35 Questions Mitt Romney Must Answer About Bain Capital Before The Issue Can Go Away

[MnJetFan]

Originally Posted by quantum

Mitt can answer those as long as 2 conditions are met first: Dumbama releases his transcripts and answers why they were sealed; Jon Corzine tells where the money is.


Easy, right?

When pigs fly!

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

So your contention is talking points 1 thru 42.

The only contention I've made thus far is that moderates, independants and undecideds may read this and be affected by it, in a similar vein to how a portion on the right read about Obama's birth certificate, and were (and are) affected by that.

I am well aware of your candidates talking points chiefs. Simply ignoring whats been actually said by someone, and repeating said talking points as your "argument", is a poor route for discussion.

Seriously.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

I don't give a flying f*** about Bain capital. I am not voting for Romney and I don't care about his investment group.

The "class warfare" is why I'm responding. While I don't care about Bain, I do care about Romney's positions on cutting taxes and deregulation. Generally, I think taxes are too low now, especially for those making over a million a year, and I think deregulation/failure to enforce regulation has hurt the middle class. If that makes me a supporter of "class warfare policies", then so be it.

Some might consider the deregulation and tax breaks for the wealthy as class warfare on the middle class.

Hmmm. Class warfare. Obama is the current king of class warfare. I have read about a master of class warfare from many years ago.
Instead of "the rich are the cause of our problems" and "they are bringing us down" - Then it was "The Jews are the cause of our problems" "They are rich and we need to take away everything they have".
The beneficiary then as now were those who were lazy and of poor character. The multitude of others really didn't care.
Of course, Obama hasn't cleed for death camps. Just crippling the rich si HIS legacy "can last a thousand years".
Obama - today's Fuhrer. Look at his record, Mein Herrs.

[Warfish]

Why won't Romney release more tax returns?


By Edward D. Kleinbard and Peter C. Canellos, Special to CNN

updated 9:09 AM EDT, Wed July 18, 2012

Editor's note: Edward D. Kleinbard is a professor at Gould School of Law at the University of Southern California. He is the former chief of staff of Congress's Joint Committee on Taxation. Peter C. Canellos, a lawyer, is former chair of the New York State Bar Association Tax Section.

(CNN) -- By announcing that he will release no further tax returns beyond his 2010 and 2011 returns, Mitt Romney appears to have exempted himself from the proud bipartisan tradition of presidential nominees displaying genuine financial candor with the electorate.

What is more, his disclosure to date is in the wrong direction: It is the release of Romney's past returns, not his current ones, that matters.

Since George Romney inaugurated the practice more than 40 years ago by releasing 12 years of tax returns in his bid for the Republican Party nomination, presidential nominees have been transparent with voters about their personal finances. For this reason, we have not suffered a significant tax scandal involving a nominee or sitting president since President Richard Nixon's abuse of the tax code.

Either Romney has an unresolved father figure issue, or he has some special reason not to follow a tradition established by his father.

Given Romney's financial sophistication, it has been assumed by some that there cannot be any tax skeletons in his closet. His reluctance to disclose past returns, however, undermines that assumption. We are left with the difficult task of plausibly reconstructing his financial record based on the one full return that he has released. The result is troubling.

Mitt Romney is extraordinarily wealthy, but that is no a justification for nondisclosure. He has made no secret of his wealth, and required campaign disclosures already hint at its magnitude. While Romney may have dissembled about when he actually left Bain Capital, he has been disassociated with the firm long enough that he cannot argue that his tax returns will reveal proprietary secrets.

Nor is this just an exercise in financial titillation or gossip. Disclosure goes to the heart of the truthfulness with which a nominee engages the American people, and it assures us that he in fact has comported himself before the election with the high moral character we associate with a future president.

Romney's 2010 tax return, when combined with his FEC disclosure, reveals red flags that raise serious tax compliance questions with respect to his possible tax minimization strategies in earlier years. The release in October of his 2011 return will at best act as a distraction from these questions.

So, what are the issues?

The first is Romney's Swiss bank account. Most presidential candidates don't think it appropriate to bet that the U.S. dollar will lose value by speculating in Swiss Francs, which is basically the rationale offered by the trustee of Romney's "blind" trust for opening this account. What's more, if you really want just to speculate on foreign currencies, you don't need a Swiss bank account to do so.

The Swiss bank account raises tax compliance questions, too.

The account seems to have been closed early in 2010, but was the income in fact reported on earlier tax returns? Did the Romneys timely file the required disclosure forms to the Treasury Department (so-called FBAR reports)?

