I can certainly agree that it's unethical to make these claims that he can't back up and I would even agree that he should be called to account for it.

but on the other hand. I can certainly agree that Romney is hiding something. Even Republicans agree that he should release the returns. I dunno if he's not paying taxes or if it would just reveal lots of off shore accounts or what. He even said it in an interview that he didn't want to give his opponents any more ammunition.

Uhh...if he's admitting it can be used against him. Isn't that more reason to see them? Is anyone attacking Obama on his tax returns? Is that because there is nothing to attack?

To be fair, it is just a custom. It's not like there is any regulation that says he's got to release them. It just became a thing...a tradition.

A tradition I can agree with. They're running for the highest office in the land. He wants to be a public servant. seeing how he spends money is a valid insight into how he'll be president. Privacy when it comes to stuff like that really isn't a valid concern IMHO so quite honestly maybe it should be a regulation.

Hasn't the IRS had 10 years to look at Romney's tax return from 2002? And nine yrs to look at his return from 2003, and eight years to look at his return from 2004, etc?

If the IRS has no problem with them, why should anyone else?

Has Obama released his tax forms from 10 yrs ago?

Obama hasn't even released his college transcripts, admission papers, thesis paper, his Illinois state senate schedule, his medical records, and on and on. All these things are sealed. As is our fate if he is re-elected.

The US political system is (i hate to say it) a fucking Joke! As George Carlin said "Politicians are put their to make people feel they have the freedom of choice, you don't! It's a big club and you aint in it".
http://youtu.be/acLW1vFO-2Q

I suspect that Romney was one of the guys who sheltered massive amounts of money in Swiss bank accounts to avoid US taxes and then took advantage of the 2009 ollyollyoxenfree that allowed that money to be moved back into the US without penalties.

Just my guess...

*money buys *elections

Adding video to channels (Election, Money) - requested by Norsuelefantti.

Reid is really doing nothing that Fox News doesn't do constantly. He's not making the claim, he's just repeating it. This would be as bad as the NRA conspiracy IF a. Reid was a "journalist" and b. Reid was pushing this every day for years. Neither is true, and no one has a gun to anyone's head forcing them to report that he's saying what he's saying.

If it's not true, then Romney could milk it for all it's worth and finally prove it's not true, and make Reid and the Democrats look like assholes. I'd bet money it's not gonna happen, because Romney has already said it's patriotic to find any way to reduce tax loads and if it's possible for him to have not paid taxes I have no doubt he'd have arranged not to.

>> ^lantern53:

Hasn't the IRS had 10 years to look at Romney's tax return from 2002? And nine yrs to look at his return from 2003, and eight years to look at his return from 2004, etc?
If the IRS has no problem with them, why should anyone else?
Has Obama released his tax forms from 10 yrs ago?
Obama hasn't even released his college transcripts, admission papers, thesis paper, his Illinois state senate schedule, his medical records, and on and on. All these things are sealed. As is our fate if he is re-elected.


The IRS doesn't "look" at returns and analyze them. There are too many. They only respond to certain red flags and that's it. And they don't "look" at them because they're political candidates as that would be unethical not to mention illegal to just start looking through a return for shits and grins and to dig up dirt.

In all likelyhood, everything Romney is doing is technically legal, just crammed full of loopholes and dirty tricks. It probably wouldn't be bad per him per se, it would just highlight the extent the super-wealthy exploit the tax codes.

I don't think you understand how much corporate influence has over the gov't

I work IT in state revenue and while I'm not privy to details, I've talked to enough of the attorneys to know that some of the bigger companies will come in and argue essentially that they don't feel they owe that much tax. no facts, no figures, no calculations. simply "we feel our tax is too high" And deals get made...they get made all the time.

We supposedly live in a land of laws, but those laws get dodged and skirted and bent all the time and its usually the wealthy that get to do it.

Reid just said 'He's a thief and he should show what's in his backpack'.
Romney says 'Fuck you I dont have to show you what's in my backpack and you can't make me'.

They're both right.

But one of them wants to be fucking president..

Obama has released 12 years of tax records. Romney claims he is following precedent, but the only people to do only 2 years in recent history (dating back to Regan) is McCain and Palin, everyone else has done 5 to 20 years.

