Romney as CEO in 1999

[highnote]

I'm not trying to stir the pot -- although, I'm willing to take the risk that this post might. :D But mainly, what I'm interested in knowing is how Romney will deal with the following situation.

I read an interesting point today about Romney claiming to resign as Bain CEO in 1999. The article said Bain's annual report to the SEC says Romney was CEO until 2002.

One of the things Romney did after early 1999 is invest in a company called Stericycle whose services included the disposal of aborted fetuses.

Bain also engineered many layoffs after 1999.

The Romney campaign says Romney left Bain in 1999 and had no input on investments or management companies after that point.

So were the SEC filings false, or was Romney CEO during the Stericycle investments and the layoffs?

I am curious to see how the Romney campaign can spin it because it can't be both. These are the types of landmines that a master politician needs to navigate.

That's why I have always felt Obama was a better politician than Hillary, but Hillary might have made a better president.

[PaceAdvantage]

Well, if we're going to believe that annual report, then I guess we have to believe this about his rival:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

I mean, if it's there in black and white print, it must be true, right?

Oh, but you were looking for a response from the candidate? Sure, here you go:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/13/12728554-romney-i-left-all-management-of-bain-capital-in-february-1999?lite

[elysiantraveller]

I'm not trying to stir the pot -- although, I'm willing to take the risk that this post might. :D But mainly, what I'm interested in knowing is how Romney will deal with the following situation.


Romney left the company in 1999 and was not a member of its business operations after February 1999.

Hell, Steve Pagliuca who was a managing director at Bain and who ran in 2010 for a Senate seat as a Democrat even says this is all idiotic.

When John King says it isn't really a story it isn't really a story...

John King goes responsible journalist?!?!?! (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/12/politics/john-king-bain/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

But the more the media keeps talking about it the more they get people like us talking about it and hopefully the more voters it turns off to Romney.

Such is the game of politics.

[highnote]

Well, if we're going to believe that annual report,

I don't know whether the annual report story is true or not. That's why I'm asking. Did Bain capital file an annual report with the SEC that said Romney was CEO from 1999-2002?

Romney says he was CEO in 1999 but that he left his duties. So if the annual report says he was CEO in 2000 through 2002 then the annual report is false?




Oh, but you were looking for a response from the candidate? Sure, here you go:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/13/12728554-romney-i-left-all-management-of-bain-capital-in-february-1999?lite

He didn't answer the question about the 2000-2002 annual report filing. And that is why I said a master politician would have a good answer for this. He just didn't answer. Voters won't like that answer.

He also won't release his old tax returns which could clear up a lot of this.

Personally, I don't care because as a libertarian neither major party candidate will be getting my vote this time. However, the people who might vote for Romney will care. And it will be interesting to see how much they care and if his statements about being CEO, the annual reports and withholding tax returns will be enough to keep people from voting for him.

[PaceAdvantage]

He also won't release his old tax returns which could clear up a lot of this.I believe he's stated that he has released more than he has been required to release.

And if we're gonna go that route, then Obama might be in trouble... :lol:

[highnote]

Romney left the company in 1999 and was not a member of its business operations after February 1999.

....

But the more the media keeps talking about it the more they get people like us talking about it and hopefully the more voters it turns off to Romney.

Such is the game of politics.

You're right. This is politics. Why the hell would Romney or anyone want to put themselves through this?

The media needs to be fed. And voters want to be fed information, too. So there is a demand for this type of info. And when the info is inconsistent then people ask questions.

You can't say to the public that you left the role of CEO in 1999 but let your company file an annual report with the SEC saying you were CEO until 2002. And if you're going to say and do this then you better have a good answer when people ask you about it.

[highnote]

I believe he's stated that he has released more than he has been required to release.

And if we're gonna go that route, then Obama might be in trouble... :lol:


I totally agree. Obama should show his report cards. Why not? So what if got Cs and Ds.

There's an old saying, "The lawyers who make A's in law school make the best judges. The ones who make B's make the best professors. The ones who makes C's make the most money."

You are correct that Romney has released more than he is required to release.

His own father released 12 years of returns when he ran for president and chastised politicians who did not. Since then, it has become common for presidential candidates to release their tax forms.

Think of it like this: If you were going to buy stock in a company would you look at only the most recent financial statement? Well, you might, but Benjamin Graham understood the power of investing in companies that have stable earnings over a 5 or 10 year period.

But this is about voters. Will people who are undecided vote for someone else besides Romney because of these issues?

Every vote for a third party probably helps Obama more than it helps Romney.

[ElKabong]

Funny. Obama's been a part of only ONE significant financial transaction I can think of, and that landed his buddy Tony Rezko in prison. Yet the DNC (and Obama hisownself) dredge up shit about Bain when Romney was off organizing the SLC Olympic

[elysiantraveller]

You're right. This is politics. Why the hell would Romney or anyone want to put themselves through this?

The media needs to be fed. And voters want to be fed information, too. So there is a demand for this type of info. And when the info is inconsistent then people ask questions.

You can't say to the public that you left the role of CEO in 1999 but let your company file an annual report with the SEC saying you were CEO until 2002. And if you're going to say and do this then you better have a good answer when people ask you about it.

Dude, Bain has issued countless statement verifying Romney's story. The managing director who also happens to be a democrat that has ran for office verified Romney's story. There is no story here.

You though and your reaction is exactly what this type of misdirection is supposed to accomplish. For them though it's great, you want more information, since there is no more information, Romney is lying.

[highnote]

Dude, Bain has issued countless statement verifying Romney's story. The managing director who also happens to be a democrat that has ran for office verified Romney's story. There is no story here.

You though and your reaction is exactly what this type of misdirection is supposed to accomplish. For them though it's great, you want more information, since there is no more information, Romney is lying.


Maybe you're right. That's why I'm asking. No doubt, some journalists are less than credible and would try to sway their readers with misleading information. But a good journalist would present the facts.

So you're saying that the annual report that Bain filed with the SEC does NOT say that Romney was CEO for the entire period after 1999 and through 2002? In other words, there is not an annual report filed by Bain that says Romney was CEO in 2000, 2001 or 2002.

[ElKabong]

I'm not trying to stir the pot -- although, I'm willing to take the risk that this post might. :D ..................

So were the SEC filings false, or was Romney CEO during the Stericycle investments and the layoffs?

.

The angle of your post is "see thru" all the way. Disgusting.

[highnote]

The angle of your post is "see thru" all the way. Disgusting.


I am interested in politics and am interested in having a discussion about politics. I am happy to engage you in discussion.

It is a fair question to ask about Bain Capital's SEC annual report filing.

Romney says he quit as CEO in 1999. Bain's SEC report says he was CEO through 2002.

There is an inconsistency here and the way Romney answers this question is important -- especially to me -- a person who is an independent voter. I am leaning toward voting for neither major party candidate. I am the voter the candidates are trying to win over.

I hate that I have to qualify my post by saying I am not trying to stir the pot because there are always people who get upset whenever their beliefs are challenged.

So why is it disgusting to ask about something that affects the way I vote?

You know what -- maybe I should find a new message board to post on that leans toward politics rather than racing because obviously people here are way too sensitive when it comes to discussing politics.

[elysiantraveller]

I am interested in politics and am interested in having a discussion about politics. I am happy to engage you in discussion.

It is a fair question to ask about Bain Capital's SEC annual report filing.

Romney says he quit as CEO in 1999. Bain's SEC report says he was CEO through 2002.

There is an inconsistency here and the way Romney answers this question is important -- especially to me -- a person who is an independent voter. I am leaning toward voting for neither major party candidate. I am the voter the candidates are trying to win over.

I hate that I have to qualify my post by saying I am not trying to stir the pot because there are always people who get upset whenever their beliefs are challenged.

So why is it disgusting to ask about something that affects the way I vote?

You know what -- maybe I should find a new message board to post on that leans toward politics rather than racing because obviously people here are way too sensitive when it comes to discussing politics.

No, what you are trying to do is really no different than the President.

[highnote]

No, what you are trying to do is really no different than the President.


Maybe so, but you still have not given an answer to the question I asked of you a few posts back:

"So you're saying that the annual report that Bain filed with the SEC does NOT say that Romney was CEO for the entire period after 1999 and through 2002? In other words, there is not an annual report filed by Bain that says Romney was CEO in 2000, 2001 or 2002."

[elysiantraveller]

Maybe so, but you still have not given an answer to the question I asked of you a few posts back:

"So you're saying that the annual report that Bain filed with the SEC does NOT say that Romney was CEO for the entire period after 1999 and through 2002? In other words, there is not an annual report filed by Bain that says Romney was CEO in 2000, 2001 or 2002."

I posted an article that addresses the question you just posed. It even uses a source who ran for office as a Democrat. You are being dishonest in your question and are just looking for conjecture. You don't like Romney and want there to be something more... there isn't...

[highnote]

I posted an article that addresses the question you just posed. It even uses a source who ran for office as a Democrat. You are being dishonest in your question and are just looking for conjecture. You don't like Romney and want there to be something more... there isn't...

Fine. I'll go back and read the article again.

However, you are not correct about me liking Romney. I like him. I think he is a nice guy. Asking questions about Romney does not mean I do not like him. That I don't like him is purely conjecture on your part.

Do I like Romney more than Obama? Yes.

Do I think Romney would make a better president than Obama? No.

Those are two different questions.

All I ask for is a simple yes or no answer to the question voters want to know:

Did Bain file a report with the SEC that says Romney was CEO after 1999?