The IRS announced in 2009 a partial tax amnesty for unreported foreign bank accounts, in light of the Justice Department's criminal investigations involving several Swiss banks. To date, some 34,500 Americans have taken advantage of such amnesty programs. Did the Romneys avail themselves of any of these amnesty programs? One hopes that such a suggestion is preposterous, but that is what disclosure is for -- to replace speculation with truth-telling to the American people.

Second, Romney's $100 million IRA is remarkable in its size. Even under the most generous assumptions, Romney would have been restricted to annual contributions of $30,000 while he worked at Bain. How does this grow to $100 million?

One possibility is that a truly mighty oak sprang up virtually overnight from relatively tiny annual acorns because of the unprecedented prescience of every one of Romney's investment choices.

Another, which on its face is quite plausible, is that Romney stuffed far more into his retirement plans each year than the maximum allowed by law by claiming that the stock of the Bain company deals that the retirement plan acquired had only a nominal value. He presumably would have done so by relying on a special IRS "safe harbor" rule relating to the taxation of a service partner's receipt of such interests, but that rule emphatically does not apply to an interest when sold to a retirement plan, which is supposed to be measured by its true fair market value.

Third, the vast amounts in Romney's family trusts raise a parallel question: Did Romney report and pay gift tax on the funding of these trusts or did he claim similarly unreasonable valuations, which likewise would have exposed him to serious penalties if all the facts were known?

Fourth, the complexity of Romney's one publicly released tax return, with all its foreign accounts, trusts, corporations and partnerships, leaves even experts (including us) scratching their heads. Disclosure of multiple years' tax returns is part of the answer here, but in this case it isn't sufficient. Romney's financial affairs are so arcane, so opaque and so tied up in his continuing income from Bain Capital that more is needed, including an explanation of the $100 million IRA.

Finally, there's the puzzle of the Romneys' extraordinarily low effective tax rate.

For 2010, the Romneys enjoyed a federal tax rate of only 13.9% on their adjusted gross income of roughly $22 million, which gave them a lower federal tax burden (including payroll, income and excise taxes) than the average American wage-earning family in the $40,000 to $50,000 range. The principal reason for this munificently low tax rate is that much of Romney's income, even today, comes from "carried interest," which is just the jargon used by the private equity industry for compensation received for managing other people's money.

The vast majority of tax scholars and policy experts agree that awarding a super-low tax rate to this one form of labor income is completely unjustified as a policy matter. Romney has not explained how, as president, he can bring objectivity to bear on this tax loophole that is estimated as costing all of us billions of dollars every year.

The U.S. presidency is a position of immense magnitude and requires a thorough vetting. What the American people deserve is a complete and honest presentation by Romney of how his wealth was accumulated, where it is now invested, what purpose is served by all the various offshore vehicles in which he has an interest and what his financial relationship with Bain Capital has been since his retirement from the company. These are all factors that go to the heart of his character and values.

For a nominee to America's highest office, a clear and transparent reporting of his finances should be nothing more than routine.

It would be funny, if not exactly smart, to announce to the media that Romney will be happy to release every tax return he has.....in the same amount of time, fromt hat day, it took Obama to produce his Birth Certificate from the first time it was publicly requested.

Romney can then say he's following Obama's lead in "transparency".

He can then release them, all of them, and then make the request for a quid-pro-quo of disclosure, and demand Obama follow his elad, and release all of his college transcripts and employment records while in school and as a "community organizer".

Then the public can decide if Bain >< Obama's "experience".

never happy, but would be entertaining (to me at least).

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Warfish

The only contention I've made thus far is that moderates, independants and undecideds may read this and be affected by it, in a similar vein to how a portion on the right read about Obama's birth certificate, and were (and are) affected by that.

I am well aware of your candidates talking points chiefs. Simply ignoring whats been actually said by someone, and repeating said talking points as your "argument", is a poor route for discussion.

Seriously.

Those "talking points" are the primary policy issues of this election. This Bain nonesense is as irrelevant as the birther stuff. We have two very different paths. Obamacare will be law if Obama is reelected. There are no iffs ands or butts here. Millions will be dropped from coverage by their employer and forced on to government exchanges. 300+ Million people will pay more for their insurance. Seniors on Medicare will be screwed out of 500 Billion in that fund. . Every taxpayer will be screwed with new payroll taxes and new deficits to pay for down the road.

If Obama believes this Bain nonesense will effect voters he is as stupid as the birthers that believe that issue will effect voters. Both groups are fooling themselves.

