probably rates as a typical farmer. And getting out there in his khakis between the stunted rows of corn probably convinced him he was getting the real story about just how hard some Americans have it.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty appeared on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos and was thrown for a loop when asked how many tax returns Romney demanded of him during the vice presidential vetting process:
Quote :
You can see him taking a deep breath before he says, "I don't know the exact number..."
A dubious declaration. You really don't remember if they asked to go back to 2008, 2005? Less? More? The year wouldn't stick out in your mind?
Pawlenty had obviously been well-prepped for this media appearance, dutifully spouting all the appropriate Romney propaganda and lies.
But, and you must watch the video to get the full affect, it's obvious he was totally unprepared to answer this obvious question. He stammers and fumbles it, it's really a thing of great beauty to watch Pawlenty struggle.
He eventually settles on an appropriate, no comment "we don't get into the details of the vetting process..."
Of course, not before revealing that Romney demanded more tax returns from Pawlenty than Romney believes the American voters are due.
Senior Romney adviser Ed Gillespie was caught off guard Wednesday when CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked him how long Romney’s budget proposal would take to balance the national budget:
Quote :
BLITZER: How many years would it take for the Romney budget to result in a balanced budget?
GILLESPIE: Uh…Wolf, I’m not sure of that myself, actually. I’ll get that to you though and I’m sure it’s on our website. I should know it and I’m embarrassed on your air that I don’t have that number at the top of my head. I didn’t know we were going to talk about that today. I apologize. I should have prepared for that question. I didn’t know you were going to ask.
Watch it:
Gillespie didn’t have the number on hand because, as Romney himself said in March, his budget plan “can’t be scored” and is missing key details about which deductions it would eliminate. Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan failed to answer the same question a day earlier, telling Fox News’ Brit Hume, “I don’t know exactly what the balance is. I don’t want to get wonky on you, but we haven’t run the numbers on that specific plan.” In sum, Romney’s plan is “mathematically impossible.”
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: Mitt Romney v10.0 8/16/2012, 11:45 am
Mitt Romney's wife is pushing back on public pressure for her husband to release additional years of personal tax filings.
In an interview set to air Thursday on NBC's "Rock Center," Ann Romney reiterated that her husband won't release more financial records, insisting it would just provide more fodder for Democratic attacks.
"There's nothing that we're hiding," Ann Romney told NBC's Natalie Morales.
Asked why her husband isn't more "transparent," Romney seemed to get a bit irritated, leaning forward in her chair to answer questions.
"Have you seen how we are attacked? Have you seen what's happened?" she said. "We have been very transparent to what's legally required of us. But the more we release, the more we get attacked, the more we get questioned, the more we get pushed. And so we have done what's legally required, and there's going to be no more tax releases given."
Asked whether she worries Americans will think her husband is trying to "hide" something by not releasing more returns, Romney pointed to the "huge" financial disclosures her husband filed when serving as governor of Massachusetts.
"If people want to really look and see, any question they have ... Mitt is honest. His integrity is just golden," Romney said. "We pay our taxes. ... Beyond paying our taxes, we also give 10 percent of our income to charity. ... The only reason we don't disclose any more is because we will become a bigger target."
Echoing what her husband has said on the campaign trail for months, Romney told Morales their investments are managed by a blind trust.
"I'll be curious to see what's in there, too," Romney said, smiling.
The full interview is set to air at 10 p.m. ET on NBC.
I wonder when it's going to sink in to these two that this issue isn't going to go away without Mittens releasing more of his tax returns. What's "legally required" doesn't cut it in a POTUS election. I've got a hunch that sooner or later more is going to come out whether the Rombot's release them or not. IMO,Harry Reid wouldn't have made such a bold accusation if he didn't have something to base it on.
Mitt Romney told reporters Thursday that he has never paid less than a 13 percent tax rate on his federal income taxes, attempting to put to rest speculation that he will not release his tax returns because there are years in which he did not pay any taxes.
