Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Lynata wrote:I just think it's sad that he feels he has to make compromises like this one.

Romney has to make the same compromises.

Lynata wrote:It's obvious he'll never be able to raise as much money as the Republicans anyways.

He raised a lot of money last time, and is raising many again. This isn't about campaign financing, it is about third party spoilers, more or less.

Lynata wrote:might at well stay true to his ideals.

Hark! Do you hear it? It is the mating call of a losing campaign. Part of being a professional politician, hell an adult, is knowing when to compromise, and when not to. We don't exist alone here so on occasion we have have to take into account others.

Lynata wrote:Yes, not doing so potentially puts him at a disadvantage compared to his opponent. But the same goes for a lot of other dirty tricks.

It isn't potential disadvantage, it is just flat out a disadvantage. It also isn't a dirty trick, just a sad state of modern post-Citizens United ruling. Recognizing how ridiculious it is doesn't mean it is like throwing mud in someones eye during a football game.

Lynata wrote:You know, it's almost gotten to a point where you can do away with elections altogether and have citizens buy shares in a corporate government. Wouldn't that be more efficient? And totally non-socialist!

PS: Sheesh, Colbert is awesome. I need to watch more of this guy.

I was being a bit cheeky becuase they keep referring to it as 'Obama's' or 'Romney's', when technically they are separate entities. Colbert's ongoing bits on Super and Spooky PACs are amazing, and a little frightening.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Bonus question - which group's "I Used to Love Her" had those lyrics (no intranetz peaking!)

GNR, I wouldn't think you'd know that group, I think they came around after 8 tracks

Mmm 8 tracks. Memories of Freddy Fender, Johnny Cash, Waylong Jennings, and Janis Joplin flooding into my mind. Thank you for that.

Ahtman wrote:Romney has to make the same compromises.

Which is why *I* wouldn't vote him.

Ahtman wrote:He raised a lot of money last time, and is raising many again. This isn't about campaign financing, it is about third party spoilers, more or less.

Oh come on. Whose name is on the cheque is completely irrelevant when everyone knows what the money is meant for.
Denying the threat that Super PACs are posing to the fundamental concepts of democracy is taking another brick out of the wall.

Ahtman wrote:It also isn't a dirty trick, just a sad state of modern post-Citizens United ruling.

From where I stand it's legalised corruption.
A candidate now just has to promise the corporations whatever and they're free to fund his campaign with all the money they made on the backs of the voters - said money then being used to brainwash the very same people via media spin. A vicious cycle.

I mean ... dammit, I know that corporations donating money to a party has always been part of the game - but that it can now be done in broad daylight is just flat wrong.
And no, don't fall back to the supposed lack of connection between the PACs and the party now. You of all people should know that things are not that honest.

Here's another bit of political satire - with a dark undertone: http://www.cap-news.com/story.php?id=201202002

LordofHats wrote:

Ahtman wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Mel......Reid is a he....

Can we really know without seeing a birth certificate?

Wait, your right.

I demand Reid prove he's not a woman! How can we trust a majority leader who lies about her biology!

Ask yourself: Do you really want a 72 year old man to drop his trousers to prove to you his gender?

Can do it on the Senate floor and no one can really say a dang thing

It's less the legality and more "who really wants to see a 72 year old man's wang?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/study-romney-tax-plan-would-result-in-cuts-for-rich-higher-burden-for-others/2012/08/01/gJQAbeCCOX_story.html

I think this matters a lot more than Romney's tax returns.

LoneLictor wrote:I think this matters a lot more than Romney's tax returns.

It all matters to varying degrees, unless one is a single issue voter, in which case nothing else matters, including your link if it doesn't effect the one issue.

The majority of people are single issue voters.

Is he a republican or a democrat.

Only thing that matters for too many people.