Yes or no?

So far, no one has been willing to answer this. And when the question is raised I only hear the sound of flip flopping and flip flopping is not going to win the election.

But first, is there anything other than the SEC filings to suggest a hands-on Romney role at Bain post-February 1999?

No is the word from four sources who communicated with CNN on Thursday -- all of whom have firsthand knowledge of Bain's operations at the time in question. Three of the four are Democrats, and two of the four are active Obama supporters in Campaign 2012.

The first sentence of this quote proves the SEC filings for 3 years after he departed are false.

So why did Bain file false reports with the SEC?

That is perhaps an even bigger question!

[elysiantraveller]

Fine. I'll go back and read the article again.

However, you are not correct about me liking Romney. I like him. I think he is a nice guy. Asking questions about Romney does not mean I do not like him. That I don't like him is purely conjecture on your part.

Do I like Romney more than Obama? Yes.

Do I think Romney would make a better president than Obama? No.

Those are two different questions.

All I ask for is a simple yes or no answer to the question voters want to know:

Did Bain file a report with the SEC that says Romney was CEO after 1999?

Yes or no?

So far, no one has been willing to answer this. And when the question is raised I only hear the sound of flip flopping and flip flopping is not going to win the election.

My answer is; I don't know and its largely irrelevant if they did.

Why do you think Romney wouldn't be as good of a President as Obama? It seems odd that you want "dirt" on the guy you like more while at the same time saying you think the guy throwing it is a better executive.

Just saw your edit... Why does there have to be a conspiracy here? Hell Romney could still have been listed as the CEO then and not been replaced while he was on extended leave. Or, the position wasn't filled for two years after he left as the company was going through transition so he was just left on the books in that role... Those are two perfectly plausible scenarios that don't involve conspiracies or coverups.

[highnote]

Let's look at this another way. What if the CEO at the time Romney claims he was not the CEO decided to run the company into the ground? Would Romney have stepped in and changed the way things were being run?

If so, that means Romney was the true CEO and understood and OK'd the investments that were being made.

This would be consistent with the SEC filings.

So why won't he just admit he was the CEO and 100% shareholder?

Maybe it's because Bain Capital invested in a company that disposed of aborted fetuses? I don't know the reason. I'm just speculating.

All I know is that if you file a report with the SEC that says you are the CEO then you should not tell everyone else you are not CEO. It's not logical. The only reason to do so is because you are hiding something -- or so it would seem.

[highnote]

My answer is; I don't know and its largely irrelevant if they did.

Well, let me tell you, then, since you don't want to answer. I don't think the SEC would lie about what is in a public document. According to the reports I read even Bain says Romney is listed as CEO after 1999.

So I assume you will agree that Bain filed a report that says Romney was CEO after 1999. Anyone who disagrees then is saying that the SEC is lying.

[bigmack]

My answer is; I don't know and its largely irrelevant if they did.
We've had to endure multiple alarmists.

- He offered to wager Perry $10K! OH NO.
- His wife has two Cadillac's. OH NO
- He made a major announcement in a stadium that was 10th full. OH NO
- He's renovating his home up the street with a 4 car elevator. OH NO


Now this Bain crap. Wait til after the debates. Polls will shift like they did in '80.

As mentioned ad nauseum from moi for months; I ain't sweatin' this election.

[Robert Goren]

This " I wasn't really there, but I signed official documents for them because they were going through a transition." defense comes off as pretty hokey. I have trouble imagining that any company worth its salt would actually allow that to happen.

[lamboguy]

the bottom line is that Romney has worked in the private sector running a business with his skin on the line, while this president has only held a public job.

none of these guys are perfect, and sometimes stretch the truth. but all over the world you have leaders that go further to mislead their constituents and will stab each other in the back when the other guy's not looking.

real fine choices you have, but that's the way the world turns!

[elysiantraveller]

This " I wasn't really there, but I signed official documents for them because they were going through a transition." defense comes off as pretty hokey. I have trouble imagining that any company worth its salt would actually allow that to happen.

From the King article referenced in post 3...

Only one, Bain Managing Director Steve Pagliuca, would talk on the record. The others spoke only on condition of anonymity, citing either Bain's low-key culture or the desire not to anger friends in the Obama campaign.

Pagliuca, a Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for Senate in 2010, told CNN: "Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics and has had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure."

In explaining the SEC documents filed in 2000 and 2001, Pagliuca said, "Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney's departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999. Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period."

... again...

I don't know what you really want. This isn't even a new story this already had a news cycle back during the GOP primaries there is NOTHING here...

[Robert Goren]

If what the article says is true then it not only says a lot about the way Bain was run but about Romney who allowed himself to used in that way. When I sign my name to something, I do not claim to be something I am not. I wasn't raised that way. Romney must have been raised a whole different than me to allow himself to be used in that way. I can't believe very many other posters here were raised to do what Romney did. Although I often I disagree with many of the posters here, I always assume they have integrity.

[elysiantraveller]

If what the article says is true then it not only says a lot about the way Bain was run but about Romney who allowed himself to used in that way. When I sign my name to something, I do not claim to be something I am not. I wasn't raised that way. Romney must have been raised a whole different than me to allow himself to be used in that way. I can't believe very many other posters here were raised to do what Romney did. Although I often I disagree with many of the posters here, I always assume they have integrity.

Duly noted...

Of course according to you whole industries of people are out there just to rip you off and steal your money. :rolleyes:

Can we at least agree that Mitt Romney isn't a felon? :lol:

I don't think Mitt was counting on your vote anyway.

[fast4522]

If what the article says is true then it not only says a lot about the way Bain was run but about Romney who allowed himself to used in that way. When I sign my name to something, I do not claim to be something I am not. I wasn't raised that way. Romney must have been raised a whole different than me to allow himself to be used in that way. I can't believe very many other posters here were raised to do what Romney did. Although I often I disagree with many of the posters here, I always assume they have integrity.

Directly to the core of what Robert is saying is in exchange for being used Romney gets rich, right?

The problem is really that Romney is 100 times the man that Robert will ever be and he knows it. Moreover Robert thinks of Romney as a threat to his very existence and entitlement benefits. Thus the reasoning for most of his posts.

[lamboguy]

today the Greek.com lowered their election price from democrat -185 to -175, there must be some republican money coming in @ +165 now its +155

[NJ Stinks]

Moreover Robert thinks of Romney as a threat to his very existence and entitlement benefits. Thus the reasoning for most of his posts.

Robert doesn't think it. He knows it.

Romney may have some core beliefs but who knows what they are. The guy goes whatever way the wind is blowing.

God forbid he should have to tee off against the wind. :rolleyes:

[Wagergirl]

God forbid he should have to tee off against the wind. :rolleyes:

Does that mean he would have to break it........

[Saratoga_Mike]

We've had to endure multiple alarmists.

- He offered to wager Perry $10K! OH NO.
- His wife has two Cadillac's. OH NO
- He made a major announcement in a stadium that was 10th full. OH NO
- He's renovating his home up the street with a 4 car elevator. OH NO


Now this Bain crap. Wait til after the debates. Polls will shift like they did in '80.

As mentioned ad nauseum from moi for months; I ain't sweatin' this election.

I don't have any problem with Romney's success, but these facts paint an unhelpful narrative (i.e., out-out-of-touch rich guy), which resonates with many undecided voters. I think it's unwise to blithely dismiss these lines of attack.

As for the debate, I don't think Obama is a particularly good debater (very good orator, but not debater). In fact, Hillary won every debate against Obama in 07/08 with the exception of her disastrous performance in Philadelphia. While I think Romney is quicker on his feet than Obama, he's going to look awful calling for the repeal of ObamaCare while defending RomneyCare (the state vs. federal mandate line of reasoning will not pass muster with most voters). In addition, Romney often comes across as an automaton--that will turn off a lot of voters. The election will be closer than you're predicting, in my opinion.

[highnote]

Why do you think Romney wouldn't be as good of a President as Obama?


Obama has had 4 more years of experience than Romney.


It seems odd that you want "dirt" on the guy you like more while at the same time saying you think the guy throwing it is a better executive.


I don't want dirt -- just the truth. If the truth is dirty or clean, so be it.


Just saw your edit... Why does there have to be a conspiracy here?

Maybe there isn't? Maybe Romney being called CEO of Bain from 2000-2002 was just a technicality. Then again, maybe it wasn't.

[fast4522]

Robert doesn't think it. He knows it.

Romney may have some core beliefs but who knows what they are. The guy goes whatever way the wind is blowing.

God forbid he should have to tee off against the wind. :rolleyes:

Good, you guys should shit yourselves for bringing this country to the brink of failure.

[TJDave]

Good, you guys should shit yourselves for bringing this country to the brink of failure.

Which guys?

Thinking this is result of liberal policy and programs is shortsighted. It's not paying for them that got us to here.

Americans love socialism... Especially when we can get it on credit.

[GaryG]

In this case his four years of experience is not an asset to his campaign. They want to talk about dogs on cars and other nonsense to avoid focusing on his abysmal failure and virtual destruction of our country. This is a man who has never held a real job and was given a free ride through life starting as a "foreign student". Fo mo years y'all....

[Tom]

Did Bain file a report with the SEC that says Romney was CEO after 1999?

Well then the story is then about Bain, not Romney, isn't it

[elysiantraveller]

:eek:

Maybe there isn't? Maybe Romney being called CEO of Bain from 2000-2002 was just a technicality. Then again, maybe it wasn't.

