Romney's Tax returns: interesting take

WhitmanSampler,

It doesn't matter? It's the IRS' job to make sure he didn't do anything illegal. What are you wanting to look for? To see if he's rich? Of course he is. Do we want to see if he invested outside of the US? Of course he did. Do we want to see if he paid less for his capital gains investments than people did on their income tax? Of course he did. I don't want a poor President that couldn't be successful running a private business that would be willing to pay more in taxes even though all the risk is on him than someone paying income tax as percentage wise. What do you want from this guy?

Only an idiot would complain about how much he pays in capital gains tax. America needs investors more than investors need to invest. People depend on these investors as they need their money to go forward. We need to encourage investing and our growth deeps up on it.

As far as what he did at Bain, he saved many businesses and made them profitable. Any business he saved are jobs he saved. To not have companies like Bain would not be saving these companies and would make unemployment 100% certain. To blame Bain is like blaming the doctor that couldn't save the victim of a drive by shooting.
brickwall.gif


Meanwhile we have a President that has pushed his agenda of green jobs at the expense of the tax payers with ZERO to show for it. He bailed out GM with our money that is billions in the hole and most of that money went to the unions.

So again, we should be worried what Romney did with his own private money that would prove "HE'S SUCCESSFUL" more than we should worry about Obama spending our money "AND IS NOT SUCCESSFUL?" If you were worried about both then why didn't you start a topic about BHO's huge resume of wasteful spending instead of starting a topic about Romney's tax returns that amounts to a button off the shirt in comparison?????????????????
 
While talking about Romney's tax returns, lets question why Obama has so many social security numbers?

Maybe Romney could release more years of tax returns if Obama would agree to explain why he and Michelle need so many social security numbers?

I'm fully aware how racist this question will sound to some, I just don't care anymore. Having more than one SS# is still against the law is it not?

The Link
 
I35, did you just randomly address your post to me? Obviously you did not read my post because you start out with a non sequitor (It doesn't matter?" I suppose you are asking a question, but what does it have to do with my post?), and you follow with a post, that while interesting I suppose, has nothing to do with anything I wrote. You are righeously indignant, however, about a bunch of crap that I did not write. As far as I can tell, the only thing you wrote that has anything to do with anything I wrote is a general point that I should not post anything about Romney's tax returns, not because of anything related to why I posted it,but because you think that nothing that involves Romney's return can possibly be as important as your pet issues. Well ********.

We went through weeks of Romney insisting that he did not have an active role at Bain after 2000, and someone in the press (albeit a part of the press you don't like) has raised a creditable question of whether Romney has been taking exemptions based upon having an IRS defined "active role" at Bane. It may not be accurate, but I'm curious about it and would like to know. I am so sorry that I am not paying enough attention to the issues you are interested in, but this is worthy of discussion too.

It is also interesting that he may be claiming an active role (and the higher 35% tax rate) for losses that benefit him, and a passive role (and the lower 15% tax rate) for income from like sources. There may well be a valid reason for this. I'd like to see it explained.
 
Wow, "SodaHead" posts a chain email! It must be true! Spectacular research skills, Hookem123! The methodology is crap. Here's what SS administration says:

"A spokesperson from the Selective Service System confirmed for TruthorFiction.com that the Social Security number and the draft registration number on the document did indeed belong to Barack Obama and they have no other Social Security numbers associated with his name."
The Link
One riot, one social security number.

The mystery of why Obama has an "042" social security number "reserved for connecticut" is comically easy to explain. Danbury Connecticut has zip code 06814.
The Link
Honolulu has zip code 96814.
The Link
Social security numbers are assigned by zip code. Viola! a one digit typo.

Yes Horn6756, you are a birther, and you deserved to be bashed.
 
WS,

Bill White was accused by Rick Fairy and others of financial impropriety when he was running for governor. He was asked to release his tax returns. He refused because of personal financial privacy. Did you take Perry's side or White's? If you took White's side (as I did), then what basis do you have to take the opposite position on Romney?

The possible answers are:

1) I took Perry's side. All candidates should release their tax returns for the purpose of financial disclosure of to voters.

2) I took White's side, but I agree with White's politics and don't agree with Romney's. My real purpose in wanting Romney's tax returns released is that they might make him look bad to voters. In other words, I'm a partisan hack who doesn't have any intellectual honesty and doesn't care about consistency.
wink.gif
 
Well this explains it then. Thank goodness.
"The mystery of why Obama has an "042" social security number "reserved for connecticut" is comically easy to explain. Danbury Connecticut has zip code 06814.
Honolulu has zip code 96814.



One wonders how BO got the SS card out in Hi if the SS office sent it to the erroneously entered zip code of Danbury Conn?