Noting that he believes the "fascination with his taxes is small-minded," Romney said he has reviewed his income taxes from the last 10 years, and found that he never paid less than a 13% effective tax rate.
If Romney's claim is accurate, his past returns would be consistent with the one year of returns he has released, which show Romney paid a 13.9% effective tax rate in 2010.
"Small minded"? Leave it to Mittens to come up with the absolute worst possible choice of words when it comes to attempting to defend himself and relate with the average American voter.
Mitt Romney told reporters Thursday that he has never paid less than a 13 percent tax rate on his federal income taxes, attempting to put to rest speculation that he will not release his tax returns because there are years in which he did not pay any taxes.
Noting that he believes the "fascination with his taxes is small-minded," Romney said he has reviewed his income taxes from the last 10 years, and found that he never paid less than a 13% effective tax rate.
If Romney's claim is accurate, his past returns would be consistent with the one year of returns he has released, which show Romney paid a 13.9% effective tax rate in 2010.
"Small minded"? Leave it to Mittens to come up with the absolute worst possible choice of words when it comes to attempting to defend himself and relate with the average American voter.
I wonder when the Romney campaign is going to realize that they have been "rope-a doped" by Harry Reid, of all people.
Ed Gillespie, a senior Romney adviser, indicated the former Massachusetts governor would release the 2011 return by October 15, about three weeks before the November 6 election, but refused to say exactly when.
"Look, October 15 is the deadline for the IRS on an extension. We have said as soon as they're ready we're going to release them. And I believe they'll be ready before that," Gillespie told the "Fox News Sunday" program.
Oct 15th? OK,with me. That will just help keep the issue alive and front and center that much longer. Most people file their taxes when they're due...April 15th,but maybe I'm just being "small minded" about the issue.
Ed Gillespie, a senior Romney adviser, indicated the former Massachusetts governor would release the 2011 return by October 15, about three weeks before the November 6 election, but refused to say exactly when.
"Look, October 15 is the deadline for the IRS on an extension. We have said as soon as they're ready we're going to release them. And I believe they'll be ready before that," Gillespie told the "Fox News Sunday" program.
Oct 15th? OK,with me. That will just help keep the issue alive and front and center that much longer. Most people file their taxes when they're due...April 15th,but maybe I'm just being "small minded" about the issue.
Yeah, actually you are, in this case. That's also the date that my taxes are due. I own a small business, and the corporate taxes need to be completed before the personal taxes can be calculated.
In order to get the extension, you need to have your accountant file an extension form before April 15, and include a payment of your estimated taxes at that time, just like everybody else. If you don't pay enough in April, you have to pay the balance, plus interest and penalties in October.
So there is nothing unusual about the October 15th date.
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: Mitt Romney v10.0 8/19/2012, 3:58 pm
Scorpion wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Oct 15th? OK,with me. That will just help keep the issue alive and front and center that much longer. Most people file their taxes when they're due...April 15th,but maybe I'm just being "small minded" about the issue.
Yeah, actually you are, in this case. That's also the date that my taxes are due. I own a small business, and the corporate taxes need to be completed before the personal taxes can be calculated.
In order to get the extension, you need to have your accountant file an extension form before April 15, and include a payment of your estimated taxes at that time, just like everybody else. If you don't pay enough in April, you have to pay the balance, plus interest and penalties in October.
So there is nothing unusual about the October 15th date.
Yeah,I understand that. But you're not running for POTUS and on the hot seat with the press,your opposition,and the voters. (Last I checked 63% wanted him to release more tax returns.) If it were me I would have done everything necessary to get it out of the way. He knew he was running for years and was a likely favorite to get the nomination. There is simply no excuse for him to drag it out as long as he has.
Scorpion
Posts : 2141
Subject: Re: Mitt Romney v10.0 8/19/2012, 4:53 pm
Artie60438 wrote:
Scorpion wrote:
Artie60438 wrote:
Oct 15th? OK,with me. That will just help keep the issue alive and front and center that much longer. Most people file their taxes when they're due...April 15th,but maybe I'm just being "small minded" about the issue.