I agree Reid is probably speaking out of turn. However, Romney, beyond the lie of following precedent has also said that if he releases them Obama and others will use the stuff in there against him... which means there is something there to use against him, which while may be legal, would paint him in a bad light. He doesn't want to disclose because there is something he wants to hide. It may even be as simple as his church finding out he hasn't paid his full tithe as he says he has paid. In the end, this guy believes in giving big tax breaks to people who have refused to hire people because they want the life of luxury. The CEO of Wal-Mart takes $36 million a year, if he only took $1 million, imagine how many people could have jobs? But no, there was a choice at some point in the company's history that employing people or paying their existing employees living wages wasn't worth while and it was better spent on those on the top... one of the local 1%'rs fires over 1000 people over 3 years and keeps everyone else with no raises (almost all at minimum wage), then goes out and buys a jet and another mansion. This is the attitude of the rich. That they deserve privilege and if they have to ruin thousands of families to do it, then they will... and then they threaten that if we raise their taxes another 3% they will fire more people so that they can maintain their ultra high standard of living, and the Republican answer is "no, don't do that, we'll in fact lower your taxes, and punish those people you fired so you could have a jet, and punish those people who you refuse to pay a living wage so you could have that second mansion. We won't cut spending on the military, god forbid, we are only spending more than the next 19 countries combined, almost all of whom are our immediate allies... we should also cut education and science and NASA... look how expensive NASA is, it almost costs as much as it costs us to give our troops in Afghanistan alone A/C... I mean if we ended the wars that would free up almost all the deficit that Bush created and we blame on Obama, we could nearly have a balanced budget by just cutting that and increasing taxes a small 3% on the top 2%, and while we say deficits are bad now, we all know they aren't when they are for our stuff, just if it helps the people we are screwing over, then it's bad..."

EDIT: Again, I think Reid needs to back it off. Its nearly as bad as Trump's whole birther thing...

It's a win-win for Reid. Either he goes on saying Mittens is dirty until it sticks or Romney releases his returns and gets made out to be a sleazy bastard anyways since he probably legally paid 15% or much less.

This hurts Reid more than Romney.

Typical shenanigans from the left. There will be more to distract from Obama 4 years of failures.

You can't legally shelter funds from taxation in Swiss bank accounts. You are taxed on your worldwide income when you are a resident of the US.

The olly olly oxen deal was for Corporations -- businesses that aren't US residents, that only do business in foreign countries with lower tax rates. They can't bring the cash back to America without paying US taxes. The olly olly deal was to let the corporations bring cash back into America at lower rates than normal.

I understand that Rmoney doesn't want his tax returns to be picked apart.

But he can easily provide Page one and page two, which have no details, just totals. Then we can see what rate of tax he paid. But he isn't doing that. And that makes me think that he probably did pay very low taxes for some of those years.

His earnings on his Swiss bank accounts were taxed in America though -- they were on his tax return and that is why we all found out that he had a lot of money parked over there. And that is why he doesn't want to release his full tax returns -- folks read "Swiss bank accounts" and get all in a tizzy. I can understand him wanting to avoid that kind of ignorance. So? Release page one and page two.




>> ^ObsidianStorm:

I suspect that Romney was one of the guys who sheltered massive amounts of money in Swiss bank accounts to avoid US taxes and then took advantage of the 2009 ollyollyoxenfree that allowed that money to be moved back into the US without penalties.
Just my guess...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

You don't even have to a resident of the US to be required to pay US taxes. The arm of the IRS is very long - and kind of grabby.

>> ^cosmovitelli:

Reid just said 'He's a thief and he should show what's in his backpack'.
Romney says 'Fuck you I dont have to show you what's in my backpack and you can't make me'.
They're both right.
But one of them wants to be fucking president..


should have said: both WITHIN their rights..

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on the topic but from what I have read about the 2009 amnesty program, it appears to apply to individuals with Swiss bank accounts...


From the Oct 2009 LA Times,

"Some 3,000 U.S. residents have voluntarily disclosed their foreign bank accounts to the IRS this year, compared to fewer than 100 in 2008, said one U.S. government official who asked not to be identified.

Demand for the amnesty program exploded in August when Swiss bank UBS agreed to settle U.S. criminal charges that it had engaged in a "multibillion-dollar scheme" to help U.S. taxpayers hide assets from the IRS."


Admittedly this is just speculation and I have no proof that Romney ever did this. But to state the obvious, whatever is in his tax returns is political kryptonite or he would never put up with the beating he's taking (and will continue to take) for this...

This is the same exact damn thing as the birth certificate garbage. It wasn't okay when the right did it, guys, and it's not okay when the left does it either.

"If you don't have anything to hide, just show it to us!"

>> ^PostalBlowfish:

Reid is really doing nothing that Fox News doesn't do constantly.