America is better then Birtherism
 
Deez: I thought White should have released them way sooner than he did. It hurt him politically to give Perry months to bash him over the issue, and when finally released, itput to rest much wild speculation. If the returns has shown anything 'unpleasant' thenI would have wanted to know that too. And yes, they are of public interest at some level, and I think Governor is a high enough level.
 
I don't know, but I suspect that the card was sent to "Honolulu Hawaii" with either the correct of incorrect zip code. I don't know how envelopes are addressed in teh ?Baltimore? SS office. If it had the wrong zip code on it, I bet the USPS figured out where Hawaii was, even with a 9/0 error in the zipcode.
Occams razor. You should borrow it sometime.
 
Yes, all good points. And the slope can indeed be slippery. At the presidential level, we have about 40 years of precedent, so maybe that is a good point on the slope to stop. Obviously ther is no legalrequirement, so the issue is entirely what the voters expect. You don't expect it,so you won't "punish" a candidate. Others will punish a candidate for failure to release records. yet others will do so only if there is a creditable claim or indication that something is amiss, and can be cleared up by release of tax records. But I get your point; its worth thinking about more.
 
So Whitman, you want him to release something because you think he's lying about his time at Bain? Not so much what he made or where he invested but more that he's hiding something or lying about something?

So can you see the other side that wants to see Obama's college transcripts? Because they couldn't care less what he made grade wise (although that would be interesting) years ago but more that he is lying about that or other things at this time. Why does it only have to be one sided? Of course if you agree with the statement that all private documents should be shown to prove lies then why didn't you take the time to address that as well. On a side note I think both sides needs to have the right to privacy. All Obama wants is for Romney to show his taxas so he can play politics and say "See, he is super rich and is out of touch with society." If you think it's for any other reason besides that then I've been giving you too much credit. If you are tired of the political games you would be against this.

Again, you are wanting answers to a button off a shirt in comparison to Obama blowing trillions of dollars of taxpayers money. You call that putting words in your mouth. Redirect much do ya?
 
WOW, just WOW I guess I struck a nerve on WhitmanSampler, the Mother of all afterbirthers is upset and strikes again. Using his usual name calling and soon followed by lies, distortions, and the occasional half truths. Right Whit? You afterbirthers are big on half truths?

Half truth number one from Obama afterbirther dot com, Obama hasn't sealed his records. I'm sure there is some truth to what you have said, as I'm sure you're all fired up to shoot down EO13489. Let me save your dribble. You're going to say Obama's first executive order means nothing and no way it seals any records. No way Eric Holder has been given authority to decide who get to see what and when, and it was all Bush's fault. There I saved you the trouble of a response.

Here's truth for you no half truth can shoot down. Obama's stickin' records have been sealed from every court which has been asked for them. Obama has spent 3 million dollars keeping them sealed. Now for the hard part Whit, I won't ask you to hurt your head in pondering this. Common sense tells most everyone, Barry hasn't spent all that money hiding something he would gladly share with us all. Why? No, don't answer, just send us to another afterbirther website.

For the record, that spokesperson from the Selective Service System which I have yet to even bring up, who signs his checks? Common sense again lacking for the resident afterbirther. And what would he know about social security numbers anyway?

You must be confused again. Obama has questions concerning his Selective Service application (you know when you sign up for the draft) is that what you thought you meant? You're slipping Whit, hang on tight because I've only just begun with unanswered questions.

One more thing, Factcheck .org Really? Com'on Whit, the mother of all afterbirthers should know better.

And just another one more thing, "SodaHead," really, if you haven't got more than that, you better just stop digging right now. Sodahead? We don't need any 6th grade Afterbirther. You better step it up quickly, the unanswered questions are about to get harder.
 
No, that is not my position. I think Romney should comport with what has become tradition and release a reasonable number of returns. He's released one, so he recognises that the concept is not unreasonable, and for 40 years its been more than one year released. There is no tradition/precedent concerning college transcripts, and most people see a difference between recent financial situations that may impact a candidates viewsand priorities, and college transcripts from the 1960's, seventies and eighties. That is why there is not a tradition of releasing college transcripts. Every candidate should be treated similarly. No special rules for Obama or Romney. .

You and Deez disagree. Romney's's made his case,I guess we'll see how much people care. Perhaps he will change the tradition, and his disclosure, one year, will become the new precedent.

The purpose of the original post was to discuss the possible explanation of why Romney refuses to follow precedent. I am not married to it as an explanation, and I don't understand enough about the merits of the HuffPo argument to judge it; I though perhaps some of you would. Maybe its privacy, maybe its the fear you express that some people will hate himbecause he's rich,though tax returns are not essential for that particular silliness, perhaps there is politically damaging stuff, whether lawful or not, or maybe it is in part the active management problem HuffPo posits..

I want to examine Obama's policies, current, past and future spending and priorities, and the candidates' truthfulness, candor, "flip-flops", failed predictions, and assess blame and credit for the good things and bad things that have gone on during Obama's term, and Romney's history. I am not interested in anybody's shirt buttons though.
 