:eek:

Only one, Bain Managing Director Steve Pagliuca, would talk on the record. The others spoke only on condition of anonymity, citing either Bain's low-key culture or the desire not to anger friends in the Obama campaign.

Pagliuca, a Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for Senate in 2010, told CNN: "Mitt Romney left Bain Capital in February 1999 to run the Olympics and has had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure."

In explaining the SEC documents filed in 2000 and 2001, Pagliuca said, "Due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney's departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999. Accordingly, Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on SEC filings during this period."
Dense much...?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Obama has had 4 more years of experience than Romney.


Under this standard, I assume you always vote for the incumbent - unless you were around in 1912?

[highnote]

Well then the story is then about Bain, not Romney, isn't it


It's about Romney if he was CEO. As CEO he would have to sign off on the reports.

It's not that big of a deal. I only brought it up because it was being discussed in the media. Thanks to everyone who responded I have a better understanding of the situation.

[highnote]

So it sounds like Romney was still CEO of Bain in 2002 because he was the major shareholder according to the documents filed, but he had given up responsibility for running Bain in 1999 in order to run the Olympics.

Is that correct?

[newtothegame]

It's about Romney if he was CEO. As CEO he would have to sign off on the reports.

It's not that big of a deal. I only brought it up because it was being discussed in the media. Thanks to everyone who responded I have a better understanding of the situation.

not that big of a deal??? Must be, in your previous post, you seemed to end it and thank everyone for their answers yet, here you are back today with more of the same yada yada yada .......
Did you realize for a topic that is "not that big of a deal", you have more then a third of the post in this thread??
And apparently, you missed my post in another thread about why some people (you) think this is a big deal yet have NEVER questioned our total lack of information on the current sitting president.
Could you possibly explain that?
Can you provide info where Romney was associated with KNOWN terrorist?
How about Romney having a book that lies about his past?
How about Romney hiding or not providing his college documents?
How about Romney admitting he was a drug user?
How about Romney only working in the public sector and NEVER holding a real job?
How about Romney, strong arming states when it comes to enforcing immigration laws that are already on the books?
Ohhh wait, all of the above is the OBAMA machine.
Shall I go on?
Yet you guys are concerned with Romney and a freaking hair cut he gave a kid back some 30-40 years ago???? Now you want to know what is going on with Bain from ten years ago? But you refuse to look into Obama's past???
Yeah, you havent decided who you're voting for....SUREEEEEEEEEEEEE!
:lol:

[fast4522]

Exactly.

[highnote]

The mainstream media and Obama campaign are making accusations about Romney. So I want to know if those accusations are warranted. Just because many people hate Obama does not mean that Romney is a saint and cannot be questioned. I would think every voter would want to know as much about the candidates as possible.

And for the record, I would like for Obama to release as many documents as possible about his past. I don't see why anyone should be able to hide anything when they are running for president. Total transparency should be required.

Since newtothegame posted a rebuttal that has almost nothing to do with answering a question I had about the facts being presented, let's go over the facts again:

1.) Romney says he was not CEO of Bain after 1999.

2.) Bain filed documents with SEC that say that Romney was CEO through 2002.

So I will repeat my question in hopes that someone can actually shed some light on the truth rather than deflect attention away from the quesiton:

It sounds like Romney was still CEO of Bain in 2002 because he was the major shareholder according to the documents filed, but he had given up responsibility for running Bain in 1999 in order to run the Olympics. Is that correct?

It's a yes or no answer. Any longer answer is an attempt at bullshitting.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The mainstream media and Obama campaign are making accusations about Romney. So I want to know if those accusations are warranted. Just because many people hate Obama does not mean that Romney is a saint and cannot be questioned. I would think every voter would want to know as much about the candidates as possible.

And for the record, I would like for Obama to release as many documents as possible about his past. I don't see why anyone should be able to hide anything when they are running for president. Total transparency should be required.

Since newtothegame posted a rebuttal that has almost nothing to do with answering a question I had about the facts being presented, let's go over the facts again:

1.) Romney says he was not CEO of Bain after 1999.

2.) Bain filed documents with SEC that say that Romney was CEO through 2002.

So I will repeat my question in hopes that someone can actually shed some light on the truth rather than deflect attention away from the quesiton:

It sounds like Romney was still CEO of Bain in 2002 because he was the major shareholder according to the documents filed, but he had given up responsibility for running Bain in 1999 in order to run the Olympics. Is that correct?

It's a yes or no answer. Any longer answer is an attempt at bullshitting.

From the NY Times, July, 12, 2012:

A statement from Charlyn Lusk, a spokeswoman for Bain Capital, reiterated Mr. Romney’s position that he “has had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure” in 1999.

Ms. Lusk said that “due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney’s departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999.”

“Accordingly,” she added, “Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on S.E.C. filings during this period.”

Documents obtained by Fortune magazine on Thursday appeared to bolster that contention. The magazine said on its Web site that it had obtained offering documents for funds that Bain Capital circulated in 2000 and 2001. The documents listed the managers of the funds. Mr. Romney’s name was not on them.

[highnote]

This is good information. I googled Bain SEC filings and only found things from the Boston Globe that said Romney was still CEO until 2002. This NYT piece is good because it would make sense that it takes time to unwind a company this large.

The Boston Globe's pieces didn't offer explanations -- just the facts that Romney was listed on SEC reports in 2002 and those facts don't square with what his public statements have been. But the NYT piece offers a good explanation.

Score one for the Romney camp.



From the NY Times, July, 12, 2012:

A statement from Charlyn Lusk, a spokeswoman for Bain Capital, reiterated Mr. Romney’s position that he “has had absolutely no involvement with the management or investment activities of the firm or with any of its portfolio companies since the day of his departure” in 1999.

Ms. Lusk said that “due to the sudden nature of Mr. Romney’s departure, he remained the sole stockholder for a time while formal ownership was being documented and transferred to the group of partners who took over management of the firm in 1999.”

“Accordingly,” she added, “Mr. Romney was reported in various capacities on S.E.C. filings during this period.”

Documents obtained by Fortune magazine on Thursday appeared to bolster that contention. The magazine said on its Web site that it had obtained offering documents for funds that Bain Capital circulated in 2000 and 2001. The documents listed the managers of the funds. Mr. Romney’s name was not on them.

[Saratoga_Mike]

This is good information. I googled Bain SEC filings and only found things from the Boston Globe that said Romney was still CEO until 2002. This NYT piece is good because it would make sense that it takes time to unwind a company this large.

The Boston Globe's pieces didn't offer explanations -- just the facts that Romney was listed on SEC reports in 2002 and those facts don't square with what his public statements have been. But the NYT piece offers a good explanation.

Score one for the Romney camp.

This is why the Times is the paper of record! :)

[bigmack]

Score one for the Romney camp.
In your want to get to the bottom of this non-caper how many votes do you think it will cost Mitt irrespective of how it plays out. 6?

[newtothegame]

The mainstream media and Obama campaign are making accusations about Romney. So I want to know if those accusations are warranted. Just because many people hate Obama does not mean that Romney is a saint and cannot be questioned. I would think every voter would want to know as much about the candidates as possible.

And for the record, I would like for Obama to release as many documents as possible about his past. I don't see why anyone should be able to hide anything when they are running for president. Total transparency should be required.

Since newtothegame posted a rebuttal that has almost nothing to do with answering a question I had about the facts being presented, let's go over the facts again:

1.) Romney says he was not CEO of Bain after 1999.

2.) Bain filed documents with SEC that say that Romney was CEO through 2002.

So I will repeat my question in hopes that someone can actually shed some light on the truth rather than deflect attention away from the quesiton:

It sounds like Romney was still CEO of Bain in 2002 because he was the major shareholder according to the documents filed, but he had given up responsibility for running Bain in 1999 in order to run the Olympics. Is that correct?

It's a yes or no answer. Any longer answer is an attempt at bullshitting.
Ahhh, got it High, you want YOUR questions answered but don't ask the same of the current sitting president. Ohh sure you say you would like to see those things. But, are you really asking questions as you are of Romney?
Nope, I didnt see any of the threads you started questioning all of those items I listed. But you want answers on Romney??? lmao
I mentioned just a few short questions about Obama, that I think are EXTREMELY valid questions to ask of a sitting president. And, I didn't even mention the birther issues. I would just seriously like to know about his past with Bill Ayers...wouldn't you? I would like to know about his writings while at Harvard Law.....(You know they may provide some insight to his thoughts and feelings towards America).
I would like to know more about his family....you know past the lies from his book that have already been exposed.
I would like to know more about his past drug use......
I would like to know more about Fast and Furious (which he personally blocked with exec orders) information.
How about you and I start a letter and send it to the white house. I am sure they will answer right away.....That is if you're not too busy worrying about hair cuts and Bain capital.
P.S. has there been ANY other dirt come out on Romney, such as what we have seen with Obama? And you're trying to decide who to vote for?? seems with what we do know about Obama, that would be a slam dunk. But as I said, you're not really trying to decide.......maybe you're looking for a barber!
By the way, if I may, what state do you live in?
:lol:

[highnote]

Ahhh, got it High, you want YOUR questions answered but don't ask the same of the current sitting president.

The election is not over and I will probably make more posts before now and then with questions in them. There are only so many hours in a day to ask questions. You're right. There are many questions to ask Obama. Fortunately, there are a lot of people on here who ask and answer questions about him. So I can get a pretty good idea of the answers just by reading things here.