Yeah, actually you are, in this case. That's also the date that my taxes are due. I own a small business, and the corporate taxes need to be completed before the personal taxes can be calculated.
In order to get the extension, you need to have your accountant file an extension form before April 15, and include a payment of your estimated taxes at that time, just like everybody else. If you don't pay enough in April, you have to pay the balance, plus interest and penalties in October.
So there is nothing unusual about the October 15th date.
Yeah,I understand that. But you're not running for POTUS and on the hot seat with the press,your opposition,and the voters. (Last I checked 63% wanted him to release more tax returns.) If it were me I would have done everything necessary to get it out of the way. He knew he was running for years and was a likely favorite to get the nomination. There is simply no excuse for him to drag it out as long as he has.
Yeah. Well I'd be shocked if his 2011 returns will be much different from the 2010 returns. It's the returns prior to 2010 that I'd like to see released. And yes, I see how the average Joe might not fully understand why it's taking him so long to get this year's returns completed, but it's really a non-issue.
The pressure to release at least 5 years of returns should continue. All I'm saying is that the uncompleted 2011 return isn't likely to be nearly as interesting as the others...
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: Mitt Romney v10.0 8/19/2012, 9:04 pm
Scorpion wrote:
Yeah. Well I'd be shocked if his 2011 returns will be much different from the 2010 returns. It's the returns prior to 2010 that I'd like to see released. And yes, I see how the average Joe might not fully understand why it's taking him so long to get this year's returns completed, but it's really a non-issue.
The pressure to release at least 5 years of returns should continue. All I'm saying is that the uncompleted 2011 return isn't likely to be nearly as interesting as the others...
I agree that the 2011 return will probably show nothing,but by not releasing it earlier it keeps the pot bubbling.
Yeah. Well I'd be shocked if his 2011 returns will be much different from the 2010 returns. It's the returns prior to 2010 that I'd like to see released. And yes, I see how the average Joe might not fully understand why it's taking him so long to get this year's returns completed, but it's really a non-issue.
The pressure to release at least 5 years of returns should continue. All I'm saying is that the uncompleted 2011 return isn't likely to be nearly as interesting as the others...
I agree that the 2011 return will probably show nothing,but by not releasing it earlier it keeps the pot bubbling.
Yeah, whatever. My point is that, at least in my opinion, the far more important "bubbling pot" is his continued refusal to release any prior returns.
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: Mitt Romney v10.0 8/20/2012, 8:23 am
Scorpion wrote:
Yeah, whatever. My point is that, at least in my opinion, the far more important "bubbling pot" is his continued refusal to release any prior returns.
October 13, 2009 Wealthy U.S. taxpayers, concerned about an Internal Revenue Service crackdown on the use of secret overseas bank accounts as tax havens, are rushing to meet a Thursday deadline to disclose those accounts or face possible criminal prosecution.
The concern was triggered this summer when Switzerland's largest bank, caught up in an international tax evasion dispute, said it would disclose the names of more than 4,000 of its U.S. account holders.
The decision shattered a long-held belief that Swiss banks would guard the identities of its American customers as carefully as they did their money, and it raised concern that other international tax havens might be next.
Under an amnesty program, the IRS is allowing taxpayers to avoid prosecution for having failed to report their overseas accounts. As a result, tax attorneys across the nation have been besieged by wealthy clients who are lining up to apply even though they will still face big financial penalties.
Heretic
Posts : 3520
Subject: Re: Mitt Romney v10.0 8/22/2012, 10:44 am
I’m not blaming Romney for taking advantage of every legal avenue to reducing his tax burden. I would do the same if I were in his shoes. In fact, we have a financial adviser who helps us minimize our tax burden every year. Because of my book deal, I’m making a significantly higher salary this year than usual — not in the same universe as Romney’s annual income, though, and even after the best tax advice, I’m paying a far greater percentage of my income to the government than he is. I hate it, but you know, this is a good problem to have. I wish I had this problem every year.