I think that's exactly what people are criticizing Reid for. "Don't do anything Fox News wouldn't constantly do" is a pretty low ethical standard.

I was trying to think of a reason that it was different from the birth certificate thing. I mean, there are slight differences, but I can't see it as being much different.

I said "legally" can't not report it.

This amnesty program is about tax cheats about to be caught. Which isn't the olly olly oxen free deal. That was about corporations working solely on foreign soil.

Although there is an interesting point buried in here....

IF Rmoney in PRIOR YEARS hadn't reported his Swiss earnings, that would show up on prior years' tax returns. 2006-2009 no Swiss earnings, then, boom, amnesty for prior years and the Swiss earnings show up.

I doubt that he would do that, though. His presidential ambitions have been blatant for years. To lie on his tax returns with the possibility of getting caught.... I doubt he would do that.

Of course, Dem Charles Rangel didn't report the rental income from his Jamaican property. Maybe Rmoney would be that stupid.

I doubt it though....



>> ^ObsidianStorm:

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on the topic but from what I have read about the 2009 amnesty program, it appears to apply to individuals with Swiss bank accounts...

From the Oct 2009 LA Times,
"Some 3,000 U.S. residents have voluntarily disclosed their foreign bank accounts to the IRS this year, compared to fewer than 100 in 2008, said one U.S. government official who asked not to be identified.
Demand for the amnesty program exploded in August when Swiss bank UBS agreed to settle U.S. criminal charges that it had engaged in a "multibillion-dollar scheme" to help U.S. taxpayers hide assets from the IRS."

Admittedly this is just speculation and I have no proof that Romney ever did this. But to state the obvious, whatever is in his tax returns is political kryptonite or he would never put up with the beating he's taking (and will continue to take) for this...

>> ^nock:

It's a win-win for Reid. Either he goes on saying Mittens is dirty until it sticks or Romney releases his returns and gets made out to be a sleazy bastard anyways since he probably legally paid 15% or much less.


Obviously Reid has a serious Pederasty issue he needs to clear up. And it's up to him to prove it, I heard that it's true. And he still beats his wife, so when is he going to come clean and stop beating his wife?

Agreed. It would be pretty incredibly stupid.

But whatever the reason it has to be something worth taking all the heat over (which, to my mind, would have to be something that would render him essentially unelectable).

Interesting, but invalid point Mashiki. In the case of Reid, he may or may not beat his wife, hard to prove either way. But with Romney, there is an easy answer to prove how much tax he paid - release the returns.

I don't see why Romney should release his tax records. The Obama campaign is simply fishing for more ammunition to paint Romney as a rich elitist, so in effect they are calling for Romney to produce a club so that they can beat him over the head with it. So I don't really see a compelling reason for Romney to do it.

Personally, I'm an independent. I would ask liberals though, if you could stop clamoring for the red meat the DNC is throwing to you for a second and look at the world objectively, how is it that you can come away with any other opinion than that the Obama presidency is a major disappointment? Why would you vote for him again? Can you articulate anything convincing? Obama campaigned in 2008 on hope and change, as a messianic figure who would fundamentally transform this country and fix everything. He said if he didn't it would be a one term proposition. Obviously none of that happened and the country is in even worse shape, and bitterly divided along political, class and racial lines. It has never been more divisive. Instead of hope and change we get slash and burn. Instead of a principled reformer we get a bitter partisan playing dirty politics; ie, a typical politician. Why in the world shouldn't it be a one term proposition? He isn't the man he said he was by any measure, and basically he has run this country into the ground. Don't you have a sense of self preservation?

Reid has reached level birther.

>> ^nock:

Interesting, but invalid point Mashiki. In the case of Reid, he may or may not beat his wife, hard to prove either way. But with Romney, there is an easy answer to prove how much tax he paid - release the returns.


Really? Because this is birther level material that he's "hinting" at. The fact that the left is harping over it in the same way is just as telling. And should be dismissed just as much. Either that, or various members of obama's cabinet should come clean first on all of their taxes. And Obama should come clean on all of his law review papers first.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I don't see why Romney should release his tax records. The Obama campaign is simply fishing for more ammunition to paint Romney as a rich elitist, so in effect they are calling for Romney to produce a club so that they can beat him over the head with it. So I don't really see a compelling reason for Romney to do it.
Personally, I'm an independent. I would ask liberals though, if you could stop clamoring for the red meat the DNC is throwing to you for a second and look at the world objectively, how is it that you can come away with any other opinion than that the Obama presidency is a major disappointment? Why would you vote for him again? Can you articulate anything convincing? Obama campaigned in 2008 on hope and change, as a messianic figure who would fundamentally transform this country and fix everything. He said if he didn't it would be a one term proposition. Obviously none of that happened and the country is in even worse shape, and bitterly divided along political, class and racial lines. It has never been more divisive. Instead of hope and change we get slash and burn. Instead of a principled reformer we get a bitter partisan playing dirty politics; ie, a typical politician. Why in the world shouldn't it be a one term proposition? He isn't the man he said he was by any measure, and basically he has run this country into the ground. Don't you have a sense of self preservation?