I didn't see as many questions about Bain, so I thought it was worth asking. Thanks to Saratoga_Mike, I got a reasonable answer.

And you're trying to decide who to vote for??

Yes. I am. I've said before that I think Romney seems like a nice guy. Obama is a great politician. You can argue whether or not that is a good quality to have. I felt Hillary was not as good of a politician as Obama, but she would make a better President.

Any great politician can get elected. But not every great politician is a great person who can change the world for the better.

The irony is that Romney is every bit a socialist as Obama when it comes to health care and Obama is in bed with the financial community as much as Romney.

Me, I'm socially liberal, but fiscally conservative and that is more or less the case with Romney and Obama. The wealthy have enjoyed low tax rates under Obama, thus far, (e.g., Romney's 14% tax rate). Society has gotten a health care mandate. Personally, I don't like the mandate. I'm happy with my present insurance situation and as a self-employed person I pay for my own insurance.

I'm not against voting for Romney solely because he is a Republican. And I won't vote for Obama solely because he is a Democrat. I am a libertarian. I'll vote for whomever I feel is most qualified and before I cast a vote I will try to find out as much as I can about the candidates. And I'll ask tough questions about any candidate I am interested in whether anyone likes it or not.

[bigmack]

Uh, oh. Looks like Team Romney has more problems.

Hack comedian/human, George "My wife gave me a kidney, then I divorced her" Lopez, claims Mitt is hisssspanic and won't admit it.

Oh. And is a puto.

A puto (literally "male prostitute") is a derogatory word for a homosexual male. It is perhaps the most offensive word referring to a homosexual male in Spanish. It is highly offensive.

RDjWmDFfs9c

[Tom]

The mainstream media and Obama campaign are making accusations about Romney. So I want to know if those accusations are warranted.

Consider the sources. One is a proven liar, and the other is proven to be in his pocket.

Obama will say anything to distract the conversation away from his failed
presidency.

Obama has no integrity. Never did.
Been a snake and liar from the git go.
And a terrorist supporter.

[highnote]

The conservative publication, The National Review, published an editorial today saying that Romney should release his tax returns.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/309738/release-returns-editors

I think he will eventually release them. He is probably working on what to say once the public starts to vet them. He needs a strategy to counter the attacks and then he can move on.

This shows why it is tough to beat an incumbent, but if Romney plays his cards right he has a good shot of winning.

[bigmack]

I think he will eventually release them. He is probably working on what to say once the public starts to vet them.
Why are you fiddling with such nonsense?

No he won't. Only dorks on MSNBC want to see 'em. The dog through the hoop trick is over.

In what has now described as the "Roanoke Indecent" where off the teleprompter BO said, “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen” we were afforded an actual slice of what's inside the head of that half-black man. Utter contempt for capitalism and entrepreneurship.

People in this country are dumb, but they ain't that dumb to vote this good-for-nothing louse in for another 4.

Meanwhile, you're waiting for tax returns. :lol:

[highnote]

Why are you fiddling with such nonsense?



The National Review and George Will are also "fiddiling with such nonsense" and saying he should release them. This makes the story newsworthy, in my opinion. It's also newsworthy because it is a tactic being used by the Democrats. It needs to be discussed.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-17/whats-romney-hiding-in-his-tax-returns

Romney released 20 years of returns to the McCain campaign. McCain had him vetted and decided not to select him.

Can you imagine if they would have selected him? McCain probably would be sitting in the White House right now.

Romney showed McCain 1988-2008. And Romney showed the country 2010 and said he'd show 2011. So the only returns no one has seen are Romney's 2009 returns.

So what is the big deal about showing an extra year's worth of returns? Probably nothing. That is why I think he will show them.

But I suppose the bigger question is what happens if he doesn't show them? This could be a good strategy because it shows he sticks to his guns. Or it could backfire.

[bigmack]

Loons are going to need some crumbs for conspiracy theories somewhere. By not releasing them it will give basement dwellers everywhere a chance to run websites with their tin foil headed comrades for years.

Romney2009TaxReturnHiddenSecrets.com.

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/161912_195871877101176_1947087041_n.jpg

This guys day will be made in 2015 when someone comes up and says, Hey, aren't you the guy that started that website about Romney's 2009 tax return?

He'll blush slightly and say That's me, beaming with pride.

All will be right as rain in America.

[highnote]

Loons are going to need some crumbs for conspiracy theories somewhere.

I wouldn't call The National Review or George Will loons, but there must be people somewhere who would.

To me, more interesting than what is in the tax returns are the strategies and tactics of the Romney and Obama campaigns.

Obama wants to keep Romney on the defensive. Romney must take precious time away from his campaign to respond.

What is the one thing people know about Romney more than anything else? He is wealthy. So what does the Obama political machine do? They attack his wealth.

What's the second thing people know about Romney? He's a Morman. It is not politically correct in this day and age to attack him on his religion.

What's else do people know about Romney?

I would bet that a lot of people don't know he was governor of Massachusetts and of those who do probably even fewer know that he was largely responsible for health care mandates -- which is the one thing Republicans attack Obama on. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

That's about all the major things known about him.

So I'm on a fact finding mission between now and the election. I want to know what policies he is backing that he thinks will make him the best candidate.

Any help here from the PA readers would be appreciated.

[newtothegame]

lol from Bain capital, to now wanting one year of tax returns that no one has seen??? lmao!!!!!!!!
Have we seen 20 years of Obama's returns???
I wouldn't show crap...nada, nothing...and if Obummer even hints at it, I would say one for one......you release something, I release something similiar.....

[Valuist]

If we want to go back to their jobs before they were senator and governor, how about asking how many jobs did Obama create when he was a community organizer? Handing out those pamphlets really did a lot.

[Ocala Mike]

he was largely responsible for health care mandates -- which is the one thing Republicans attack Obama on.



One thing; are you serious? They attack him for everything and anything: ancestry, upbringing, religious beliefs, political beliefs, choice of wife, choice of dog, poor bowling talent, etc., etc. What would be the reaction if Obama simply ordered the IRS to audit Mitt's returns going back, say, I don't know, to 1980 or so? How many right-wing talk show hosts would have cardiacs then?

[Ocala Mike]

Have we seen 20 years of Obama's returns???





Obama has released tax returns going back to 2000.

[bigmack]

Obama has released tax returns going back to 2000.
Are you honestly dumb enough to want 4 more years of this clown? Don't you know a sinking ship when you're on one?

[highnote]

One thing; are you serious?

You're right. I should have said, "One thing that Republicans attack him on his health care mandates" rather than saying "The one thing..."

By dropping the "the" it suggests there is a list of things. By using the "the" it suggests there is only one thing.

Poor wording on my part. Subtle error, but it does change the meaning of the sentence.

[Ocala Mike]

Ship may be sinking, but Obama didn't run it into the iceberg.

I'll take the clown over the tax cheat.

[bigmack]

I'll take the clown over the tax cheat.
Tax cheat. :lol:

[highnote]

Tax cheat. :lol:


Not to mention muslim and animal abuser. :rolleyes: :D

[newtothegame]

Ship may be sinking, but Obama didn't run it into the iceberg.

I'll take the clown over the tax cheat.
More BASELESS lies from the left......:lol:
But what's new....:sleeping:

[highnote]

http://news.yahoo.com/why-mitt-romney-wont-release-tax-returns-6-091100509.html

This link offers 6 theories on why Romney won't turn over his tax returns. Number is 6 is the most interesting one to me:

6. He won't give in to attempts to divert attention from Obama
There's a perfectly good reason for Romney to refuse to release his tax returns, says Bob Webster at WEBCommentary: They "are none of anyone's business." The U.S. tax code is a mess, and "antagonistic lawyers" could pick apart the personal returns of anyone at Romney's income level. It would be "insane" for Romney to give in. "The whole non-issue is designed to be part of a smokescreen to cover up the gross ineptitude" of President Obama during his four disastrous years in office.

I do agree the tax code is a mess. People whose income is derived mainly from investment income such as dividends are only taxed at 15%. In a lot of cases, people's whose income is derived from going to a job and collecting a paycheck are taxed at twice that rate.

So it is easy to see how people who make say $75,000 per year and pay 28% taxes think it the tax code is unfair to them when a person who makes $2,000,000 per year in dividend income is taxed at about 15% -- especially when the person making $2,000,000 per year inherited the money and never had to work a day in their life to earn it.

Now, I'm not saying a the $75,000 per year earner is justified in feeling that way, I'm just saying that is the way they feel. And if this type of voter is an independent voter then they might not give Romney their vote because of it. One the other hand, if the $75,000 per year earner is conservative by nature then Obama has to try to find ways to get the person's vote.

This is one of the categories of voters that Romney and Obama are both trying to appeal to.

[newtothegame]

Ship may be sinking BY Obama's hand, but Obama didn't run it into the iceberg yet even if we are heading STRAIGHT for it.

I'll take the clown over the tax cheat.
FTFY

[Valuist]

Ship may be sinking, but Obama didn't run it into the iceberg.

I'll take the clown over the tax cheat.

Yeah Obama only wants a PROVEN tax cheat to run the Treasury.

[elysiantraveller]

There is also the possibility that as recently as 2008 he didn't pay anything because of losses he sustained. Regardless I don't blame him. I wouldn't give into this pressure either. I also would not get into a "I'll show mine if you show yours" with the president.

My guess is the president vets out just fine.

[ArlJim78]

If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone
people should run from. You make a big election about small things.
Obama - 2008

[highnote]

Yeah Obama only wants a PROVEN tax cheat to run the Treasury.