Romney is an extremely rich man who pays significantly less of a percentage of his income in taxes than millions of people who make far less than he does, and he still seems to think he deserves a cookie. I’m sick and tired of him and his wife whining about how people are so mean to them about their taxes. . . .
Some conservatives crack on Romney for not having come up by now with an effective response to criticism about his extreme wealth and how out of touch that may or may not make him with average Americans. I hear them, but honestly, in an economy as bad as this one, I don’t see any way for a man worth $200 million to talk comfortably about how it’s really okay that he paid such a small percentage of his income in taxes.
Gawker's John Cook with what appears to be a big scoop:
Quote :
Today, we are publishing more than 950 pages of internal audits, financial statements, and private investor letters for 21 cryptically named entities in which Romney had invested—at minimum—more than $10 million as of 2011 (that number is based on the low end of ranges he has disclosed—the true number is almost certainly significantly higher). Almost all of them are affiliated with Bain Capital, the secretive private equity firm Romney co-founded in 1984 and ran until his departure in 1999 (or 2002, depending on whom you ask). Many of them are offshore funds based in the Cayman Islands. Together, they reveal the mind-numbing, maze-like, and deeply opaque complexity with which Romney has handled his wealth, the exotic tax-avoidance schemes available only to the preposterously wealthy that benefit him, the unlikely (for a right-wing religious Mormon) places that his money has ended up, and the deeply hypocritical distance between his own criticisms of Obama's fiscal approach and his money managers' embrace of those same policies. They also show that some of the investments that Romney has always described as part of his retirement package at Bain weren't made until years after he left the company.
These documents are just coming out now, so the process of analyzing what they mean is just beginning, but you can view them all Here According to Cook, the Romney campaign has not responded to requests for comment. 10:20 AM PT: Cook Flags something interesting: Romney's retirement package includes investment funds that weren't created until years after he claimed to have retired. One such fund was created in the summer of 2002; another in 2008. Romney's claim that he had no involvement with Bain after February, 1999 has already been thoroughly debunked, and these documents once again underscore that Romney's involvement in Bain continued long after he claims.
Heh heh...This should keep Mittens busy for a while.
In an interview with Time magazine, Mitt Romney declined to specify which tax deductions he plans to eliminate.
In a wide-ranging interview with Time Magazine, Mitt Romney declined to say which deductions he would eliminate from the tax code in order to make his plan to cut tax rates across the board revenue-neutral.
"I know our Democrat friends would love to have me specify one or two so they could amass the special interest to fight that effort," Romney told managing editor Richard Stengel when asked to specify which deductions he would eliminate.
Keep running your super secret campaign,Mittens. The "trust me" BS isn't going to cut it and you are going to look like an absolute jackass in the debates. Today he was interviewed by a reporter in Colorado who was not allowed to ask questions about abortion or Todd Akin.
Mitt Romney has repeatedly insisted during the presidential campaign that layoffs and other controversy surrounding Bain Capital companies for the past decade are not his responsibility, because he retired in 1999. When tax experts charged that he benefited from legally dubious tax avoidance strategies employed by Bain, his campaign noted that the investments are kept in a blind trust completely out of his control.
. . .
But according to his 2010 tax return, when the Internal Revenue Service comes calling in April, Romney has a different answer: The presumptive GOP nominee reaps lucrative tax breaks for "active" participation in the private equity firm he founded, as well as a host of other investments. As David Kautter, a tax expert at American University, explains, the concept of active investment has different meanings for the IRS and for regular people. "When you say you're actively involved in all these businesses, people do think, OK, you're actively involved. But the tax law has its own definition," he said. The IRS advises that "[f]actors that indicate active participation include making decisions involving the operation or management of the activity, performing services for the activity, and hiring and discharging employees. Factors that indicate a lack of active participation include lack of control in managing and operating the activity, having authority only to discharge the manager of the activity, and having a manager of the activity who is an independent contractor rather than an employee."