Quite a number of "liberals" on the sift and elsewhere have stated openly that Obama is a disappointment.

But the real disappointment is that no matter how bad he is, he's still an order of magnitude better than any candidate the republicans put forward.

The choices today are bad and worse, although I think that Romney has proven experience leading, creating wealth, and governing, whereas Obama..well, we've seen what that looks like. It's clear this country needs to go in a new direction..I wish it wouldn't have to be Romney, but I don't think America can take another 4 years of Obama and survive.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^shinyblurry:
I don't see why Romney should release his tax records. The Obama campaign is simply fishing for more ammunition to paint Romney as a rich elitist, so in effect they are calling for Romney to produce a club so that they can beat him over the head with it. So I don't really see a compelling reason for Romney to do it.
Personally, I'm an independent. I would ask liberals though, if you could stop clamoring for the red meat the DNC is throwing to you for a second and look at the world objectively, how is it that you can come away with any other opinion than that the Obama presidency is a major disappointment? Why would you vote for him again? Can you articulate anything convincing? Obama campaigned in 2008 on hope and change, as a messianic figure who would fundamentally transform this country and fix everything. He said if he didn't it would be a one term proposition. Obviously none of that happened and the country is in even worse shape, and bitterly divided along political, class and racial lines. It has never been more divisive. Instead of hope and change we get slash and burn. Instead of a principled reformer we get a bitter partisan playing dirty politics; ie, a typical politician. Why in the world shouldn't it be a one term proposition? He isn't the man he said he was by any measure, and basically he has run this country into the ground. Don't you have a sense of self preservation?

Quite a number of "liberals" on the sift and elsewhere have stated openly that Obama is a disappointment.
But the real disappointment is that no matter how bad he is, he's still an order of magnitude better than any candidate the republicans put forward.

SB, you sound like an 'independent' that always votes Republican.

I don't understand when people who are republicans or democrats say we need a new direction because of Obama? To me Obama is a perfect Republican. Bush was God awful. Why do you guys consider Dempublicans leftist when they are apart of the same foul corrupt/conservative system that you tout as being the best, #1, 'merica fuck ya!!?

Obama is way better than Bush whilst simultaneously enforcing most of Bushes policies. It's hilarious that republicans dislike him. I keep hearing, "this is the most important election". THAT IS BULLSHIT. We haven't had an important election in a long time because the system has been bought and sold a long time ago. Even though I'm not a huge fan of Obama - the two party system or most skewed mainstream beliefs - he is way better than McCain would have been. He is way better than Romney on just about everything and yet Obama still pretty much sucks - he has to suck. He is apart of a ridiculous system that is controlled by a bunch of shitty corporations.

Until everyone in this dumbass country begins reading up on political theory or at least watches Democracy Now! ... we're all doomed.

You make a lot of sense, @shagen454

But I think the reason conservatives think this election is important is because they've been told it's important by their favoured media outlet, and their guy isn't in power.

The interesting thing for me is how the Republican party can encourage working class people to vote directly against their own personal best interests. When you think about that, it's really quite an incredible achievement.

>> ^kymbos:

I was trying to think of a reason that it was different from the birth certificate thing. I mean, there are slight differences, but I can't see it as being much different.


Because the Birthers just gave Obama a giant Fuck You card to play at the moment of his choice, which he duly did:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9mzJhvC-8E&sns=em

Of course, if he had been Kenyan that would not have demonstrated a moral vacuum (unless you're on the hard right) but it would have shown dishonesty and knocked him out of the race.

So Romney BEING CAUGHT STEALING from his fellow citizens AND LYING ABOUT IT is similar in outcome -if true- but also on a pretty different moral scale IMHO.

Either he plays his Fuck You card or he's out.
Or more likely, the Republican voters will just have to take their world beating cognitive dissonance to an even more cosmic level so they can vote for EXACTLY the kind of royal vulture asshole they complain about ruining their country..