[Bonhomme Richard]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Hmmm. Class warfare. Obama is the current king of class warfare. I have read about a master of class warfare from many years ago.
Instead of "the rich are the cause of our problems" and "they are bringing us down" - Then it was "The Jews are the cause of our problems" "They are rich and we need to take away everything they have".
The beneficiary then as now were those who were lazy and of poor character. The multitude of others really didn't care.
Of course, Obama hasn't cleed for death camps. Just crippling the rich si HIS legacy "can last a thousand years".
Obama - today's Fuhrer. Look at his record, Mein Herrs.

That's a little much.

[Bonhomme Richard]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

I don't give a flying f*** about Bain capital. I am not voting for Romney and I don't care about his investment group.

The "class warfare" is why I'm responding. While I don't care about Bain, I do care about Romney's positions on cutting taxes and deregulation. Generally, I think taxes are too low now, especially for those making over a million a year, and I think deregulation/failure to enforce regulation has hurt the middle class. If that makes me a supporter of "class warfare policies", then so be it.

Some might consider the deregulation and tax breaks for the wealthy as class warfare on the middle class.

Can you explain how deregulation is class warfare on the middle class?

[doggin94it]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Liberals and some portion of Undecideds/Independants/Moderates.



Not to everyone, obviously.

Not so much:

Indeed, USA Today notes that the Bain attack ads have generally only been effective in bringing Democrats back into the Obama fold:

To be sure, Obama's ads have done more to win back Democrats than to win over independents or Republicans: Thirteen percent of Democrats say their minds have been changed by ads, compared with 9% of independents and 3% of Republicans.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...n-swing-states

Very few moderates and independents I know care about this particular line of attack. I know I don't. It's more about shoring up and firing up the democratic base by making Romney a scary opponent than it is about winning the center.

Which tends to show how far Obama's star has fallen; he's no longer counting on enthusiasm to vote for him, and needs to drum up fear of the opponent to try and goose the turnout.

[DDNYjets]

And all the talk about the Swiss bank accounts is nonsense. Many politicians have foreign investments. Libs and Reps alike.

Obama makes it sound like Romney helping companies make money is a bad thing. The idea of going into business is to make money and after the money is made, the jobs are created. That is how works. That is capitalism.

Romney was successful in business so that makes him a bad guy.

If we find out that Romney and Bain did illegal things to improve the companies they invested in then we have cause for concern. As far as I know, everything he did was legal. Do I like the idea of outsourcing? No. But if the alternative was losing the company altogether then I don't see the issue. The jobs would have been lost either way. At least by keeping the company solvent, there was a chance for the jobs to come back.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-of-hypocrisy/

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/07/1...e-investments/

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by doggin94it

Very few moderates and independents I know care about this particular line of attack. I know I don't. It's more about shoring up and firing up the democratic base by making Romney a scary opponent than it is about winning the center.

I disagree. I guess it depends of who (and perhaps where) you talk to.

Which tends to show how far Obama's star has fallen; he's no longer counting on enthusiasm to vote for him, and needs to drum up fear of the opponent to try and goose the turnout.

I also disagree. Recent polling (sorry, radio report, ABC News Radio was source claimed (D) is basicly polling at 3/4 support from it's base, whereas Romney is currently polling at only 2/3 of his base. And in swing states that shouldn;t be (like here in VA) Obama is still looking fine.

If Romney loses VA, he loses the election IMO, as it'll be a sign of the greater lean of such swong states that shouldn't be.

By the way, another good retort from Romney on this is:

"Hey my liberal friends, you put ALOT of faith in our Government. Well, our Government, int he form of the IRS, has seen all my tax returns, and I've not been had any problems. Are you, my liberal friends, saying the IRS and teh Federal Govt. opinion on my taxes isn;t god enough for you?"

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard

Can you explain how deregulation is class warfare on the middle class?

For the past two, maybe three decades, the financial sector has seen deregulation after deregulation. It's not coincidence that we get the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression - a situation after which we started most of our financial regulation in the first place.

And we did it, not because the rich lost a lot of money, which they did in both crises, but because the middle class suffered more. The rich largely stayed rich, but the unemployment and inflation is felt most by the middle class.

[SafetyBlitz]

Originally Posted by palmetto defender

Hmmm. Class warfare. Obama is the current king of class warfare. I have read about a master of class warfare from many years ago.
Instead of "the rich are the cause of our problems" and "they are bringing us down" - Then it was "The Jews are the cause of our problems" "They are rich and we need to take away everything they have".
The beneficiary then as now were those who were lazy and of poor character. The multitude of others really didn't care.
Of course, Obama hasn't cleed for death camps. Just crippling the rich si HIS legacy "can last a thousand years".
Obama - today's Fuhrer. Look at his record, Mein Herrs.

Jesus man, I say taxes on the wealthy could go up and we could benefit from some stricter/better enforced regulation and suddenly I want a holocaust on the rich.