Can you say LIBOR?

[iceknight]

Are you honestly dumb enough to want 4 more years of this clown? Don't you know a sinking ship when you're on one?
Exactly my question to the Republicans.. why dont they pick RON PAUL over this clown Romney. He has no clue on what he did in the past. He believes the MA health reforms are not "state controlled" health care. He does not believe he was Bain capital CEO/managing it during 1999-2002 when major decisions were taken.

So if he cannot actually accept what happened under his watch, how do we know he will not take a vacation while being President to go run the Soccer World Cup? I seriously hope the Republicans pick Ron Paul.. they will have a winner and Actually the USA would improve overall for once!

ps: I feel Obama must go based on his performance record = shoddy.

[Tom]

Exactly my question to the Republicans.. why dont they pick RON PAUL

Because his a nitwit.
He talks a good game on some issues and is a complete failure on national security.

[iceknight]

Because his a nitwit.
He talks a good game on some issues and is a complete failure on national security. He is actually perfectly fine on National Security. Maybe people need to understand that funding Taliban in the 70's and now funding the Afghan/Paki and Iraqi military in the 2000's through now is NOT going to give national security.

There is a HUGE difference between Military spending and filling Halliburton's pockets and ACTUAL real National Defense. Do you have any better comments to offer than "one word" judgement? We are not picking horse race winners here.
Romney sucks.. so show me someone else on the fiscally responsible party side other than Ron Paul and I will gladly support them over Obama.

yes, i think there was a New Mexico Governor or someone who sounded good to me. but he got buried easily..

[lsbets]

yes, i think there was a New Mexico Governor or someone who sounded good to me. but he got buried easily..

He's the libertarian party nominee for President. His name is Gary Johnson. He is far better than Ron Paul. Take the good of Paul and throw out the loon stuff, and that's Johnson.

[Tom]

Romney sucks.. so show me someone else on the fiscally responsible party side other than Ron Paul and I will gladly support them over Obama.

Yo missed the boat.
IT is Romney or Obama.
btw, isn't "sucks" one word? :D

[NJ Stinks]

http://news.yahoo.com/why-mitt-romney-wont-release-tax-returns-6-091100509.html

This link offers 6 theories on why Romney won't turn over his tax returns. Number is 6 is the most interesting one to me:



I do agree the tax code is a mess. People whose income is derived mainly from investment income such as dividends are only taxed at 15%. In a lot of cases, people's whose income is derived from going to a job and collecting a paycheck are taxed at twice that rate.

So it is easy to see how people who make say $75,000 per year and pay 28% taxes think it the tax code is unfair to them when a person who makes $2,000,000 per year in dividend income is taxed at about 15% -- especially when the person making $2,000,000 per year inherited the money and never had to work a day in their life to earn it.

Now, I'm not saying a the $75,000 per year earner is justified in feeling that way, I'm just saying that is the way they feel. And if this type of voter is an independent voter then they might not give Romney their vote because of it. One the other hand, if the $75,000 per year earner is conservative by nature then Obama has to try to find ways to get the person's vote.

This is one of the categories of voters that Romney and Obama are both trying to appeal to.

You touched on a few interesting points here that I want to expand on relating to the isssue of taxes.

Romney released one year's income tax return for 2010. He reported over $21M in income in 2010 and paid $2.7M in taxes on that income. That means Romney paid taxes on Form 1040 for 2010 at a tax rate of 14%.

We also know that Romney gave more to charities - including the Mormon church - in 2010 than Romney paid in taxes on on his 2010 return. In fact, these charitable donations helped get Romney down to the 14% he paid in taxes on his 2010 income return.

Finally, we also know Romney was able to pay at only a 14% tax rate because of the Bush tax cut on capital gains and "carried interest" income from Bain.

So in the end what do we have?

Well, we got a guy who paid peanuts to the U.S. Treasury in 2010.

Then we have that same guy pushing for even more tax cuts for all Americans - including guys like him who are already paying peanuts.

And finally, of course, we have a guy who says we can't afford entitlements and Obamacare. And adds with a straight face that we must do something about the deficit! (See "pushing for even more tax cuts above". :rolleyes: )


Call me crazy but I can't imagine calling Romney a patriotic American who has nothing but the interests of the American people in his heart. I have no trouble calling Romney a fat cat who will protect the interests of fat cats everywhere if elected while telling us we must cut benefits for those Americans in need.

In short, I can't imagine why 80% of this country's voters would pull the Republican lever in November.

[newtothegame]

NJ, I will gladly defer to you on questions of tax.....
So, here is my question(s).
On the 21 million of income romney reported, was that money PREVIOUSLY taxed? Meaning, was the money like an investment where he earned 21 million on his investments?
And secondly, since you mentioned he donated more then he paid in taxes, (that would mean he DONATED more then 2 million), how much did Obama donate last year?
The reason for the latter, is we always here how repugs are tight etc etc. In comparison, I would like to see how Much Obama DONATED.
Thanks in advance......

[lsbets]

2 million is peanuts? Hey Mitt, toss me half a peanut please.

Over 2 million to charity and he doesn't care about anyone but himself?

I'm at a loss for words NJ. Really.

[Tom]

How many of your dead-beat bottom feeding liberal professional welfare suckers do you think he supported.

A guy gave 2 mil and you have the balls to complain about it.
What a roach your are!

[ArlJim78]

He is actually perfectly fine on National Security. Maybe people need to understand that funding Taliban in the 70's and now funding the Afghan/Paki and Iraqi military in the 2000's through now is NOT going to give national security.

There is a HUGE difference between Military spending and filling Halliburton's pockets and ACTUAL real National Defense. Do you have any better comments to offer than "one word" judgement? We are not picking horse race winners here.
Romney sucks.. so show me someone else on the fiscally responsible party side other than Ron Paul and I will gladly support them over Obama.

yes, i think there was a New Mexico Governor or someone who sounded good to me. but he got buried easily..
he is at the bottom of the barrel on national security as well.
he leaks classified information like a sieve for political reasons. covert ops are a thing of the past now because within hours of an event up pops a news story with very specific details provided by "administration sources".

"Operation Gutsy Call" should be a real thriller when it comes out in a couple of months. of course the filmakers were given carte blanche access to whatever and whomever they needed.

yeah national security is really taken seriously by this regime.

[NJ Stinks]

Yes, it's true. Mitt Romney lives on Fantasy Island. And, of course, he doesn't want to leave. :jump:

Perhaps a history lesson will explain it better than I can.

Back in 1968 George Romney, Mitt's Dad, ran for president of the USA. And, as everybody knows by now, George released tax returns going back 12 years. Why would he do that? Perhaps it had something to do with the fact that George was proud of what those returns revealed. For instance, from 1956 through 1968 the maximum tax rate on ordinary income (like wages) was not less than 70% and not higher than 91%. (You had to earn at least $200G's to reach the top tax rate in those years and as CEO of the American Motor Company since 1954, I think it's fair to assume George reached the maximum tax rate in most if not all of the 12 years where he released tax returns.)

Furthermore, during those 12 years George had to pay not less than 70% and not higher than 91% on unearned income like interest and dividends. Finally, George Romney paid not less than 25% and not higher than 26.9% on capital gains.

In contrast, the junior Romney was faced with the following Fantasy Island tax rates (the GWB rates) since 2003:

Wages & and Unearned income other than Dividends - max 35%
Dividends & Capital Gains 15% to 16.1%

So Mitt, in a rare moment of apparent humility, releases just one tax return where he wound up paying at a 14% rate.

People here wonder why our country used to be able to pay it's bills (see the George Romney years) but we can't pay for diddly today (see Mitt's return). All I can say is it's not just a spending problem.

Link:

http://www.ctj.org/pdf/regcg.pdf

[Tom]

People here wonder why our country used to be able to pay it's bills (see the George Romney years) but we can't pay for diddly today (see Mitt's return). All I can say is it's not just a spending problem.


What part of the 16 trillion and growing do you think we can make up by taxing those who are successful?

Maybe it is not all a spending problem, but it is at least 99.999999999999999% a spending problem.

btw, what the percentage of those who pay no income taxes in the George years?

[bigmack]

If nothing else, NJ is consistent. Just odd in a way he's retired IRS. It would be like a retired postman constantly harping about raising the price of a stamp.

Whops, there he goes, bangin' that "raise every tax" drum again.

http://www.sevenoaksart.co.uk/images/teddydrummer.gif

[NJ Stinks]

If nothing else, NJ is consistent. Just odd in a way he's retired IRS. It would be like a retired postman constantly harping about raising the price of a stamp.

Whops, there he goes, bangin' that "raise every tax" drum again.

http://www.sevenoaksart.co.uk/images/teddydrummer.gif

I have nothing to gain by saying it if for no other reason than the one you pointed out above.

I bang the drum because I don't think most people know/understand what a travesty today's tax rates really are. It's easy to say it's a spending problem. It's not easy to say people must pay more if we ever hope to pay our country's bills.

[bigmack]

most people know/understand what a travesty today's tax rates really are. It's easy to say it's a spending problem.
Don't be sill. We're on to the game. Look at NY & CA. They're the most heavily taxed in the nation and both have the fiscal health of Octomom.

You know, & I know, & the American people know, IT'S NEVER ENOUGH.

How 'bout this? CUT SOME SPENDING. REAL CUTS. Only then will you be given back your soapbox.

Deal?

[ElKabong]

You touched on a few interesting points here that I want to expand on relating to the isssue of taxes.