Even if Romney could persuade the IRS his involvement was legitimately active, that still leaves him in a rhetorical jam: For tax purposes, he claims an active status; for political purposes, he claims to have zero to do with the investments.
The distinction is valuable, for the IRS treats passive and active income and losses differently. If a passive investment loses money, the taxpayer can only write off that loss if passive gains have also been made. But active losses can be written off at a 35 percent rate and deducted from the taxpayer's ordinary income. In other words, a taxpayer wants active losses, not passive losses. So by describing many of his investments as active, Romney saves himself millions of dollars in taxes.
With those active investments, he is also securing a tax break few Americans enjoy: When he wins, he's paying a 15 percent rate on the gain. When he loses, he's writing it off at 35 percent, meaning that tax policy is subsidizing Romney's risk in his Bain investments.
In other words, Romney didn't build that, at least not without taxpayer backing.
. . .
Romney's 2010 tax return lists $301,630 in "trade or business interest" deductions and $503,737 in "trade or business expense" deductions -- all of it described as expenses from his business partnerships, including Bain. Specifically from his various Bain-related activities, Romney scored a total of $547,525 in such deductions.
These kinds of deductions are only available to "active" participants in business partnerships. While Romney filed as an active participant for tax purposes, there is no evidence that he took part in Bain management decisions in 2010, and he has denied doing so.
So he's either lying to the IRS or the American public. Someone should ask and make sure the IRS is listening.
Mitt Romney has repeatedly insisted during the presidential campaign that layoffs and other controversy surrounding Bain Capital companies for the past decade are not his responsibility, because he retired in 1999. When tax experts charged that he benefited from legally dubious tax avoidance strategies employed by Bain, his campaign noted that the investments are kept in a blind trust completely out of his control.
. . .
But according to his 2010 tax return, when the Internal Revenue Service comes calling in April, Romney has a different answer: The presumptive GOP nominee reaps lucrative tax breaks for "active" participation in the private equity firm he founded, as well as a host of other investments. As David Kautter, a tax expert at American University, explains, the concept of active investment has different meanings for the IRS and for regular people. "When you say you're actively involved in all these businesses, people do think, OK, you're actively involved. But the tax law has its own definition," he said. The IRS advises that "[f]actors that indicate active participation include making decisions involving the operation or management of the activity, performing services for the activity, and hiring and discharging employees. Factors that indicate a lack of active participation include lack of control in managing and operating the activity, having authority only to discharge the manager of the activity, and having a manager of the activity who is an independent contractor rather than an employee."
Even if Romney could persuade the IRS his involvement was legitimately active, that still leaves him in a rhetorical jam: For tax purposes, he claims an active status; for political purposes, he claims to have zero to do with the investments.
The distinction is valuable, for the IRS treats passive and active income and losses differently. If a passive investment loses money, the taxpayer can only write off that loss if passive gains have also been made. But active losses can be written off at a 35 percent rate and deducted from the taxpayer's ordinary income. In other words, a taxpayer wants active losses, not passive losses. So by describing many of his investments as active, Romney saves himself millions of dollars in taxes.
With those active investments, he is also securing a tax break few Americans enjoy: When he wins, he's paying a 15 percent rate on the gain. When he loses, he's writing it off at 35 percent, meaning that tax policy is subsidizing Romney's risk in his Bain investments.
In other words, Romney didn't build that, at least not without taxpayer backing.
. . .
Romney's 2010 tax return lists $301,630 in "trade or business interest" deductions and $503,737 in "trade or business expense" deductions -- all of it described as expenses from his business partnerships, including Bain. Specifically from his various Bain-related activities, Romney scored a total of $547,525 in such deductions.
These kinds of deductions are only available to "active" participants in business partnerships. While Romney filed as an active participant for tax purposes, there is no evidence that he took part in Bain management decisions in 2010, and he has denied doing so.
So he's either lying to the IRS or the American public. Someone should ask and make sure the IRS is listening.