What a f***ing joke.

[palmetto defender]

Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard

That's a little much.

Of course it's a little much.
I love hyperbole because it causes a reaction. One can not react enough BTW to Obama's direction. Who in your lifetime (don't know your age) has been more extreme? I remember Eisenhower clearly, though living when Truman was around.
No pres has been as power crazy as Obama - not even Nixon.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Warfish

I disagree. I guess it depends of who (and perhaps where) you talk to.



I also disagree. Recent polling (sorry, radio report, ABC News Radio was source claimed (D) is basicly polling at 3/4 support from it's base, whereas Romney is currently polling at only 2/3 of his base. And in swing states that shouldn;t be (like here in VA) Obama is still looking fine.

If Romney loses VA, he loses the election IMO, as it'll be a sign of the greater lean of such swong states that shouldn't be.

By the way, another good retort from Romney on this is:

"Hey my liberal friends, you put ALOT of faith in our Government. Well, our Government, int he form of the IRS, has seen all my tax returns, and I've not been had any problems. Are you, my liberal friends, saying the IRS and teh Federal Govt. opinion on my taxes isn;t god enough for you?"

Bro, please go to realclearpolitics.com for polling info. The Rassmussen and Gallop Tracking polls have been consistent for months. Obama and Romney have been deadlocked at 46-46. Obama has spent 50+ Million on attack ads over the past few months and the needle hasn't moved.

If you take a closer look at the polling nationally you will notice that Obama is behind by between 7-11 points with independents.

If you look at past presidential elections for better reference the incumbent generally gets a percentage of the vote equal to their approval rating. This is the most damning factor for Sotero. His approval has hovered between 46-48%. Unless there is a catalyst that pushes that approval over 50% (like war or economic improvement or a 3rd party candidate with some juice like Perot) he will lose. Obama's campaign team know this and are trying to throw enough crap at the wall that they hope something will stick. They are employing a strategy of pandering to single issue voters in the hopes it will push them over the top. The Gay Marriage and Immigration stuff are the glaring examples. I don't think it works.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

Bro, please go to realclearpolitics.com for polling info.

Like this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1774.html

Where Obama is up from 2 to 8 points on Romney, in a State that Romney should be leading handily in?

I guess we'll see.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Like this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1774.html

Where Obama is up from 2 to 8 points on Romney, in a State that Romney should be leading handily in?

I guess we'll see.

The past two polls he was +1 and +2 in VA. Thats a likely win for Romney as the 9 % of undecideds traditionally break for the challenger by a 75-25 ratio. Regardless the numbers haven't moved in Barack's favor after his Bain is Bad media blitz.

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by chiefst2000

The past two polls he was +1 and +2 in VA. Thats a likely win for Romney as the 9 % of undecideds traditionally break for the challenger by a 75-25 ratio. Regardless the numbers haven't moved in Barack's favor after his Bain is Bad media blitz.

There is one ugly fly in the ointment there, namely Virgil Goode a RP wannabe, who could draw many of the numbnuts in the state (but still live votes) away from Romney running on the "Constitution" Party line

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet

There is one ugly fly in the ointment there, namely Virgil Goode a RP wannabe, who could draw many of the numbnuts in the state (but still live votes) away from Romney running on the "Constitution" Party line

If he's in the race, based on local reporting, Obama wins the State hands down, as they predict he'll take anywhere from 5-8% from Romney, but very little from Obama.

A little Ross Perot for 2012?

[OCCH]

The most laughable part is they accuse Romney of sending jobs overseas, but he did that because the gov't climate made it the most profitable decision. Don't you think if he became president he would make changes to persuade companies to keep jobs here? How exactly would that be a bad thing -- because he wasn't "patriotic" enough in the past?

From a strictly economic point of view, I'm GLAD to hear about his history at Bain, and wish he wouldn't discount it so much. He did what he had to do to be as efficient as possible -- wow would that be a refreshing change in gov't . . .

[Jungle Shift Jet]

Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz

For the past two, maybe three decades, the financial sector has seen deregulation after deregulation. It's not coincidence that we get the worst financial meltdown since the Great Depression - a situation after which we started most of our financial regulation in the first place.

And we did it, not because the rich lost a lot of money, which they did in both crises, but because the middle class suffered more. The rich largely stayed rich, but the unemployment and inflation is felt most by the middle class.

Sorry kid. Government Regulation - CRA, HUD, Cuomo, Clinton, Dodd, Frank etc. forcing lenders to make billions in loser loans to people who wouldnt have gotten them otherwise or else be accused of redlining, fined and not allowed to do business unfettered - that caused the problem.