Reid's handling of the issue has been terrible. The Democrats have already scored a lot of points against Romney on this, and managed to frame the perception of Romney away from 'the kind of can-do businessman who can take us out of economic hardship' and into 'the kind of businessman who outsources jobs and pays too few taxes who put us into this mess in the first place'. There's no need to oversell that point, and yet Reid does that anyway, by making a specific claim about Romney with no evidence to back it up, which in turns gives FOX news scope to challenge this, and thereby throw some level of doubt over the whole campaign.

I've always wondered why Republicans went after Pelosi so strongly. She was always a stronger performer than Reid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:Caveat: If he does release his last 10 years of tax record... I hope it show that he maximized his tax savings. I want a president that is smart/savvy enough to take advantage of legal tax strategies.

Your mistake there is in assuming tax strategies exist in some kind of bubble, completing outside of human intervention. We write the tax laws that produce those tax strategies, and can change them when they produce results that aren't desirable. I mean, if it was discovered that Romney earned 50 million in 2008 and paid $37 in tax, it'd be complete nonsense to say 'it was all legal, nothing to see here'... it'd demand a major review of the tax code.

That's the point here, not 'were his returns legal?' but 'is the amount of tax he paid considered reasonable to most Americans?'


Oh, and complaining about class warfare is just silly. Progressive tax isn't class warfare. Seizing the land of the aristocracy and handing out parcels of it to the serfs, nationalising the assets of wealthy industrialist, lining up bankers in a firing line... that's class warfare. Use words according to their actual meaning, please.

Once again the modern Democratic party show that they are really bad at the game of politics. It was, as you said, extremely harmful to the democratic campaign and they really should be trying to present a united front, which is something they are really bad at.

I've always wondered why Republicans went after Pelosi so strongly. She was always a stronger performer than Reid.

Probably because she's kind of a twit. Basically a walking blow horn that just spews nonsense (I actually don't think she's an idiot, she just says idiotic things). I don't follow Reid at all, so I have no idea if he's worse

Once again the modern Democratic party show that they are really bad at the game of politics. It was, as you said, extremely harmful to the democratic campaign and they really should be trying to present a united front, which is something they are really bad at.

Well sure, but they don't have to be good at it. They just have to be better than the Republicans

LordofHats wrote:

I've always wondered why Republicans went after Pelosi so strongly. She was always a stronger performer than Reid.

Probably because she's kind of a twit. Basically a walking blow horn that just spews nonsense (I actually don't think she's an idiot, she just says idiotic things). I don't follow Reid at all, so I have no idea if he's worse

Once again the modern Democratic party show that they are really bad at the game of politics. It was, as you said, extremely harmful to the democratic campaign and they really should be trying to present a united front, which is something they are really bad at.

Well sure, but they don't have to be good at it. They just have to be better than the Republicans

The republicans as a party are significantly better at politics then the Democrats, when the dems had a super majority they still bowed to republican pressure despite no republican would vote for their bills

“It's not that the Democrats are playing checkers and the Republicans are playing chess. It's that the Republicans are playing chess and the Democrats are in the nurse's office because once again they glued their balls to their thighs.”-Jon Stewart

This is too simple, just reveal the requested information and move on.

If you can't reveal something, it sounds like you're hiding something.

And to the notion that revealing the documents is only adding fuel to the fire, I agree, don't you all remember how long fox news talked and displayed a certain birth certificate? Did it matter? No it didn't, and only a crazed billionaire with a toupee talks about it anymore.

Problem with that if Romney shows his pass ten year tax return how many would believe it was "doctored" or fake

Of course it was doctored.

Before it was submitted to the IRS.

Then we're all guilty of doctoring our tax returns

Wait we're supposed to file tax returns?

I had fun filling out my tax returns. All my 40K purchases was a tax deduction. All 3.5K worth

Jihadin wrote:Problem with that if Romney shows his pass ten year tax return how many would believe it was "doctored" or fake

I know just the guy for checking that out.

Before I click on that Ouze I'm guessing Apaio



edit
I WIN!!!!

Well, it was him or Orly Taitz, and he seems to like the attention more.

Yes. Yes. He does. I think age is effecting his mind at times.