Romney released one year's income tax return for 2010. He reported over $21M in income in 2010 and paid $2.7M in taxes on that income. That means Romney paid taxes on Form 1040 for 2010 at a tax rate of 14%.

We also know that Romney gave more to charities - including the Mormon church - in 2010 than Romney paid in taxes on on his 2010 return. In fact, these charitable donations helped get Romney down to the 14% he paid in taxes on his 2010 income return.

Finally, we also know Romney was able to pay at only a 14% tax rate because of the Bush tax cut on capital gains and "carried interest" income from Bain.

So in the end what do we have?

Well, we got a guy who paid peanuts to the U.S. Treasury in 2010.

Then we have that same guy pushing for even more tax cuts for all Americans - including guys like him who are already paying peanuts.

And finally, of course, we have a guy who says we can't afford entitlements and Obamacare. And adds with a straight face that we must do something about the deficit! (See "pushing for even more tax cuts above". :rolleyes: )


Call me crazy but I can't imagine calling Romney a patriotic American who has nothing but the interests of the American people in his heart. I have no trouble calling Romney a fat cat who will protect the interests of fat cats everywhere if elected while telling us we must cut benefits for those Americans in need.

In short, I can't imagine why 80% of this country's voters would pull the Republican lever in November.

So sad. You could be talking up Obama's record as Preznit, but it sucks.

Take a big election & make it about small potatoes (let the Corzine's go free, postulate on the what if's of Romney). FAIL

[newtothegame]

I have nothing to gain by saying it if for no other reason than the one you pointed out above.

I bang the drum because I don't think most people know/understand what a travesty today's tax rates really are. It's easy to say it's a spending problem. It's not easy to say people must pay more if we ever hope to pay our country's bills.
Your bottom sentence is ok with me for the record. And, I have NO problem paying more if that be the case. The problem comes in when it is not done (to borrow a word from the left) fair. You can NOT single out a certain class of people and say they should pay more. I am amazed this is even allowed. To me, I see no difference in this, then to single out a group for anything else. By thew way, there are laws to keep from singling out groups of people. So why should this be any different?
If you want to raise taxes, raise them ON EVERYONE!
I really don't want to hear how "well this group can afford to pay more". That's a bull sh!t argument and you and I both know it.
The only thing that idea promotes is more people to join the class that doesn't have to pay. In your world NJ, those are called loopholes. In the real world it's called gaming the system.
Here's is an example that comes to mind......
Let's say I run a small business that makes 300,000 year.
Well you want to increase my taxes because "I can afford more". Let's assume you want to tax me an additional 20%. You add 60,000 a year to my tax burden "because I can afford it".
Why in the hell wouldnt I just limit my business to making 249,000 a year and actually take home more then if I made 300,000?
Now again, I don't claim to know all the tax laws and brackets. But, I do know a little about numbers and if it is more beneficial for me to stay in a lower tax bracket, that's EXACTLY what I will do. Which means I hire less people, I still don't pay the taxes you wished to impose on me in the first place. So what was accomplished??????
And for those well over the threshold of 250,000 guess what they will do? The same thing your DNC leader Debbie Wasserman Shultz did.....

'Middle class' Debbie Wasserman Schultz owns unreported home, took luxury cruise.....

http://www.examiner.com/article/middle-class-debbie-wasserman-schultz-owns-unreported-home-took-luxury-cruise

So, please don't tell us how the repugs are hiding money here and there...and the repugs want to steal from this one and that one.....

[newtothegame]

Ohhh Darn, lookie here....
Seems Debbie has some of those "offshore accounts " apparently hiding money....and her parents...No, can't be!!! Yep...TAX EVASION!

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s Tax Returns Attacks on Romney, But She's Found to be Knee Deep in Foreign Hidden Investments & Parents Going to Jail on Federal Tax Evasions:

By Marc Chamot (http://www.zimbio.com/member/MarcChamot) ondocument.write(LocalTime.getMDY('July 11, 2012 13:52')); July 11, 2012 | From </SPAN>marcchamot.blogspot.com (http://marcchamot.blogspot.com/2012/07/dnc-chairwoman-debbie-wasserman.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheMarcChamotReport+%28The+Ma rc+Chamot+Report%29)

http://www.zimbio.com/Debbie+Wasserman+Schultz/articles/k4jk0bUjaiY/DNC+Chairwoman+Debbie+Wasserman+Schultz+Tax

[PaceAdvantage]

I can't believe anyone can even type "91% income tax rate" without vomiting all over their keyboards.

And to think, some on here would have little problem returning to rates like that. Unfathomable.

[PaceAdvantage]

Romney should release whatever is required of him and that's that. Unless he's a criminal tax cheat (and he's not, or the IRS would already have brought him up on charges), there is no need for him to release any more than is required by law to run for President.

Obama has been the KING of NOT RELEASING information a significant percentage of the voting population WANTS to see, so why should Romney cave?

[ElKabong]

Ship may be sinking, but Obama didn't run it into the iceberg.

I'll take the clown over the tax cheat.

So you won't be voting for the Fish With A Mop On Her Head, then (Debbie Wasserman)

[NJ Stinks]

Ohhh Darn, lookie here....
Seems Debbie has some of those "offshore accounts " apparently hiding money....and her parents...No, can't be!!! Yep...TAX EVASION!

DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s Tax Returns Attacks on Romney, But She's Found to be Knee Deep in Foreign Hidden Investments & Parents Going to Jail on Federal Tax Evasions:

By Marc Chamot (http://www.zimbio.com/member/MarcChamot) ondocument.write(LocalTime.getMDY('July 11, 2012 13:52')); July 11, 2012 | From </SPAN>marcchamot.blogspot.com (http://marcchamot.blogspot.com/2012/07/dnc-chairwoman-debbie-wasserman.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheMarcChamotReport+%28The+Ma rc+Chamot+Report%29)

http://www.zimbio.com/Debbie+Wasserman+Schultz/articles/k4jk0bUjaiY/DNC+Chairwoman+Debbie+Wasserman+Schultz+Tax

Really, Newt?

Here's an excerpt from the Tampa Bay Times but I recommend reading the whole article.
________________________

Our ruling

Matalin said that Romney might have offshore accounts, but so do others. "Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the handpicked Democratic chairman by Barack Obama, has these offshore accounts," she said.

Actually, Wasserman Schultz had a 401(k) account of less than $15,000, managed by an American company, that included some foreign investments. Romney’s account was a savings account of approximately $3 million held by a Swiss bank.

Matalin does have a point that Romney’s account was entirely legal and he paid taxes on the earnings. It’s also true that many Americans have foreign investments through 401(k)s and pension funds.

But Wasserman Schultz’s investments are not similar to Romney’s, neither in size nor in type.

We rate Matalin’s claim Mostly False.

Link:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jul/18/mary-matalin/debbie-wasserman-schultz-had-offshore-accounts-mit/

[newtothegame]

Really, Newt?

Here's an excerpt from the Tampa Bay Times but I recommend reading the whole article.
________________________

Our ruling

Matalin said that Romney might have offshore accounts, but so do others. "Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the handpicked Democratic chairman by Barack Obama, has these offshore accounts," she said.

Actually, Wasserman Schultz had a 401(k) account of less than $15,000, managed by an American company, that included some foreign investments. Romney’s account was a savings account of approximately $3 million held by a Swiss bank.

Matalin does have a point that Romney’s account was entirely legal and he paid taxes on the earnings. It’s also true that many Americans have foreign investments through 401(k)s and pension funds.

But Wasserman Schultz’s investments are not similar to Romney’s, neither in size nor in type.

We rate Matalin’s claim Mostly False.

Link:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2012/jul/18/mary-matalin/debbie-wasserman-schultz-had-offshore-accounts-mit/

I could care less about size or type. fact is she has them too...how about the unreported house? How about her parents on tax evasion charges? Ahhh conveniently overlooked those things?
Selective picking and chosing...I understand...if it doesn't fit...you must...(well you get the idea)

[highnote]

Romney should release whatever is required of him and that's that. Unless he's a criminal tax cheat (and he's not, or the IRS would already have brought him up on charges), there is no need for him to release any more than is required by law to run for President.


While I agree in principle that a candidate should only do what is legally required of him/her, it is up to the voter to decide if a candidate doing the legal minimum is a deciding factor on whether or not to vote for the candidate.

Romney claimed he had a swiss account in his 2010 tax returns, but he did not disclose all the forms about that account -- the forms are informally known as FBAR.

Romney's swiss account was with UBS. UBS was the company that got into trouble for helping clients illegally evade U.S. taxes. The IRS created an amnesty program and any client who came forward and said they had a swiss account was granted immunity from prosecution.

So the speculation now is that the reason Romney didn't disclose all the forms related to his swiss account because he was granted amnesty by the IRS for evading taxes.

Of course there is no way of knowing for sure unless he releases his returns. It's an interesting quandry.

[Tom]

No matter what Romney's finances are, we all know for a fact what Obama has done to our finances.

If Romney was the mastermind behind the Great Train Robbery, I would not care. This tax return stuff is Obama blowing smoke to avoid having to talk his failed presidency.


He cannot run on his record and he cannot run away from it.

[highnote]

No matter what Romney's finances are, we all know for a fact what Obama has done to our finances.

If Romney was the mastermind behind the Great Train Robbery, I would not care. This tax return stuff is Obama blowing smoke to avoid having to talk his failed presidency.


He cannot run on his record and he cannot run away from it.