Wow, if this is true, I think we're going to hear a lot more about this matter.
edge540
Posts : 1165
Subject: Re: Mitt Romney v10.0 8/30/2012, 4:11 pm
We're not done with Bain yet
Quote :
Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital
How the GOP presidential candidate and his private equity firm staged an epic wealth grab, destroyed jobs – and stuck others with the bill
And this is where we get to the hypocrisy at the heart of Mitt Romney. Everyone knows that he is fantastically rich, having scored great success, the legend goes, as a "turnaround specialist," a shrewd financial operator who revived moribund companies as a high-priced consultant for a storied Wall Street private equity firm. But what most voters don't know is the way Mitt Romney actually made his fortune: by borrowing vast sums of money that other people were forced to pay back. This is the plain, stark reality that has somehow eluded America's top political journalists for two consecutive presidential campaigns: Mitt Romney is one of the greatest and most irresponsible debt creators of all time. In the past few decades, in fact, Romney has piled more debt onto more unsuspecting companies, written more gigantic checks that other people have to cover, than perhaps all but a handful of people on planet Earth.
The New York Times is reporting that Bain Capital, the private equity firm founded by GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, is among a number of firms being investigated by New York Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, for failing to pay taxes.
The New York AG’s Taxpayer Protection Bureau has issued subpoenas to at least twelve financial firms, including Bain, looking into whether the companies converted management fees (taxed as ordinary income) paid by investors into fund investments which are taxed at a dramatically lower rate.
The controversial tax avoidance scheme came to light last month when Bain Capital internal financial information was published online by Gawker.com , however the investigation had reportedly commenced prior to the publication and is not believed to be tied to the document dump. According to the Times
Quote :
The tax strategy — which is viewed as perfectly legal by some tax experts, aggressive by others and potentially illegal by some — came to light last month when hundreds of pages of Bain’s internal financial documents were made available online. The financial statements show that at least $1 billion in accumulated fees that otherwise would have been taxed as ordinary income for Bain executives had been converted into investments producing capital gains, which are subject to a federal tax of 15 percent, versus a top rate of 35 percent for ordinary income. That means the Bain partners saved more than $200 million in federal income taxes and more than $20 million in Medicare taxes.
While Governor Romney has not been active at Bain Capital for quite some time, he does continue to receive profits from the company and held investments in some of the funds that utilized the tax avoidance strategy.
The Romney campaign issued a statement indicating that the Governor had not benefited from the practice.
R. Bradford Malt, an attorney for Governor Romney who manages the Governor’s investments and trusts, argued that investing fee income is a common, accepted and totally legal practice. “However, Governor Romney’s retirement agreement did not give the blind trust or him the right to do this, and I can confirm that neither he nor the trust has ever done this, whether before or after he retired from Bain Capital.”
According to Jack S. Levin, a finance lawyer who has represented Bain Capital, the practice has been in use by investment firms for twenty years and is something the IRS knows about.
The investigation will, inevitably, raise questions as to whether or not Attorney General Schneiderman, who has strong contacts to the Obama Administration, is attempting to embarrass Romney as we head towards the November election.
Still, prominent investment firms, including Blackstone Group and The Carlyle Group, have noted in regulatory filings that they have not participated in diverting management fees into investments in their funds.
In an interview with Fox News this afternoon, Mitt Romney shot back at critics who complained that he didn’t mention Afghanistan or praise U.S. troops in his convention speech last week, arguing that he focused on issues that are “important.”
Fox News’s Brett Baier told Romney that “several speakers” at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte this week criticized the GOP presidential nominee for the omissions (actually it was right-wing foreign policy leader Bill Kristol who started the attacks) and asked him if he had any regrets. “I only regret you’re repeating it day in and day out,” Romney said, adding that his speech focused on things that are important:
Quote :
BAIER: To hear several speakers in Charlotte … they were essentially saying that you don’t care about the U.S. military because you didn’t mention U.S. troops and the war in Afghanistan in your nomination acceptance speech. … Do you regret opening up this line of attack, now a recurring attack, by leaving out that issue in the speech.