Wasn't this in a different thread?

sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

whembly wrote:Caveat: If he does release his last 10 years of tax record... I hope it show that he maximized his tax savings. I want a president that is smart/savvy enough to take advantage of legal tax strategies.

Your mistake there is in assuming tax strategies exist in some kind of bubble, completing outside of human intervention. We write the tax laws that produce those tax strategies, and can change them when they produce results that aren't desirable. I mean, if it was discovered that Romney earned 50 million in 2008 and paid $37 in tax, it'd be complete nonsense to say 'it was all legal, nothing to see here'... it'd demand a major review of the tax code.

That's the point here, not 'were his returns legal?' but 'is the amount of tax he paid considered reasonable to most Americans?'

Yes... I see your drift here... but, why blame him for taking advantage of something legal. If we don't like it, it needs to change.

I think I mentioned in the other thread that I'd advocate just keeping the same tax bracket and just remove ALL deductions/loopholes.

Oh, and complaining about class warfare is just silly. Progressive tax isn't class warfare. Seizing the land of the aristocracy and handing out parcels of it to the serfs, nationalising the assets of wealthy industrialist, lining up bankers in a firing line... that's class warfare. Use words according to their actual meaning, please.

Mea culpa... you're right... for some reason in my sleep deprived state I've latched onto that concept. I think what I was really driving at (and it's not exactly right), is that the "social engineering" onto the tax code is the problem. This spawns all sorts of (in my opinion) undesirable behaviors, such as legally mitigating your tax liabilities. Everyone does it... it's just that the super rich benefits from that even more. THATS where the angst comes from...

Back to the OP: It's August... I think that Romney is just embarrassed that he has too much money and maximized his tax strategy legally (as any wealthy or big corporation does). He should release them now, call out Reid's bluff.

Yeah, Romney will look bad in the short term that "he's just another rich white guy"... but, I don't think it's that damaging because we already know he's filthy rich. Better release it now, take his licking in August where no one will remember in November.

Then, it'll essentially show that Reid has no credibility from this point forward and we'll question every future accusations.

And oh... stop this "I'll release this if you release Obama's sealed record"... meh... who cares.

whembly wrote:Yes... I see your drift here... but, why blame him for taking advantage of something legal. If we don't like it, it needs to change.

The problem being that the people this benefits most by keeping things as they are, are those in charge of being able to change it. Same reason that you probably will not see any change to the stupid way that companies are protected in the US; today's sentate/congress/etc is tomorrow's (and probably yesterday's) board members.

Interestingly enough...I've heard a possible reason he wont release his returns is the Mormon Church. He is supposed to pay a tithe of all his income to the church. Were his tax returns to show he hasn't been doing that, he would lose his position as an elder of the church and likely be excommunicated.

I find it hilarious that people think Harry Reid is hurting President Obama's chances in the election.

No one cares about Harry Reid. He's not on any ballots this year. Having him come out and just say crazy gak about Romney just keeps the conversation on how Romney is this weird millionaire, which is good for Obama.

This has also made it so Romney can't run on his success in Bain. Oh, this also doesn't help him any:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/mitt-romney-death-squads-bain_n_1710133.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

I almost feel bad for Mitt Romney. He's a Mormon church leader who has made hundreds of millions of dollars in venture capital who can speak French and who became the governor of a New England state, and the only thing he can run on is how he "saved" the Olympics.

I'd feel bad for the guy if he actually believed in anything more than his own success.

TheHammer wrote:Oh, this also doesn't help him any:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/08/mitt-romney-death-squads-bain_n_1710133.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Huh, I guess cynics would say that things are coming "full circle", when you think about stuff like Project FUBELT etc.

Also makes you wonder where the money for Romney's Super PACs is coming from, though.

The secret of a great success for which you are at a loss to account is a crime that has never been found out, because it was properly executed. - Honoré de Balzac's Le Père Goriot

For the French readers:

As an update to this "story", Romney released his 2011 taxes on Friday. Lo and behold, he pays taxes.

I think Harry Reid owes Mr. Romney; and the American people, an apology for his shenanigans and/or nonsense.