Those are valid points. I'm sure a lot of people feel the same as you.

What are some of the things Obama will say in defense of his presidency?

Romney is going to need to counter them -- or at least be able to come back with comments about his own success.

[bigmack]

Romney is going to need to counter them -- or at least be able to come back with comments about his own success.
I'm starting to hear that from Camp MSLSD. Where are the specifics from Romney? What are his plans?

NOW they want pacifics? When BO was running in '08 they could care less about them. They was hopped-up on the 'cool' factor.

Check out Mr. Slick, donning jeans from the Mom's Are Hip Too collection.

http://maddogmedia.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/obama_bike.jpg

[Ocala Mike]

That picture of your "Mr. Slick" reminds me of the ridiculous picture of Dukakis in the tank. Many say that image cost him the election.

Yes, Obama's goofy-looking, he can't bowl or throw a baseball worth a shit, and he may be an alien. Sorry, I still can't bring myself to vote for the other guy.

[Ocala Mike]

So the speculation now is that the reason Romney didn't disclose all the forms related to his swiss account because he was granted amnesty by the IRS for evading taxes.

Of course there is no way of knowing for sure unless he releases his returns. It's an interesting quandry.

Here's some interesting stuff about the relationship between Romney's Mormonism and his tax law compliance:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,567952

[TJDave]

So the speculation now is that the reason Romney didn't disclose all the forms related to his swiss account because he was granted amnesty by the IRS for evading taxes.

Of course there is no way of knowing for sure unless he releases his returns. It's an interesting quandry.

I would seriously doubt tax evasion or else we'd hear about it, trust me. ;)

[newtothegame]

Here's some interesting stuff about the relationship between Romney's Mormonism and his tax law compliance:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,567952
Since this has turned into a tax compliance thread.....nice to know you will be supporting an administration FULL of them there TAX CHEATS!

"First some numbers. Some 41 different Senior Obama Administration Officials have been identified as tax cheats (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/congress-taxes-irs.html), owing over $840 million in back taxes. Many of Obama’s key officials that are responsible for the economy and have been given wide powers in tax policy are themselves, tax cheats and tax avoiders. The most notable of these is Timmy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury and nominal head of the IRS, who utilized the “INTUIT TurboTax-is-not intuitive-I didn’t-realize-I was-supposed-to-pay-taxes” defense. Once exposed, Obama dismissed Geithner’s tax cheating, and had no problem with him heading the Treasury/IRS."

http://townhall.com/columnists/luritadoan/2011/04/18/obamas_tax_hypocrisy

[highnote]

One thing I agree with you on is that there are probably a lot of tax cheats. Our government has become so corrupted it is disgraceful.


Since this has turned into a tax compliance thread.....nice to know you will be supporting an administration FULL of them there TAX CHEATS!

"First some numbers. Some 41 different Senior Obama Administration Officials have been identified as tax cheats (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/09/congress-taxes-irs.html), owing over $840 million in back taxes. Many of Obama’s key officials that are responsible for the economy and have been given wide powers in tax policy are themselves, tax cheats and tax avoiders. The most notable of these is Timmy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury and nominal head of the IRS, who utilized the “INTUIT TurboTax-is-not intuitive-I didn’t-realize-I was-supposed-to-pay-taxes” defense. Once exposed, Obama dismissed Geithner’s tax cheating, and had no problem with him heading the Treasury/IRS."

http://townhall.com/columnists/luritadoan/2011/04/18/obamas_tax_hypocrisy

[newtothegame]

One thing I agree with you on is that there are probably a lot of tax cheats. Our government has become so corrupted it is disgraceful.
Slow down High....you're right that there are probably a lot of cheats throughout government. But, the difference is when YOU know of one personally and still over look it, well thats a different matter all together. That would suggest , at least to me, that you condone those actions.
In the case of Obama, he looked right past it and made him the fed chair.....
In Romney's case, we do not know anything similiar. And, we can't make a case for him not showing them as there are plenty of things that Obama has not shown. Last I checked, we were told those things were not relevant to Obama being president. So, why would a tax return from years and years ago be relevant? And, furthermore, if you argue it is relevant, then I am sure the same standard would apply to Obama right? I mean as I said before, If Romney should have to show his, I am sure the current POTUS should show his.

[highnote]

Slow down High....you're right that there are probably a lot of cheats throughout government. But, the difference is when YOU know of one personally and still over look it, well thats a different matter all together. That would suggest , at least to me, that you condone those actions.
In the case of Obama, he looked right past it and made him the fed chair.....

I can assure you I did not approve of Geithner being appointed. I would have let the house of cards tumble and would not of given the banks taxpayer bailout money. I'd also bring back Glass-Steagall.

In Romney's case, we do not know anything similiar. And, we can't make a case for him not showing them as there are plenty of things that Obama has not shown. Last I checked, we were told those things were not relevant to Obama being president. So, why would a tax return from years and years ago be relevant? And, furthermore, if you argue it is relevant, then I am sure the same standard would apply to Obama right? I mean as I said before, If Romney should have to show his, I am sure the current POTUS should show his.

I agree. Show us the documents. Both candidates should. And at least 12 years worth as Romney's father suggested. Just like you can't judge a company based on one years worth of financial statements.

[PaceAdvantage]

I agree. Show us the documents. Both candidates should. And at least 12 years worth as Romney's father suggested. Just like you can't judge a company based on one years worth of financial statements.Since you seem to be up on this stuff, can you detail how many years of tax returns the various candidates for President have released going back to say 1992 when Clinton first ran for Prez?

I'm sure this won't be a hard question for you to answer...is 12 years the norm?

[newtothegame]

I can assure you I did not approve of Geithner being appointed. I would have let the house of cards tumble and would not of given the banks taxpayer bailout money. I'd also bring back Glass-Steagall.



I agree. Show us the documents. Both candidates should. And at least 12 years worth as Romney's father suggested. Just like you can't judge a company based on one years worth of financial statements.
So then we agree that until BOTH show at least twelve years, we have an issue. And, since we can only go on what we do know, in the case of taxforms, cheats, speculation etc etc, Obama is the one who appointed tax cheats to office in spite of their tax cheating records.....
Glad we got that cleared up......

[highnote]

I'm sure this won't be a hard question for you to answer...is 12 years the norm?

You're wrong about that assumption. I have no idea. Although, I guess I can google it, so maybe you're not wrong afterall. :D

All I know is what I have read. I read that Romney's father started the tradition when he ran for Pres. I read that since it has become standard operating procedure for candidates to release their tax forms.

As I was writing the lines above I googled "presidential tax returns" and found this article at CNN. Seems pretty factual.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/16/presidential-candidates-have-long-history-of-releasing-tax-returns/

Here's a quote, but it is not the whole story. Anyone interested in this topic might be interested in reading this:

Presidential candidates began releasing their returns consistently starting in the early 1970's according to Thorndike, and in 1978, all presidential and vice presidential candidates were required to release certain financial documents as a result of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, which mandates all candidates running for office of President of the United States to file a Public Financial Disclosure Report with the Federal Election Commission.

[highnote]

So then we agree that until BOTH show at least twelve years, we have an issue.

That sounds reasonable.

[NJ Stinks]

So then we agree that until BOTH show at least twelve years, we have an issue. And, since we can only go on what we do know, in the case of taxforms, cheats, speculation etc etc, Obama is the one who appointed tax cheats to office in spite of their tax cheating records.....
Glad we got that cleared up......

For the record, one is not a "tax cheat" just because one is found to owe an additional amount over and above what was originally reported. There are a ton of valid reasons for underreporting one's taxes.

At least that's what I was told by many successful entrepreneurs and their legal representatives over the years. ;)

[newtothegame]

That sounds reasonable.
I like how you conveniently left out the rest part to agree too.....(now you know why I think as I do)....you don't want to be objective lol

[newtothegame]

For the record, one is not a "tax cheat" just because one is found to owe an additional amount over and above what was originally reported. There are a ton of valid reasons for underreporting one's taxes.

At least that's what I was told by many successful entrepreneurs and their legal representatives over the years. ;)
So then whats the big deal about Romney's tax release. I mean even if there was a problem, (which would of been out by now), as you said..."There are a ton of valid reasons for underreporting one's taxes".
:lol:

[PaceAdvantage]

As I was writing the lines above I googled "presidential tax returns" and found this article at CNN. Seems pretty factual.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/16/presidential-candidates-have-long-history-of-releasing-tax-returns/

Here's a quote, but it is not the whole story. Anyone interested in this topic might be interested in reading this:I read the article. It seems Romney is in good stead...Carter only released one year...Reagan one year...McCain two years...maybe that's why Carter and McCain lost? :lol:

Didn't seem to hurt Reagan much though...

This really seems like a non story. I wonder why it is a story for you and others...

[highnote]

This really seems like a non story. I wonder why it is a story for you and others...


I can't speak for others, but for me it's a story because Romney's own father said you can't know a person from one year's returns.

Romney has Swiss bank accounts with UBS. Tax dodgers received amnesty from the IRS. Was Romney granted amnesty for dodging taxes through UBS?

Let's say a presidential candidate defected to Canada during the Vietnam War. He received amnesty later on.

Do you think that would be an important factor to consider about a person running for president?

Should the candidate be required to publicly acknowledge the fact he received amnesty for being a draft dodger?

I don't know the answers to these questions. But they are interesting questions to me.