ROMNEY: I only regret you’re repeating it day in and day out. When you give a speech you don’t go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that you think are important and I described in my speech, my commitment to a strong military unlike the president’s decision to cut our military. And I didn’t use the word troops, I used the word military. I think they refer to the same thing.
The Romney campaign has so far refused to clarify which tax deductions and loopholes it would eliminate in order to make its huge proposed tax cut for the rich revenue neutral. Despite repeated requests, the campaign and candidate have refused to budge, content to say that the tax plan “can’t be scored” due to its lack of detail.
And even Fox News has apparently had it with the campaign’s consistent dodging of this question, as Fox’s Gregg Jarrett repeatedly asked Romney policy director Lanhee Chen about it during an interview on Friday:
Quote :
JARRETT: He’s not saying which of the loopholes and deductions and credits and exemptions he wants to close. That is huge. That’s significant. How can he not tell the American people those facts?
CHEN: Well, let’s back up for a second. This is a race about two dramatically different philosophies. [...] As you’ve said, they’re going to get rid of some of this underbrush, some of the deductions and some of the exemptions that are clouding our tax code.
JARRETT: But why won’t he explain how and which ones and by how much?
CHEN: Well, you know, a number of different bipartisan commissions over the years have told us exactly how we get there. The key is presidential leadership and that’s something that’s been lacking. That’s something that Governor Mitt Romney is going to provide in the White House.
JARRETT: But Mr. Chen, forgive me, you’re just not answering my question. So let me put it again: which loopholes and deductions and credits and exemptions the President’s going to get rid of would affect all Americans. Before they cast their ballot, don’t they deserve to know which ones are going, which ones are not, and by how much?
CHEN: Look Greg, Governor Romney’s been very clear that first of all we’re going to look to curb deductions for high-income taxpayers. And secondly, a lot of different deductions and exemptions are out there, we’ve got a lot of different ways to get there.
(CNN) - A magazine known for its sexually explicit material is offering a reward of $1 million dollars for a different type of bare-all expose.
The publisher of Hustler magazine, Larry Flynt, is offering the sum for the skinny on GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's financials, the magazine announced.
It is taking out full-page advertisements in two newspapers - The Washington Post on Sunday, and USA Today on Tuesday - "offering up to a million dollars in cash for documented evidence concerning Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney's unreleased tax returns and/or details of his offshore assets, bank accounts and business partnerships," a press release from the magazine read.
Flynt's announcement could be seen as either an attempt to keep the issue of Romney's financial documents alive or put himself - and his magazine - in headlines.
As much as I want to see Rombot's returns to see what he's hiding,I am 100% against this type of tactic. Tax returns are private and should only be released with the consent of the taxpayer who filed them.
The last thing I want is for his returns to become public as a result of an illegal act of a financial bounty hunter. It would immediately open the door to a sympathy vote while giving Fox News and the hate radio crowd a non-stop persecution chant.
Let Rombot keep his returns private and the thoughts of what he's hiding in them will live on until the election. After all,Why stop a train wreck?
Artie60438
Posts : 9728
Subject: Re: Mitt Romney v10.0 9/9/2012, 4:08 pm
The definition of "desperate"......
Quote :
Mitt Romney suggested Saturday in Virginia Beach that President Obama wants to remove God from coins, provoking a fierce retort from the president's campaign.
Quote :
"I will not take God out of our platform," the Republican nominee said after reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. "I will not take God off our coins, and I will not take God out of my heart."
In response, Obama spokeswoman Lis Smith called the insinsuation false and an act of desperation.
"It’s disappointing to see Mitt Romney try to throw a Hail Mary by launching extreme and untrue attacks against the President and associating with some of the most strident and divisive voices in the Republican Party, including Rep. Steve King and Pat Robertson," she said in a statement. "This isn’t a recipe for making America stronger, it’s a recipe for division and taking us backward."
Home 
Publications 
Awkward!!! 
After all,Why stop a train wreck?