The question WhitmanSampler attempted to distort before the question was ever asked. A new low for afterbirthers everywhere, hope you're not disbarred from the afterbirther movement. You were such a rising star.

The Link
 
You really are gullible dude. And you need to learn the difference between primary sources and sites that link to primary sources and blogs/lunatic websites that do not. Responding to your paragraphs in order (after your introductory paragraph):

1. Thank you for conceding that executive order EO13489 doesn't do what you claimed it does. You left out the fact that it only applies to presidential records, as defined here. The Link "The term “Presidential records” means documentary materials, or any reasonably segregable portion thereof, created or received by the President, his immediate staff, or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the President, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President."
So it has nothing to do with any of the records you are b@tching and moaning about.

2. Ahh, the "millions of dollars in legal fees" crap again. Asserted once again without evidence, but you've received a ton of emails on this, right? As far as I can tell, you guys have no evidence of this. If you have other proof of this claim, I'd love to see it.

4. Please redraft in coherent english; I'll be happy to respond.

As for "Sodahead", you must not read your own links. You linked to a blogger named "Sodahead", who repeaded a chain email, and you cited it as gospel. If I want to be insulting, I can do better than calling you sodahead. Read your own links. Onsecond thought, don't bother if they are of that quality.

One more thing, factcheck.org is a pretty well respected fact checker. Except among the junk emailers, of course.
 
WhitmanSample

Firstly, I never conceded anything about EO13489 proving Obama'a records were not sealed. Lot of lawyerly talk giving Eric Holder authority over what is released. Thus example of half truth you're so big on.

Secondly, you need to read your links better as well. After I mentioned Obama and Michelle have numerous SS numbers. You use this to debunk somehow.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
I guess you really believe this stuff. Astonishing. You guys make a wild claim, with no evidence except a WND or Sheriff Joe article, and say "prove it aint so." When someone does so using resources that ARE available, you scream "its not authoritative," and insist that's not good enough. The thing is, I can't go to the SS administration and make them give me other people's SS numbers. The other thing is, you are the one making the wild claims-ala Harry Reid. The burden of proof is on you. If you think the Selective Service records are inadequate, you go get the SS administration records.

As for the "lawyerly talk" about presidential papers, I guess if fancy talking is too much for you to wade through, then I can't help you. I presume most people on this board who graduated from UT are perfectly capable of reading that fancy lawyer talk I linked to, and seeing that you are, once again, full of it.

I see you an acolyte of Orly Taitz and Sheriff Joe, great Americans both, and you are on board with thir draft card claims.

Their claims have been pretty easily dismissed, but no matter. You will not care, of course. Moreover, they will find another document/theory/photograph ... something to keep your low saturation temperature blood boiling for the next four years, should Obama be re-elected. Because you love the truth. Taitz, Sheriff Joe, and the rest of you birthers will always find something to get them in a wad about. You are the one with "problems about Obama's documents." The documents are fine. You are not.
 
Once again telling me how wrong I am along with Orly, and Sheriff Joe without me once mentioning either. They don't buy everything you and Obama are selling I take it. Yet you dismiss all claims without offering any proof at all.

Certainly no mention of your complete misunderstanding of the workings of the Selective Service and their problems concerning Obama's registration form. For an afterbirther, you're completely failing. Surely you can find one afterbirther web site to debunk the 80 vs 08 completion of Barry's handy work. No? But then you offered the Selective Service as the real deal concerning social security numbers? Still no clue.

No mention of any explanation of Barry and Michelle's multiple SS numbers, like they don't exist. You seem more and more lacking of representing the afterbirther movement. Maybe they should distance themselves from you, and I first thought you were the mother of all afterbirthers. Possibly an after slightly slow afterbirther, you do try.

BTW if anything or anyone was ever "full of it," that would be your last paragraph. What the hell does that mean? "pretty easily dismissed." Huh? How so Afterbirther? "something to get in a wad about?" Really? What are you talking about? "The documents are fine. You are not." How so? Com'on Whit, take a deep breath, relax, and explain yourself. Don't just throw stuff at the wall to see to see what sticks. Disappointed, very disappointed.
 
Those making the claims have the burden of proof.

You can find websites that dbunk your drivel . You don't need me to do that. I'm not feeding the troll anymore.

In closing, tell us:
How many social security numbers do you have? I have done extensive research and I found irrefutable evidence that you have 57 different social security numbers in vriations of your real name. Prove you have only one, and I'll prove Obama has only one.
 
Whit, you are losing crediability every post you make. You are becoming Satch all over again. Seriously, you (the troll) claim you're not going to feed the trol when you can't or have no way of responding.

You were asked a direct question and instead of just answering it, you try to spin and then claim the troll bid.

Just answer this or man up and say "no", I didn't realize there is a difference between the Selective Service and the Social Security Administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top