[highnote]

And, since we can only go on what we do know, in the case of taxforms, cheats, speculation etc etc, Obama is the one who appointed tax cheats to office in spite of their tax cheating records.....
Glad we got that cleared up......


I didn't get your point otherwise I would have responded. I agree that presidents should not appoint tax cheats to office if they are known tax cheats.

Geithner's appointment is one reason I don't like Obama.

[PaceAdvantage]

I can't speak for others, but for me it's a story because Romney's own father said you can't know a person from one year's returns.

Romney has Swiss bank accounts with UBS. Tax dodgers received amnesty from the IRS. Was Romney granted amnesty for dodging taxes through UBS?

Let's say a presidential candidate defected to Canada during the Vietnam War. He received amnesty later on.

Do you think that would be an important factor to consider about a person running for president?

Should the candidate be required to publicly acknowledge the fact he received amnesty for being a draft dodger?

I don't know the answers to these questions. But they are interesting questions to me.I find it rather hard to believe that if Romney was dodging taxes (ie. acting illegally), that this info could remain hidden whether or not he releases his returns. If he was a tax dodger, that would have come out by now, wouldn't you think? Isn't Obama, as president, fairly influential with the IRS? You don't think he would have this info if it existed (or at least leaked to him by a surrogate)? You don't think he'd use it against Romney?

One of us is acting very naively when it comes to this topic.

[newtothegame]

I find it rather hard to believe that if Romney was dodging taxes (ie. acting illegally), that this info could remain hidden whether or not he releases his returns. If he was a tax dodger, that would have come out by now, wouldn't you think? Isn't Obama, as president, fairly influential with the IRS? You don't think he would have this info if it existed (or at least leaked to him by a surrogate)? You don't think he'd use it against Romney?

One of us is acting very naively when it comes to this topic.
Nice wording PA, I said "pretending" but either way, same meaning.
High has only pushed the agenda with Romney. When it comes to Obama, the claim is he (high) knows enough yet, he is "undecided".
LOL :bang:

[Tom]

I would seriously doubt tax evasion or else we'd hear about it, trust me. ;)

Even is he did evade taxes, he is STILL far better than Obamba.
If he robbed liquor stores, he would still be far better than Obamba.
I bet we have people on death row that are FAR better than Obamba.

I bet we have terrorists here in sleeper cells that would be FAR better than Obamaba.

[highnote]

Nice wording PA, I said "pretending" but either way, same meaning.
High has only pushed the agenda with Romney. When it comes to Obama, the claim is he (high) knows enough yet, he is "undecided".
LOL :bang:


I am undecided about which third party candidate to vote for. I am NOT voting for Obama, so I don't really need to know much more about him.

I am pretty certain I won't vote for Romney, but there is still a chance I could vote for him. And even if I was 100% sure I wouldn't vote for him that doesn't mean I want to stop learning about him. Same for Obama.

The big factor that will decide who wins this election is what undecided voters think about Romney.

For some undecided voters tax returns are NOT the major issue with Romney. For some they are.

It looks like Romney has decided that there are not enough undecided voters who care about his tax returns to make it worth releasing his returns. It's a calculated risk on his part. And it might be a good risk.

[highnote]

Even is he did evade taxes, he is STILL far better than Obamba.
If he robbed liquor stores, he would still be far better than Obamba.
I bet we have people on death row that are FAR better than Obamba.

I bet we have terrorists here in sleeper cells that would be FAR better than Obamaba.



There you have it. :D

[highnote]

5 reasons romney tax controversy won't go away...

http://news.yahoo.com/5-reasons-mitt-romney-tax-controversy-wont-away-110600674.html

5. Biased reporters are carrying water for Obama
The "biased and sloppy" media are keeping this story alive, says Jennifer Rubin at The Washington Post, to help Obama drive home his attacks on Romney's taxes and his record at Bain Capital. "If liberals were honest about full disclosure they’d have complained about the Obama administration's serial secrecy and lack of transparency." Romney's right to refuse to bend. Otherwise he'd be letting "the Obama camp and his spinners direct his campaign."

[ElKabong]

For the record, one is not a "tax cheat" just because one is found to owe an additional amount over and above what was originally reported. There are a ton of valid reasons for underreporting one's taxes.

At least that's what I was told by many successful entrepreneurs and their legal representatives over the years. ;)

NJ,

Straight up question. If Romney is breaking any tax law, shouldn't the Obama admin take him to court? Why hasn't that happened if he's outside the tax laws of the US?

[NJ Stinks]

NJ,

Straight up question. If Romney is breaking any tax law, shouldn't the Obama admin take him to court? Why hasn't that happened if he's outside the tax laws of the US?

I don't believe Romney broke any laws. But to answer your question, Romney's tax return(s) would have to be selected for audit by the IRS first. Then Romney would have to decide if he agrees with the findings of the IRS auditor. If Romney agrees, he pays whatever additional tax and/or penalties are proposed, if any.

Court is the final option if Romney (or any taxpayer) disagrees with the results of an IRS audit and doesn't believe he owes all or part of the additional tax assessed.

Of course, if criminal fraud is committed, jail time is possible along with the additional taxes assessed. I add this as general information only - no way Romney would do such a thing. I know this because Mack has posted all those lovely family pictures. :p :)

[newtothegame]

I don't believe Romney broke any laws. But to answer your question, Romney's tax return(s) would have to be selected for audit by the IRS first. Then Romney would have to decide if he agrees with the findings of the IRS auditor. If Romney agrees, he pays whatever additional tax and/or penalties are proposed, if any.

Court is the final option if Romney (or any taxpayer) disagrees with the results of an IRS audit and doesn't believe he owes all or part of the additional tax assessed.

Of course, if criminal fraud is committed, jail time is possible along with the additional taxes assessed. I add this as general information only - no way Romney would do such a thing. I know this because Mack has posted all those lovely family pictures. :p :)
So again Stnks, as you never replied to my thoughts regarding tax fraud, evasion, crime, or however you wish to call it.
What constitutes a crime in the case of taxes? Would someone who fails to claim a home on the upper east coast being commiting fraud? How about someone like what our current HHS sec did? How about Geithner?
In my opinion, there are legit mistakes. Failing to claim an entire home is NOT a mistake. Failing to pay for several years is NOT a mistake. JMHO

[ElKabong]

I don't believe Romney broke any laws.

That's what it's going to come down to.

The fact a rich guy has swiss bank acct's is no shock. The fact the Atty General is being accused of running guns--- is a shock.....This whole thing is nothing more than "don't pay attention to that man behind the mirror, Dorothy".

The debates will be fun. Can't wait :)

[NJ Stinks]

So again Stnks, as you never replied to my thoughts regarding tax fraud, evasion, crime, or however you wish to call it.
What constitutes a crime in the case of taxes? Would someone who fails to claim a home on the upper east coast being commiting fraud? How about someone like what our current HHS sec did? How about Geithner?
In my opinion, there are legit mistakes. Failing to claim an entire home is NOT a mistake. Failing to pay for several years is NOT a mistake. JMHO

Here's a paste from the Examiner article that you originally linked to:
________________________________________

In addition to the luxury cruise, Wasserman Schultz owns a second home in the quaint town of Newbury, New Hampshire, that was worth $503,400 in 2010.

"When you add the total estimated value of her primary residence in Weston, Florida, valued in 2012 at $409,850, Wasserman Schultz has close to $1 million in total real property," he added.

Until now, the information regarding her second home was never disclosed.

The reason, Manjarres explains, is that congressional rules do not require disclosure of personal property or properties that do not generate income.
_______________________________________________

I don't understand why you think Debbie had to disclose this home in New Hampshire anywhere. :confused: Congress isn't interested in personal property that doesn't generate income and, generally speaking, the IRS would only be interested in knowing that the correct real estate taxes and interest on the property are accurately deducted on her tax return.

As for Geithner, what he did is inexcusable IMO. He had every reason to know better.

[Ocala Mike]

There are a ton of valid reasons for underreporting one's taxes.

At least that's what I was told by many successful entrepreneurs and their legal representatives over the years. ;)



Like NJ Stinks, I was a tax auditor as well (for NY State, not IRS). I was told the same thing by high-rollers and their reps, and that admission told me that they were not going to get a "no change" to their taxes. If the reasons were valid enough, they could probably avoid penalties. Also, we were encouraged to pretty much avoid the "F" word (fraud) during our audits; we even had a special fraud unit for cases which rose to that level.

[Tom]

I would rather see all the sealed stuff the president has than Mitt's tax forms. The forms have already been accepted by the IRS and nothing came of it.

Can Obama say that?
Many are speculating Mitts is a tax cheat.
What if the president is a "funny uncle?"

[lamboguy]

very simply, because he is going to have to. its about the only way to take away everyone's money in one shot without bankrunpting the country.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/07/19/the-libor-scandal-in-full-perspective/

[PaceAdvantage]

very simply, because he is going to have to. its about the only way to take away everyone's money in one shot without bankrunpting the country.

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/07/19/the-libor-scandal-in-full-perspective/If the price of gold doubles overnight, it won't matter. The world will have already ended.

What the hell are you talking about anyway?

[lamboguy]

If the price of gold doubles overnight, it won't matter. The world will have already ended.

What the hell are you talking about anyway?the price of gold doubling might be the only salvation.

here is a link to martin armstrong. i am not sure if he is bullish or bearish, but i do know that he has spent his whole life studying markets and was hired by the us government as a consultant before he went to jail.

http://www.inflateordie.com/files/Why%20You%20Should%20Buy%20Gold%2006-14-2012.pdf